Issue 1. Historical Overview
Question 6 In the Zweig film is: how are the earlier conflicts in which the US was involved the same or different from our current conflict in Afghanistan? How likely is a “victory” in Afghanistan and what in your opinion would such a victory look like?
It is a widely established fact that all modern and antecedent conflicts, in which the United States of America was directly or indirectly involved considerably differs from the conflict of Afghanistan for the huge variety of political, cultural, economical and other facets (Russet, 1987).
First and foremost, the aim of the intervention into the internal affairs of Afghanistan is justified by the necessity to restore the democratic government of the country. Whilst almost the overwhelming majority of the rest of conflicts were primarily engendered by the reasons of international economy or security (the hostilities in Vietnam or the World War II, the participation in the military conflicts was primarily caused by the reasons to restore peace and to prevent the international economic system from the imminent collapse and subsequent negative side-effects). In a stark contrast to these phenomenon, the military operation in Afghanistan was caused by the need to restore democracy in the country, and neither economic, not political factors influenced the Administration of the George Walker Bush Senior to participate in the peace keeping operation (Anderson, 1984).
My personal opinion is that the victory in Afghanistan is practically unattainable due to the following reasons. First and foremost, as it has already been specified above, the aim of this war is to ensure that the democratic rule of law is completely restored in the country. However, the reports of the leading international research agencies have indicated that the overwhelming majority of the Afghanistan population strongly opposes the idea of the democratic governance (Russet, 1987). For them, the man rule is considerably more favorable, and then the democratic approach.
Issue 2. Peace Studies
Under what conditions would the nonviolent approach to resolving conflict be most likely to succeed and most likely to fail?
Naturally, nonviolent approach to the resolution of the international and national conflict situations encompasses a great variety of positive and negative facets. In order to be beneficial, several conditions for the application of this approach must be observed. First and foremost, all participants of the dialogue must be strongly opined that the ultimate goal of the pending negotiations is the establishment of the peace, but not the unleashing of the armed hostilities (Anderson, 1984). The second obligatory condition is the opportunity to settle the dispute via nonviolent means, in other words, the interests of the conflicting states must be reasonable and reconcilable. The concessions, which may be accepted by the countries, must exist and the states must be willing to make these concessions. Otherwise, the conflict is likely to escalate and nothing can be done to avert the imminent armed hostilities. Another factor, which may considerably influence the course of the non-violent approach, is the evident military superiority of one state over another (Russet, 1987). Leveraging the negotiations militarily and threatening the prospective opponent, while abstaining from direct application of the military force.
As far as the favorable factors are concerned, the issue of the first importance is the fact that the participants of the negotiations must be mutually interested in the peaceful and non-violent resolution of the arising dispute. In other words, military conflict must be reviewed by the parties as the means of the ultimate dispute resolution, but not as a goal of the conflict situation. Another factor which may positively contribute to the peaceful resolution of the situation is the military domination of one country over another and the willingness of that country to resolve the dispute peacefully. In this case, the second counteragent is likely to abstain from the hostile actions.
Issue 3. Political Culture Question
Bruce Russet is one of the most outstanding United States political science professors, whose works must be always highly considered by the scholarly community of the United States of America and the global community as well. In his works International Security and Conflict and Purpose and Policy in the Global this scholar extensively discoursed about the issues pertaining to democracy and its causation with the reasons that generate the war (Anderson, 1984).
Outwardly, every democratic country is reported to be peaceful. Moreover, it is often reported that the countries of democratic orientation tend to abstain from the armed conflicts and to resolve disputable issues by means of negotiations. In order to influence the counteragents, the democratic countries influence them via economical means. Therefore, although the democratic countries do not engage into the armed conflicts voluntarily, they always willingly apply economical mechanism and methods to wage marketing wars against the competitors. The aim of these wars is to economically dominate over the rest of the countries and to gain political advantage and preponderance globally.
As far as the armed hostilities are concerned, the democratic states are indeed more prone to waging military operations, in contrast to their strategic counterparts of autocratic and tyrannical forms of the government. Statistically, approximately 43% of all currently pending armed conflicts (overall, there are 113 current conflict) are waged by the countries, which have labeled as ‘democratic’, according to the recent report published by the international independent agency Freedom House. Besides, military operations that are conducted under the aegis of the NATO are in their overwhelming majority conducted by the countries of the democratic orientation. The reasons for these armed conflicts are plain and simple: it is vitally important to convert as many as possible Islamic and other non-democratic states into the democratic countries, which are more easily influenced economically and financially, as open trade markets are guaranteed.
Issue 4. Realism. What is the United States National Interest?
The national interest is a very complex concept which encompasses a great variety of various constituents, primarily of military, financial, economic, welfare and cultural interest.
First and foremost, the basic constituent of this concept is the necessity to safeguard a complete economic well-being of the citizens of the United States of America. In other words, the necessary element of this concept is the need to provide decent salaries and wages, to create a fertile ambience for the development and prosperity of business institutions and affiliated enterprises. The ultimate goal of this policy is a permanent enhancement of the living standards of the population and creation of new business opportunities both for the individuals and business institutions. If the interests of the citizens and the businesses are satisfied, the current political course of the government is automatically approved by the potential voters. Therefore, the re-election is almost automatically assured for the current administration, providing that the economic needs of the potential voters are satisfied and the consumer basket is increased (Russet, 1987).
Another aspect of the national interest of the United States is the observance of the military guarantees of the country. In other words, the well-being and security of the United States civil society and government institutions are guaranteed militarily. This pillar of the national interest issue purports that the country must be protected by the armed forces of the US Army and the citizens must be assured that the state can never be invaded by the potential enemy.
The cultural constituent of the concept is that the development and evolution of the science and culture must be guaranteed and practically implemented. This issue of the national interest is deeply connected with economic and financial development of the community.
Issue 5. Liberalism. The Criticism of Transnationalism.
The Most Compelling Theories
I am strongly convinced that the most compelling argument of non-existence of the transnationalism is the concept, according to which this theory and scientific hypothesis does not exist. In other words, this scientific theory of the applied economy purports that the international collaboration and issues of the permanent economic globalization in terms of the international economy have always been inherent and intrinsic to the humankind (Anderson, 1984).
Another persuasive argument which justifies the set of measures aimed at minimizing transnational programs of the United States of America is the protection of the national producer, and eradication of the unemployment within the frontiers of the country. To illustrate, one of the most illustrative examples of transnationalism is the IT industry of the United States of America. The orders for the development of the software are accepted in the United States of America, and the affiliated companies in India, Pakistan and Germany in their majority complete those orders. Naturally, the outcome is evident, the software engineers with the United States citizenship who reside in the country automatically face drastic competition. Approximately 13% of the entire community of the United States software developers are right now unemployed, irrespective their immensely high qualifications and professional experience, whereas the software developers from India and Pakistan are almost 100% employed and 96% of all their order are from the United States of America.
Overall, I am firmly convinced that the protection of the national producer is the primary argument in the set of ideas of the anti-transnationalism activists. Besides, my firm opinion is that their logic is not entirely devoid of grain of truth, although their methods are highly doubtful.
Issue 6, Question 2.
Which of the Critiques of Class System Theory (a.k.a. globalism) Do You Find the Most and Least Compelling?
There are a lot of individuals as well as the social institutions who either vigorously support the development or rise of the globalism movement or who fervently oppose any kinds of this process.
As far as the most compelling arguments are concerned, I am firmly convinced that the main argument for this is the development of the international economy and the subsequent rise of the living standards of the global population and the standards of the specific nation in particular. Globalization is extremely positive, because it enables the saturated national producers to obtain external markets for the sale of their goods and services. Subsequently, the unemployment rates within the country are considerably decreasing and the needs of the humankind are therefore satisfied.
Another argument for the domination of the class theory is the statement that the dominance of the class approach automatically guarantees intensive cultural and scientific interchange among the participants of the globalization processes (Russet, 1997). If the class theory is in action, the needs of the cultural and scientific communities of the USA and its overseas counteragents are satisfied more promptly and effectively. Therefore, the rise of the scientific process and cultural development is inherently guaranteed.
As far as the negative sides of the process are concerned, it must be highlighted that the main disadvantage of the process is the gradual downturn of the purely national economy, downfall of the national culture and intensified dependence on the overseas partners. If the country is deeply integrated into the economy and culture of another country, densities between these states may eventually lead to the deterioration of the economic and cultural situation in the one of them.