May 6th, 2010

This has been a very informative class. I wish I had not been late the last day of class because I really enjoyed reading my Guantanamo Diary, and I was very interested in hearing what my classmates had to say about the book. I do think that the class ended on a very intersting note: do not accept what is told to you when it comes to American government. I infact, have learned that already when it came to 9/11. In all the accounts, people say they heard the building explode, and the architects say that the building was designed to withstand heat greater than what the plane's jet fuel inflicted upon it, I did watch loose change, and I just finished watching former Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney's interpretation of 9/11. She is skeptical about the whole event because she knows what went on. When she sat on the pannel overseeing the Defense Department budget, during fiscal year 2006, the panel became allarmed at the trillions of dollars missing from the Defense budget. She was not answered as to what happened to the money, and that further fueled her mistrust of the Bush administration. What I cannot understand is why the U.S would do such a thing to its own country? That is also the reason why I do not like to believe conspiracy theories, because I cannot believe that our own country would launch attack against its own innocent citizens. However, I will no longer turn a blind eye to either side of the truth because I know that there are many sides to a story, and when it comes to government whether the issue is over Guantanamo, secret detention camps of the CIA, torture, rendition and so furth, or 9/11, the government will always have insider information which it does not want the citizens to find out. I believe that the American people have been lied to time and time again, and it is actually making me want to run for U.S Congress when I become eligible per the Constitution!

4/29/2010

My Guantanamo Diary is such a powerful book. For years and years I viewed Arabs in a bad light due to the Bush Administrations anti arab jargin. I have to admit that I was very fond of the Bush Administration; President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and so on because I grew up with them in power. I still admire Bush even though his Iraq war is disputed however, I believe that history will tell, and that we cannot judge something which history has not taken its course over. Joe Biden, Obama's vice president actually sees the war as a positive thing because of the establishment of a democratic Iraq. However I just cannot stomach the vile anti- American sentiment that Guantanamo Bay brings. I think that it is absolutely terrible for the long arm of lady justice to not extend to people most in need of it; Guantanamo detainees. The American justice system should be implemented in Guantanamo, and I absolutely believe that we own detainees a fair trial because as the book is arguing, not all of the men in Guantanamo are the "worst of the worst" like Donald Rumsfeld said. In fact, there are many innocent men in need of fair trial yet the Defense Department is trying everything in its power to not have that happen. I am glad that national security is of such importance to the Defense Department, and I do believe in maintaining national security since 9/11, so I am not totally averse to Defense policy. However America is defined by its system of justice, and I believe that all should be protected by lady justice; Guantanamo detainees and terrorists along with Americans.

4/22/2010

All the Shah's men was a very revealing book to read. I cannot to wait until 50 years later when the American people will be able to view the hidden policy reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S and Britian both showed great greed in wanting to take control of Iran. Oil was the reason on the surface of policy endavors in Iran. Because both countries wanted a greater uncompromised access to its oil, they developed policies in which they could better ascertain it. One of the most notable slipups was the British wanting to seek help from the U.S in order to overthrow the Shah from power in Iran. The CIA coup was not formed of CIA members or clandestine forces from the U.S but from Iran itself. They paid the opposition groups against the Shah, to overthrow him. The book is very adamate in saying that that was the wrong thing to do because the Shah was pro- western, and sought to modernize Iran, and was successfully modernizing it until the CIA coup. Then it argues that the biggest mistake of them all was his overthrowal with someone who believes in Arab identity first, and utterly condemns western identity, values, and traditions. This was consequently a huge problem for the America of today because had we coordinated better, we would end up with an Iran which we could form diplomatic relations, instead of a hostile unpleasant Iran eager to emerge as a threat to Israel, and a bearer of nuclear arms.

4/15/2010

I never paid attention to Egypt before this class. I faintly remember reading about Egypt and Israel not getting along with eachother in an essay we had to write about for the CAPT test in New Haven CT. I never knew that a man by the name of Nasser sought arab unity. Unfortunately, Nasse failed to gain Arab unity, but at least he tried. He was kind of a greedy leader because he launched a coup to overthrow existing Egyptian government, and gained power. Then he wanted even more power by uniting all Arab nations, and he would attempt to be the ruler of the united arab nations. Egypt and Israel were bound to go to war with one another because by attempting to unite, Nasser also inherited problems other middle eastern countries faced with Israel. Israel was in many ways unassailable, and I cannot believe that such a small independently established country like Israel could forge its name into the place of existing countries. They had a brilliant leathal army to back up its indeavors, and clearly their army was something not to be reckoned with because they demolished Egyptian forces along with other arab forces. Why can't middle eastern countries be civilised like the United States and Britain? Things would be alot easier for them I believe.

4/08/2010

Forgotten Fire was such a monumental book in my life. I feel that knowing about the Armenian massacre is very important because Turkey does not want to admit that it even existed. They argue that the Armenians were just as hostile toward the Turks and that they should be blamed as well. However the fact of the matter is that even though Turkey may be making a semi valid claim, they are the ones who massacred millions of Armenians. The story of the Forgotten Fire is very tragic, and chronicles a livelyhood for a young boy in Armenia at the time. I see the things that happened to him as very tragic and sad, but that was a reality for many boys his age. They were displaced from their home, treated as chattel, and forced to live in abject poverty because their families had been whiped out. This was all due to the Turkish governments wildly vicious policy of getting rid of Armenians because they were a threat to Turkish independent idenity. You could certainly claim to be Turkish Armenian, but you could never claim to be solely Armenian. It is just sad that such a tragic event happened to millions of people, and I find it to be more emotionally devistating that the holocaust because I have heard about the event all my life, but never before reading Forgotten Fire, have I heard of any Armenian massacre. It was truly a Forgotten Fire which when you read it, will live on in the conscience. At least for me it has.

4/01/2010

Turkish and Iranian reform were very similar. Iran seemed to be getting ideas from Turkey as to how to go about reforming it. Mustafa Kamal was an authoritarian ruler, and got alot of things done; Iran admired Kamal. Cleveland attempts to explain what was going on very well. He doesn't dive as deeply into Iran as Turkey though; I think that could be because Turkey transformed more rapidly, and modernized better than Iran. However I am not saying that great things did not happen to Iran. The Qajar dynasty was replaced with the Pahlavi dynasty, and Reza Shah. I think it is more easy to say that Kamal had more control over Turkey than Iran because Iran had been under colonial rule. All of the things going on in Iran had been orchestrated by the British. However like in Egypt, british takeover ruined the economy, and things were done to the benefit of Great Britain. Iran was a pawn on the great chessbord of colonies which England sought to maintain. England was definitely interested in the abundance of oil prevalent in Iran, and policy was definitely surrounded in that bubbling crude also known as black gold. Turkey did not have any colonial overlords to be bossed around by, but it did fall under the influence of Britain in many instances, and shook its head yes to many things the British deemed fit for them to do.

3/25/2010

WW1 was a big mess for arab nations. It was composed of a tricky interwoven pattern of alliances which you had to carefully study in order to figure out which side a country was on and why. The most important alliance I think had to do with England, the Soviet Union, and the U.S because countries wanted them to be on their side; it was the fact that they were such superpowers. The U.S of course did not like it when a country allied with the Soviet Union because it was communist. The major thing for arab nations to take out of WW1 is massive reform. Turkey for instance had underwent a great deal of reform under Ataturk or Mustafa Kamal. He thought that the reason for all of Turkeys problems rested heavily in combining religion with governmental affairs, and that secularism would be the only way not to face those problems; secularism and nationalism. He sought to nationalise Turkey buy creating a whole new Turkey essentially based on western principals, and not Islamic principals. His most notable form of reform was the abolishment of Arabic as the national language, and the creation of the new national language, Turkish. He totally transformed governmental institutions, and I believe he should be dubbed founder of modern Turkey. However the most vicious and brutal form of reform was the Armenian massacre. Forgotten Fire is a great book, and it seeks to give a voice to the Armenians because their voices were never heard, and their stories were never told. I am loving the book so far. Nonetheless, reform led to the modernization of Turkey, and many other arab nations sought to use Kamal as their model for modernity.

3/25/2010

3/11/2010

When it comes to Imperialism in the middle east during the 19th century, I always devolope a big smile on my face. I have had the privilege of taking a course on modern India with Dr. Metcalf, and I learned a great deal about Britians colonial presence in India. They went there on the grounds that they needed more money for their government, and justified that by saying Indians could not govern themselves, they were a barbaric uncivilised people, and that they were pagans greatly in need of christianity. I smile because Britian held onto India until the last thred snapped away from the crown in 1947. They had been dabbling in the middle east while they were in India, and their primary concern was to ensure greater rule over India by being present in other countries. They definitely wanted to maintain the British Raj in India. However they tried to imperialise Iran, and Palestine because they thought the people were unfit to rule themselves. Just like India, they ended up making a mess of policy, and devistating the livelyhood of people there. It is funny to me because they always made a mess of things while at the same time insisting that other countries could not govern themselves.

3/4/2010

The Janissary Tree was not one of my favorite books although I can see how the story relates to what we have been discussing in class. The whole idea of reform is what the theme of the book is, and the theme of the class thus far. Reform came in the form of the Turkish Ottoman government imposing with force, modernity on its people. I don't view that as a bad thing actually. The Ottoman empire was notoriously known for not wanting to look towards the west for help, or to see what they needed to improve in their own society, instead they chose to live in relative seclusion. It is quite strange how the Ottoman Empire was at one point at its heyday, with the west looking up to it for advice, and modern advances yet in the 17, and 18oo's, Europe emerges centre stage and looks upon the East as inferior to it. That leads me to question whether or not Europe was indeed correct? I do not think they were because had they deeply studied what happened during the Ottoman period of reform, they would realise that it was both decline, and transformation. Unfortunately on their part, transformation came with modernization, and modernization came with decline. I don't see modernization as a bad thing although the Ottoman Empire lost its place on centre stage, along with other Islamic countries in the East.