Yaolee Chen

English 101

Glenn Simshaw

The Causes of the War in Afghanistan

(an final paper 2nd ed.) 

 

     What threats to our national security the most was the Congress itself.  As we often heard from the media that the US was arresting a terrorist, whose name was Osama Bin Laden in the name of a self-defense, the whole story was but an episode.  The decision of the Congress to war had made in Clinton’s administration, even before the attack of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.  The war was officially declared on October 7, 2001 because President Bush Jr. hesitated to go to the war at the beginning.  The time that the White House took to make the decision was less than a month.  My hypothesis was that the Congress had made such a decision to war even before the attack of the World Trade Center with its roots in Clinton’s Administration.  Six elements by the Congress persuaded the members in the Congress to make the decision in such a hurry.  They were the Political Causes, the Psychology Causes, the Propaganda Causes, the Increasing Militant by the Congress, Media Control by the Congress, and the using the United Nation to run for the US oil interests in the Middle East.

     The First Element was the Political Corruption in the White House.  In Clinton’s Administration, the Republicans and the Democratic in the White House didn’t talk to each other[1], in a case like the negotiation Arab-Israeli peace in 1994, the members of the Congress obtained the information from reading the political publication, like Washington Post and Foreign Affair.  The Congressmen hating at each other,[2]when Clinton had to make a foreign policy decision, he found no help for his judgment[3].  Because the parties failed its function[4], the United States became “lacked steadiness and [lacked] political will”[5] Still, some lazy Congressmen ignored the issues and avoided their duties purposely.[6]What made the corruption of the White House worse was that too much old people occupied the offices for too long—Benjamin Gilman, Floyd Spences, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond—have an average age of eighty[7].  The officers of aged believed that the best way to maintain the US power and influence in the world was to create the “wars”[8]; and they don’t leave the White House[9], they just preached the same old assertion at the time of voting for an important decision.

     Therefore, the national security was threatened when the division of the two parties persisted in the Congress; and the consequences of the division was the allowing the unqualified old people to sit in the White House and to make to wrong national decisions.

     The Second Element was the Psychology Distress by the Congress.  In Clinton’s administration, the Congress had an illusion that the wars could help the American economy.  Since the 1990s, the United States had become the greatest power in the world.  The Internet Assess for example, an increasing world population depended on the American-Online Internet Assess[10].  But what happened in American domestic economy was despairing: an increasing number of the American poor were kept growing up[11].  The American middle-class, like teachers, nurse, firemen, policemen, were not able to afford their children to go to the colleges or the universities.  The reason was that the gaps between the rich and the poor were getting wider and wider; only 1% of the American rich held 95% of the American money.  In another word, the 99% of the American common people owned the only 5% of the American money.  A 4-years-college student, in average in 1994, owned the federal government 8,000 dollars before he or she could graduate.  The American people in general felt they were getting poor and poor. The problem was an unequal distribution of the wealth, and it was a problem of the Congress that the Congress should arrange the new economic policies to help the majority get out of their financial difficulties.[12]  A Congressman thought the corruption in the White House was because that the US did not have wars in the Middle East for too long[13].

     While some other Congressmen believed that “wars” could make up economic depression[14], the Congress saw the global economic depression among the capitalism was the reason of cynicism. Once the economic depression was improved, the Congress asserted, more Americans would be willingly to participate the US political.  But this is misjudgment by the Congress.  The less and less Americans went to vote was because of the division in the White House that Congress failed the function of equal financial distribution to the Americans.

     The Congress asserted how to improve the income for each American citizen [15]was the way to restore the American superego, the ego of that the US was the greatest power in the world [16].   And the only way to end the depression was by the creating wars: the only nation that was qualified to fight against the global economic depression was the US.

     The Third Element was the Propaganda by the Congress.  In the 1990s, political reading materials in the White House often portrayed the foreigners were the carriers of the diseases.  The following articles were about the foreigners spread out terrible virus throughout the international airports:

With some two million people crossing an international border every day—and 115.5 million visitors to the United States in 1996 alone—it is harder to shield and sequester ourselves from dangerous infectious diseases.  Any time, anywhere that anyone travels, invisible germs tag alone.  AIDs, which originated in Africa, became the number-one killer of American men aged fifteen to forty-five.  Mosquitoes capable of carrying dengue fever, viral encephalitis, and yellow fever journeyed to the United States in 1985 on tires imported from Asia.  (“Global Trade and Travel Import Health Threats, Report Warns,” Washington Post, June 22, 1997, p.A4)

Another article written in the Foreign Affairs said, “Airport malaria has entered the annals of public-health problems, as travelers pick up and take home diseases like gift shop souvenirs” [17].  Infectious disease expert Laurie Garrett points out “Even before commercial air travel, swine flu in 1918-1919 managed to circumnavigate the planet five times in 18 months, killing 22 million people, 500,000 in the United States".  Articles like these often caused the feeling of the anti-foreigners in the White House.

     Again, the threat of the national security began from the division of the Congress, and it increased the numbers of the American poor nationwide.  Then, the Congress pointed out its finger at the Africans and the Asians, and the Congress waited for another excuse to create the wars since the Gulf War in 1991.  Articles like these were often seen in the Washington Post and the Foreign Affairs in the late 1990s.

     The Fourth Element was the Increasing Militant by the Congress.  In Clinton’s administration, the Congress believed that a strengthening the military defense was the only way to win the war: if we did not improve our weapons, the other countries, which did not sign the peace treaty with the UN, would[18].  Unavoidably, the US had to create some powerful weapons in order to win the war[19].  As a matter of the facts, the strengthening the military defense was an international trend.  The Congress did not care how much fighters might be killed by the wars.  Surveys showed in May 1999, the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that if NATO understood a more extensive operation in Kosovo and American troops were killed, only a minority would want to end the operation, while most would want to persist and would even favor  “beefing up forces or striking back hard”[20]Once, the wars began there was no safety for every single American citizen, including our lives and our properties because there was no way to guarantee that the US must win the wars.  Therefore, the Congress was planning a scheme threatening to the American security. 

     The Fifth Element was the Media Control by the Congress.  The easiest way to create the wars was by not telling its people because once the people were told, they would do the protests, ask the president to veto it, to restrict the power of Congress, and to make the wars preventable, or to hinder the Congress to wars.  The Congressmen and the Congresswomen in general believed that American citizens could not make the right decision for the political issue[21].  A report showed that most of the Americans knew the news from the TV.  The media under the control by the Congress had purposely cut the 50 minutes of the news report into 15 minutes, as a psychological testing showed that a 15 minutes report for the adults would not cause a long-term memory in their brain[22].  As most of he Americans were eating or doing others, while watching TVs or listening to the radios, the important international news would be gone out of their brain forever in just a few days if the news did not bother to their daily activities; and the Middle East issues became the disconnected stories to the majority of the American people. For most of the Americans, they did not know our action in Afghanistan was an act of aggression. When Israelis invaded Palestinians on March 28th, 2002, only some of the university students in California began to protest.  The Congress had purposely prevented the public to the joint into the foreign affairs.  It started from the division in the Congress, and it caused the American poverty national wide.  And then the Congress planned to create wars to improve the economic depression global wide; unavoidably, the strengthening defense for the US and the media coverage to the American public followed up.   

      The Sixth Element was the using of the United Nation to run for the US oil interests.  No new UN peace operations were approved from 1978 to 1988[23].  But, in the 1990s, The US had increasingly sending military force in the United Nation in the name of peacemaker[24].  President Bush clearly saw the United Nations’ potential to advance American interests.  He pledged to “explore new days to ensured adequate American financial support for UN peacekeeping” Holt, op. cit., p.13

President Bush clearly saw the United Nations’ potential to advance American interests.  In addition to pledging to “explore new days to ensure adequate American financial support for UN peacekeeping.” His Administration supported the start of twelve new peace operations, and Bush a large U.S. field hospital unit to Croatia and observers to Cambodia, Kuwait, and Western Sahara. Presidents Bush Senior and Clinton both have recognized that peacekeeping efforts serve our interests and respond to the best instincts of the American people.  Yet, the money we spent on the UN troops was still cheap, in 1999, about “the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks,” which was less than $1.22 per U.S. citizen[25].  The UN was, therefore, holding a slavery folder and calling for the nations to run on the direction of the US interests: “Trade will continue, with less rather than more regulation thanks to the delay Seattle brought about.  Fewer rules will mean more power to the already powerful, at the expense of poorer nations “[26]. 

.     The threaten to the US security began from the division of the Congress that the Republicans and the Democratic would not talk to each other, and it hindered the decision making for the Americans.  The corruption of the White House led to the Americans of the middle class and of the working class to the withdraw of the political participation.  Less and less Americans participated to the political issues[27]. And in 1999, the media often used “sequential hysteria” psychology to make the audiences learn nothing for the international news.  By the time of the attack of the World Trade Center, the Congress had equipped itself with strong military forces and had gained the support from the UN to run for the wars.  What really threatened to the US security was not a single terrorist Osama Bin Laden, but it was the idea of the wars that came from the US Congressmen and the congresswomen.  How to restrict the power of the Congress was the essential step for the national security.

 


[1] . John M. Broder, “Wuietly and Dexterously, Senate Republicans Set a Trap, “New York Times, Oct. 14, 1999.

According to New York Times reporter John M. Broder, “Democrats did not see the opposition to the treaty hardening in large part because relations between the parties are so bad that Democrats and Republicans often do not talk to each other about pending business.  The White House’s legislative affairs operation likewise did not detect the looming disaster for the President, according to a senior Administration official. (political cause)

 

[2] Ronald Brownstein, “New Appeals for a return to Civility,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15, 1999.

Texas Democrat and Speaker of the House Jim Wright, who was forced from office in 1989 by an investigation into his financial dealings led by Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich, described the mood as “mindless cannibalism.” And called for an end to period in which “vengeance becomes more desirable than vindication.”  Yet, a few years later, when Gingrich became  Speaker, Wright’s party immediately launched an ethics investigation into him

[3] Dick Morris, Behind the Oval Office (New York: Random House, 1997), p.247.

Morris felt differently, as he later wrote, “The charade, carefully preserved by Lake, that foreign policy in a democracy could or should be determined without regard to ‘politics’ was, in my view, nonsense.” (political cause)

 

[4] Thomas E. Patterson, Out of Order (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), p. 11-15.

Harvard’s Thomas Patterson points out, journalists exaggerate the extent to which politicians renege on campaign promises—which, during campaigns, they cynically portray as transparent ploys for votes. Analysis of recent administrations show that presidents largely uphold their campaign pledges, except in cases of conflict with Congress, changes in conditions, or a higher priority commitment.  Yet press coverage focuses on broken promises and on issues that require negotiation with Congress,

portraying compromise as failure or retreat rather than a natural part of American Democracy.

[5] News conference by president Clinton, Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 1999.

As the president said, with regard to Britain, France, and Germany, “We say, ‘OK, you guys are with us every time we need you – the Gulf War, the Balkans, always in NATO.  But you ask us to do something for your common safety?  Go take a hike.’” It damaged nonproliferation efforts already under way, by implying that the United States lacked steadiness and political will.

 

[6] Quoted in James Kitfield, “A Return to Isolationism,” National Journal, Oct. 8, 1999.

As Senator John McCain told the National Journal.  “Fewer and fewer members of Congress today have any real interest in national security issues, and they don’t appreciate that we live in a less dangerous, but far less predictable, order.  That’s led to an incredible increase in pork barreling in the defense budget and a lack of concern for its impact on the men and women in the military

[7] Lake, Anthony. 6 Nightmares, “The Real Threats to American Security”.  Boston” (Little Brown and Company. 2000) p. 255.

The current Republican Chairmen of the House and Senate committees with primary authority over foreign policy and national security—Benjamin Gilman, Floyd Spences, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond—have an average age of eighty

 

[8] James Kitfield, “A Return to Isolationism”, National Journal, Oct. 8, 1999

[9] Quoted in Barbara Crossette, “Around the World, Dismay over Senate Vote on Treaty,” New York Times, Oct. 15, 1999.

“Not only has the Senate said no to an added line of defense against proliferation; it has also weakened a potent defense barrier we had already constructed. 

[10] Frances Cairncross, The death of Distance (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 1997), p. 87; and “Over 150 Million Internet Users Worldwide at Year-End 1998,” press release Computer Industry Almanac (www.c-I-a.com), April 30, 1999.

From the mid-1980s to the late 1990s, the number of people logging onto the Internet doubled every year.  Predictions are that by early in this century, more than 300 milion people will be on-line.(psychology and propaganda)

 

[11] . Molly Ivins, “Garbage Town,” Washington Post, Oct. 12, 1999.

“Politics may not touch our lives, but government sure as daybreak does… Back in the real world, where may parents are trying to support their children by working more than one minimum wage job; where working mothers are often caught between aging parents

[12] 14. Lake p.289

We must find ways to help new democracies carry out necessary economic reforms without so damaging the poor that the reforms—or democracy itself—are lost in the resulting backlash

[13] Lake. P. 254-255

People in the White House need the new jobs: [S]ome members of Congress apparently don’t even hold passports

[14] “Politics Brief: Is There a Crisis?” The Economist, July 17, 1999.

The kind of cynicism we are seeing today breeds apathy and damages democracy.  Opinion polls suggest that the favorable opinion Americans had of their government has declined steadily over the past four decades.  In 1999, the Council for Excellence in Government found that while just 6 percent of adults say they feel very connected to their federal government, 29 percent—almost five times as many—feel very disconnected.  This great Divide between the public and the government is present elsewhere as well.  In eleven out of fourteen mature democracies, including Britain, Canada, and Germany, surveys indicate that confidence in parliament has dropped.  Trust in politicians has fallen from Italy to Japan.

[15] “A Foreign Policy Agenda for the Second Term,” remarks by Samuel R. Berger, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington D.C., Mar. 27, 1997.

 “A stunning fact: Traders, buyers and investors move well over a trillion dollars around the world every day

[16] “Markets Go Global, “ The Economist (The World Economy Survey), Sept. 20, 1997, p. 24.

The daily turnover on the currency markets is greater than the entire global stock of official foreign-exchange reserves. 

[17] Laurie Garrett, “The Return of Infectious Disease,” Foreign Affairs, Jan.-Feb. 1996.

 

[18] A damaging Arms Control Defeat,” New York Times, Oct. 14, 1999.

“[S]ome of the worst fears expressed by treaty opponents may now be more likely to come about… These include nuclear weapons development by countries that have not yet signed the treaty, erosion of American’s current lead in weapons technology and secret low-yield testing by Russia or other nuclear powers.”

[19] For this and previous statistics see American Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy 1999, ed. John E. Reilly (Chicago: The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1999).

For the first time since 1978, the Chicago poll indicates, there is more public support for expanding defense spending than for reducing it, though a plurality of Americans would like it to stay the same.

[20] “New Kosovo Study Finds Public Shows More Tolerance of Possible Fatalities Than Assumed,” Program on International Policy Attitudes press release, Washington, D.C., May 19, 1999.

[21] “Among members of Congress, just 31% think Americans know enough about issues to make wise decisions about public policy.  Even fewer political appointees (13%) and senior civil servants (14%) feel this way.  Those in the executive branch also have far less confidence than members of congress in the public’s decision making on Election Day.  Just 34% of presidential appointees and career civil servants express a great deal of confidence on this regard, compared to 64% of those in Congress.”  

[22] David Ignatius, “Serial Hysterics,” Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1999, p. A25.

David Ignatius aptly describes as “sequential hysteria,” in which each story gets its fifteen minutes of fame and is then nearly forgotten.  As Ignatius writes, “Nothing is done

 

[23] John Hillen, “Picking Up UN Peacekeeping Pieces:  Knowing When to say when,” Foreign Affairs, July-Aug. 1998.

No new UN peace operations were approved from 1978 to 1988.  (Even Ronald Reagan, however, called for ‘a standing UN Force, an army of conscience—that is fully equipped and prepared to carve out humanitarian sanctuaries through force if necessary.” 

[24] Victoria Holt, “Briefing Book on Peacekeeping: The U.S. Role in United Nation Peace Operations,” Council for a Livable World Education Fund, Washington D.C., Dec. 1944, p. 12

Concern over US participation in peacekeeping is not a new phenomenon.  While the United States sent aircraft, military observers, pilots, radio operators, and mediators to the firs UN observer million in Palestine in 1948, we did not contribute that many military officials to a UN mission again until the early 1990s. 

[25] “The United Nations,” U.S. Department of State fact sheet, Jan. 2000.

Presidents Bush and Clinton both have recognized that peacekeeping efforts serve our interests and respond to the best instincts of the American people.  Future Presidents are very likely to reach the same conclusion.  They are also likely to recognize that peacekeeping through the United Nations is a cost effective investment For every dollar that all governments spent on military activities in 1997, less than a quarter of a cent went to UN peacekeeping  And the American share of UN peacekeeping in 1999 was less than $1.22 per U.S. citizen – about the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks. 

[26] Quoted in Joseph Kahn and David E. Sanger, “Impasse on Trade Delivers a Stinging Blow to Clinton,” New York Times, Dec. 5, 1999.

[27]  James F. Hoge, Foreign News: Who Gives a Damn?.