JOURNAL

[Amer Lafi Taffy]

JOURNAL


Week 1, 6/18

Note: good for brainstorming on the background and notoriety of the
author; Bacevich.

I was very excited about the first essay for this class as I am a very
weak writer, as English as my 2nd language I have not had a chance to
read many books as it takes me a long time to understand the
conjugation (if that’s the right word) and also understand the
significance of the books that we are reading. Although I have heard
of Oscar Wilde and I’m looking forward to reading that. Hopefully my
slow reading pace will be ok for this fast paced class. I enclosed
the first article I read on the assignment after finding it on the
web. I find that it’s very interesting and it helps simplify the book
as I have known after reading the first two chapters. It’s very
intellectual.
See article below:
In 2008 Boston University historian Andrew Bacevich released, The
Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. In the book he
pulls no punches--presenting a stark assessment of the U.S. in the
post-Cold War world. He questions the sustainability of the current
U.S. economic model, challenges long-standing assumptions about
America's historical place in the world, and speaks bluntly about the
consequences of the failed “war on terror.” The following interview
was conducted via telephone.
The opening chapter of your book is titled “The Crisis of Profligacy.”
You frame the chapter in part by using a point from U.S. historian,
Frederick Jackson Turner, that “Not the constitution, but free land
and an abundance of natural resources,” made American democracy
possible. You also highlight the fact that, “By the end of WW2 the
country possessed nearly two-thirds of the world’s gold reserves and
more than half of its entire manufacturing capacity.” The chapter
presents a picture of a very wealthy country with avaricious tastes.
Why does your book start this way?
My interpretation of our culture is one that suggests it is deeply
unhealthy. It’s unhealthy because of the way too many Americans have
come to define freedom in terms of consumption and individual
autonomy. I think that expresses itself in the economic arena in the
insistence of having more, more, more...without paying due attention
to who’s going to pay the bills, what are the consequences for future
generations.
You make a very stark statement early on that, “Baghdad was not Berlin
in 1945; it was Warsaw circa 1939.” Could you elaborate on what you
mean?
I think the architects of the Global War on Terror, did not think the
war on terror was going to end in Baghdad. They thought that the war
on terror was a way station, a preliminary objective and that having
achieved success in Baghdad they expected they would be able to go on
to liberate, or pacify, or dominate--depending on what term you want
to use--the rest of the greater Middle East. So it was the start of
something they imagined would be much bigger. However, because they
didn’t achieve the success in Iraq that they imagined, the grander
project was nipped in the bud.
There’s a lot of well stated anger in your book. As I read this I
began thinking these past eight years, the Bush years, have seen a
stark erosion of confidence and sense of legitimacy by many, including
the intelligentsia in this country. Do you think that true? And if so
what do see as the implications?
I think there’s been an erosion of confidence in our basic
institutions because of a variety of things. One of those is the
mishandling of the Iraq war. The perception that exists in some
quarters, not all, is that lies were told about the purpose of the
war. There are also the scandals that have occurred in places like Abu
Ghraib and the larger issue of torture. I think compounding all that
is the economic crisis and the fact that the economic crisis, to some
degree at least, appears to have been propelled by recklessness and
dishonesty in the the basic financial institutions of the country. I
think some number of Americans find themselves in a situation today
where they basically have to question, ‘Who can we trust?’ and their
answer is, not anybody.
You talk about Bush as thinking that history “has a visible
direction.” You also cite Obama making statements about putting,
“hands on the arc of history.” In contrast you say pretty
unambiguously that “History’s purpose remains inscrutable.” Could you
talk about that?
I think there’s a very long tradition in our country, that is really
part of this idea of American Exceptionalism, based on the notion that
history does have an arc and to one degree or another the United
States has a responsibility to move history along that arc, to get
history to where it is supposed to go. In our political discourse,
history is supposed to go toward freedom for all mankind. Freedom in
this sense is assumed to be the American way of life; that our values,
our notion of what it means to be free, our political system, are
intended to prevail everywhere. This is such a staple of the way our
politicians talk we almost don’t even hear it any longer.
My own sense is that is all a bunch of malarkey. That the truth, to
look at the actual events of history, is to suggest that it has no
pattern. It has no direction, it has no purpose that we are able to
discern and frankly, get used to it, that’s the way it is going to be.
You make a searing criticism of the U.S. military establishment - -and
single out Gen. Tommy Franks particularly. At one point you say, "A
great army accomplishes its assigned mission. Since George W. Bush
inaugurated his global war on terror, the armed forces of the United
States have failed to meet that standard." How did you arrive at such
a startling conclusion?
I don’t think it is startling. We have been involved in Afghanistan
for almost eight years now and nobody thinks it’s being won. Some
people think its winnable, but many people do not. That’s hardly a
manifestation of “Mission Accomplished.”
In Iraq you might say the picture is somewhat more ambiguous, but
certainly the mission that was assigned to the U.S. Armed Forces was
not to get involved in a war that was going to go on for as long as
that war has gone on, for six years now. The mission was to overthrow
the regime and bring order to Iraq. That is not what happened. That is
not an attack on all the soldiers who have gone over to these to
places, and done the very best that they can. I simply think we need
to be realistic, and recognize what the outcome has been. The outcome
in neither place has been a victory.
You say in the afterward of the paperback edition that, “A world that
once indulged America’s profligacy is no longer willing to do so...we
don’t have the money and we don’t have the troops -- we can’t make the
world indulge our profligacy.” Isn’t that ominous for the future of
the U.S.?
The notion back in the 1990s was that we were the world’s sole
superpower. We were the indispensable nation. To overstate it a little
bit, ‘we could call the shots.’ That was wrong in the 1990s and it is
even ‘wronger’ today.
The implications are that we need to be more modest in acknowledging
that the world is complex. That humanity is not headed in the
direction that all people are going to live their lives the way we
live our lives. Recognize that our power is quite limited. We have
power. We have more than other countries, but it's not sufficient to
fulfill the ambitions of American statesmen. We should husband our
power. We should try and cope as best we can with the complexities of
the world. We should abandon any notion that utopia is just around the
corner, if we’ll just try a little bit harder to make it into a
reality.
About Andrew Bacevich
Andrew J. Bacevich is Professor of International Relations and History
at Boston University. A graduate of the U. S. Military Academy, he
received his Ph. D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton
University. Before joining the faculty of Boston University in 1998,
he taught at West Point and at Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. Bacevich is the author of The Limits of Power: American
Exceptionalism (2008). His previous books include American Empire: The
Realities and Consequences of U. S. Diplomacy(2002), The Imperial
Tense: Problems and Prospects of American Empire (2003) (editor), The
New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2005), and
The Long War: A New History of US National Security Policy since World
War II (2007) (editor). His essays and reviews have appeared in a wide
variety of scholarly and general interest publications includingThe
Wilson Quarterly, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign
Policy, The Nation, The American Conservative, and The New Republic.
His op-eds have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall
Street Journal, Financial Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and
USA Today, among other newspapers.
In 2004, Dr. Bacevich was a Berlin Prize Fellow at the American
Academy in Berlin. He has also been a fellow of the Paul H. Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University,
the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and
the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Week 2, June 26
After having a tough time with part 1 of the essay I have decided to
get a tutor for English, I’m starting to feel in over my head but
don’t know who to talk to. I think the journal part of this class is
the best because I get to vent at an attempt to better understand my
own literary shortcomings. I found a pretty good deal on the tutor
and he has already recommended I buy a vocabulary builder so I’m going
to look into getting that. Bacevich is very intellectual and it’s
intimidating. I think computers is more my subject than English. I’m
hoping this class will help with my critical thinking in regards to
the written word.
In regards to part two of the essay I want to side with both sides as
I agree with a little bit of each. It appears I have to take a stand,
what I’m having a problem is wanting everyone to just get along.
Bacevich talks about some very morbid stuff. He’s a very pessimistic
man and politics is so confusing for me. It’s interesting at the same
time though! I’m on page 61 almost to part 2 and its heavy reading but
really good. I have to sometimes read things four or five times
before I reluctantly decide to move on to the next passage. I like
the rubrics because they help me structure my thoughts.

Week 3, July 2
I’m preparing for part 3 of the essay 1 and its definitely a tough
one. I keep thinking its getting easier and my grade doesn’t really
reflect that. both times before I thought I did much better than I
did. The tutor is helping…
Rich Tucker's Biography
Longtime broadcast newsman Richard Tucker is a staff writer and media
critic at The Heritage Foundation.
Tucker works with Heritage analysts and other conservative public
policy advocates who appear regularly in the print and broadcast news
media.
Before joining the Heritage Foundation, he spent almost eight years as
a broadcast news copy editor and writer, first in CNN's Atlanta
headquarters and most recently in the cable news network's Washington
Bureau.
Tucker's career as a broadcast journalist began in 1992 as a
photographer/editor with WBNG-TV, the CBS affiliate in Binghamton, New
York. He is a 1991 graduate of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public
Communications at Syracuse University with a bachelor's degree in
broadcast journalism.
Originally from Vestal, N.Y., Tucker lives with his wife and two sons
in northern Virginia.
Andrew Bacevich Biography:
Andrew J. Bacevich, Sr. (born 1947 in Normal, Illinois) is a professor
of international relations at Boston University, former director of
its Center for International Relations (from 1998 to 2005), and author
of several books, including American Empire: The Realities and
Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002), The New American Militarism: How
Americans are Seduced by War (2005) and The Limits of Power: The End
of American Exceptionalism (2008). He has been "a persistent, vocal
critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a
catastrophic failure."[1] In March 2007, he described George W. Bush's
endorsement of such "preventive wars" as "immoral, illicit, and
imprudent."[1][2] His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May 2007.
[1]
acevich graduated from West Point in 1969 and served in the United
States Army during the Vietnam War, serving in Vietnam from the summer
of 1970 to the summer of 1971. Afterwards he held posts in Germany,
including the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the United States, and
the Persian Gulf up to his retirement from the service with the rank
of Colonel in the early 1990s. He holds a Ph.D. in American Diplomatic
History from Princeton University, and taught at West Point and Johns
Hopkins University prior to joining the faculty at Boston University
in 1998.
On May 13, 2007, Bacevich's son, also named Andrew J. Bacevich, was
killed in action in Iraq by a improvised explosive device south of
Samarra in Salah Ad Din Province.[3] The younger Bacevich, 27, was a
First Lieutenant.[4] He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th U.S.
Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division.
Bacevich also has three daughters.[4]
Bacevich has described himself as a "Catholic conservative" and
initially published writings in a number of politically oriented
magazines, including The Wilson Quarterly. His recent writings have
professed a dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and many of
its intellectual supporters on matters of American foreign policy.
On August 15, 2008 Bacevich appeared as the guest of Bill Moyers
Journal on PBS to promote his new book, The Limits of Power. As in
both of his previous books, The Long War (2007) and The New American
Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (2005), Bacevich is
critical of American foreign policy in the post Cold War era,
maintaining the United States has developed an over-reliance on
military power, in contrast to diplomacy, to achieve its foreign
policy aims. He also asserts that policymakers in particular, and the
American people in general, overestimate the usefulness of military
force in foreign affairs. Bacevich believes romanticized images of war
in popular culture (especially movies) interact with the lack of
actual military service among most of the population to produce in the
American people a highly unrealistic, even dangerous notion of what
combat and military service are really like.
Bacevich conceived The New American Militarism not only as "a
corrective to what has become the conventional critique of U.S.
policies since 9/11 but as a challenge to the orthodox historical
context employed to justify those policies."
Finally, he attempts to place current policies in historical context,
as part of an American tradition going back to the Presidency of
Woodrow Wilson, a tradition (of an interventionist, militarized
foreign policy) which has strong bi-partisan roots. To lay an
intellectual foundation for this argument, he cites two influential
historians from the 20th century: Charles Beard andWilliam Appleman
Williams.
Ultimately, Bacevich eschews the partisanship of current debate about
American foreign policy as short-sighted and ahistorical. Instead of
blaming only one President (or his advisors) for contemporary
policies, Bacevich sees both Republicans and Democrats as sharing
responsibility for policies which may not be in the nation's best
interest.
In March 2003, at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bacevich
wrote in The Los Angeles Times that "if, as seems probable, the effort
encounters greater resistance than its architects imagine, our way of
life may find itself tested in ways that will make the Vietnam War
look like a mere blip in American history."[1]
An editorial about the Bush Doctrine was published by the Boston Globe
in March 2007.[2]
In an article of the The American Conservative dated March 24, 2008,
Bacevich depicts Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama as the
best choice for conservatives in the fall. Part of his argument
includes the fact that "this liberal Democrat has promised to end the
U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled,
lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival." [5] He also goes
on to mention that "For conservatives to hope the election of yet
another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe
that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of
federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put
the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great
delusion." [5]
His papers are currently housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival
Research Center at Boston University.

Week 4, July 10
I found this interesting interview and more insight to Bacevich’s
political position. It’s almost like he’s an anti-american American…
Essay 2 should be fun. I need to redeem myself for the last one J
This interview is part of the Institute's "Conversations with History"
series, and uses Internet technology to share with the public
Berkeley's distinction as a global forum for ideas.
Welcome to a Conversation with History. I'm Harry Kreisler of the
Institute of International Studies. Our guest today is Andrew
Bacevich, who is Professor of International Relations at Boston
University and is the author, most recently, of The New American
Militarism.
1. Background ... midwestern Catholic ... child of WWII veterans ...
West Point ... graduate school at Princeton ... dissertation on Frank
Ross McCoy
2. Studying Foreign Policy ... becoming interested in the military
role ... rejecting the "great man" theory ... disillusionment with
inter-service military rivalries ... military's quest for global
supremacy despite changing international environment ... identifying
as cultural conservative ... parting ways with conservatives over
foreign policy
3. American Militarism ... overconfidence in efficacy of force ...
mistaken emblem of national greatness ... romanticization of
soldiers ... bloated size, budget, and reach ... Chalmers Johnson ...
disturbing lack of public concern ... unwillingness to trim forces
after the Cold War
4. The Effect of the Vietnam War ... rebuilding the military to "save
the country" from the shame of defeat ... to restore status of the
officer corps ... trying to choose winnable wars ... focus on
Europe ... surprise and irony of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
5. The War Club ... Bush doctrine of preventive war rests on military
technology ... post-Hiroshima notions of deterrence ... perceived
value of small wars disproved by Vietnam ... defense intellegentsia
discovers precision weaponry ... mistaken faith in "shock and awe"
6. The Evolution of Mideast Policy ... Carter doctrine of Persian Gulf
importance ... policy develops through ensuing presidencies ...
recklessly leading to present Iraq war ... U.S. pursuit of freedom
defined as affluence ... cheap oil
7. Conclusion ... quixotic hope for a new conservative agenda ...
challenging people to think ... advice for students ... the problem of
an all-volunteer force ... born-again Wilsonianism

I found some interesting stuff on the homeless which I’m planning to
do something on for the short story…
U.S. Census Bureau, In 2004, the most recent data available, 17.6
million people lived in a working-poor household. This translates into
8.2% of all American families lived below the poverty level even
though there was a family member that worked.
A report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that in 2002 more than
25% of working American families were classified as low-income, with
incomes at 200% of the federal poverty level. This translates into
more than 9.2 million families.
I certainly do not claim to have the answers to solve this growing
crisis in our country. However, I do think that most of us need to
change our attitudes toward the poor and the homeless. A little bit of
compassion, and a little bit of empathy, can go a long way. (Jewel has
a great song that says: In the end….only kindness matters). Think
about this before you pass judgment on others, because it is so
true….in the end, only kindness matters.
We will never be able to eliminate poverty in our country. But, we can
try. We can also choose to be more kind, more compassionate, and more
generous to the people in our country that are less fortunate than
ourselves.
More notes:
The demand for emergency shelter and food in US cities has risen
significantly over the past year, straining a tattered social safety
net beyond the breaking point, according to a report released Tuesday
by the US Conference of Mayors. The “Hunger and Homeless Survey”
covering America’s 27 largest cities showed that requests for food aid
increased by 14 percent in 2004, while the demand for shelter rose by
6 percent.
Remember these short story tips:
1. Have a clear theme. What is the story about? That doesn't mean what
is the plot line, the sequence of events or the character's actions,
it means what is the underlying message or statement behind the words.
Get this right and your story will have more resonance in the minds of
your readers.
2. An effective short story covers a very short time span. It may be
one single event that proves pivotal in the life of the character, and
that event will illustrate the theme.
3. Don't have too many characters. Each new character will bring a new
dimension to the story, and for an effective short story too many
diverse dimensions (or directions) will dilute the theme. Have only
enough characters to effectively illustrate the theme.
4. Make every word count. There is no room for unnecessary expansion
in a short story. If each word is not working towards putting across
the theme, delete it.
5. Focus. The best stories are the ones that follow a narrow subject
line. What is the point of your story? Its point is its theme. It's
tempting to digress, but in a 'short' you have to follow the straight
and narrow otherwise you end up with either a novel beginning or a
hodgepodge of ideas that add up to nothing.
__________________________________________________________________________

Week 5, July 16
Working on essay 3, but it’s tough, I don’t get Oscar Wilde, he’s so
poetic, I can’t understand the hidden meaning I’m supposed to look
for, I feel like I’m grasping for straws.
Understand Shakespeare? Won’t that require years of training and lots
of specialized knowledge?,” you may wonder out loud. If you think that
learning to read and understand Shakespeare is difficult, you are not
alone.
Shakespeare. Although many of us study Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets
in schools, and plenty of us see his work performed on stage and in
movies, few people who are not professional actors, accomplished
scholars, or theatre directors feel that they can truly understand
Shakespeare. The Renaissance vocabulary his characters use is
unfamiliar to modern ears, the social structure of royalty in his
plays is difficult to grasp, and the formal verse rhythms present in
much of his work can look and feel very strange. Luckily, there are
some very easy techniques that will help you learn to understand
Shakespeare. Professional actors often need to understand Shakespeare
in a hurry during an audition, or when preparing for a rehearsal.
These actors have learned a whole host of tricks and techniques that
can help them figure out what it happening in a Shakespeare scene even
when they don’t know anything about the plot of the play or who the
characters are. By learning some of the easy tricks that professional
actors use to understand Shakespeare, you can get much more out of
reading or watching his plays. In addition, many students find that
they get better grades in English and Drama classes once they learn a
bit about how to understand Shakespeare. Learning to read and
understand Shakespeare is a skill that can serve you well in many
facets of your life, and the easiest way to start is by learning about
“you” and “thou.”
Week 6 August 21

I’m not doing too well in the class, and I wish I had been able to
afford my tutoring, I think this was one of the hardest classes ever.
English is hard. L