In Search of "Truthiness"

In my view, one of the best instances of rhetoric in any medium is "The Colbert Report", hosted by a character named "Stephen Colbert" and played by an actor/comedian named Stephen Colbert. For those that haven't seen it, the show is a tongue-in-cheek mockery of a conservative opinion show like "The O'Reilly Factor" or "Hannity". What makes his show and in particular his character so unique is his ability to use satire to make probing points concerning political culture. Perhaps Colbert's most famous example of satire occurred at the annual White House Correspondent's Association Dinner in 2006, where he openly mocked President Bush's foreign policy( "I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.") and the media ("Over the last five years, you people were so good-- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out"). This drew a strong rebuke from not only conservative commentators, but also many in the media who disliked being made fun of for doing their jobs poorly. Colbert's simple use of ironic praise was in turn much more damning of the Bush administration's policies and the current political and media cultures than any direct criticism of either the administration or the media. 

More recently, Colbert has brought satire to a new level by running to be "The President of the United States of South Carolina" and forming his own "Super PAC" called "The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" to mock our entire electoral process. The name of his "Super PAC" makes fun of the ability of "Super PACs" to raise an unlimited amount of money in support of a candidate or his particular positions, while at the same time the candidate and the "Super PAC" are legally barred from coordinating in any way, implicitly suggesting that this law is ridiculous in principal. 

Some in the Media have called Colbert's message "disrespectful". This is probably because unlike most comedians, Colbert doesn't just take aim at particular politicians. His most cutting satire is reserved for political institutions who's ultimate concern is protecting themselves. 

-Link To The Colbert "Super PAC" Website

-Link to video of Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner

Engaging The Taliban

I admit, writing about a specific topic we discussed in class is lame an unimaginative, but having been to Afghanistan recently, I thought the topic that Prof. Henderson brought up concerning the Taliban opening a political office in Qatar is one that I am both interested and informed on.

I believe that engaging with our adversaries can in many ways be a productive endeavor. The trouble is, which one? There is a gross misperception in the American public that the Taliban are a single group insurgency. Rather, to me the term "Taliban" is more of an umbrella term the media uses for a multitude of different factions. The Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Hezbi-Islami (HIG), and small factions of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan all share the similar goals of defeating the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), overthrowing the Karzai-led Afghan government, and establishing a traditional Islamic emirate in Afghanistan, similar to the one that was forced from power in 2001 by the coalition. All the news I have read seems to indicate only that the Afghan Taliban is showing the willingness to engage. Will other extremist groups be willing to talk as well?

Which brings up the second problem: The Taliban seem willing to only negotiate with the U.S. The statement that was released by the group made the glaring omission of leaving out the Afghan government from peace talks. How can any talks be initiated when one of the preconditions for the U.S. is the Taliban's acceptance of the Afghan Constitution-- even though the Taliban views the government of Afghanistan as a "puppet" of the U.S. Is it realistic to assume that the Taliban will come full circle and reintegrate into Afghan society? Why not wait until 2014, when the bulk of coalition troops leave the country, and make a push for more influence in Afghanistan.

The third, and clearly the largest problem for the U.S. is Pakistan. Since the accidental killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in an air strike in late November, Pakistan has cut off virtually all communication with the U.S. They refused to attend the meeting in Germany in December to discuss the future of Afghanistan and have forced Americans based at a covert drone base to leave the country. Not to mention that the Pakistani version of the CIA (The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, ISI) has been playing a double game for years by supporting various factions of the insurgency to bleed the coalition while still receiving substantial aid. How can we reasonably assume that we can force an endgame in Afghanistan when the most critical part of the equation refuses to even talk to us?

The real losers in the whole situation are the ones who have been the losers since the Afghan Civil War broke out in 1978: Afghan Civilians. The Taliban continue to indiscriminately kill civilians, even though the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, has issued directives to avoid civilian casualties.

In my view, there are no "moderate" Taliban. The Taliban's brutality and acceptance of global extremist groups like Al-Qaeda is notorious. Joe Biden recently asserted in Newsweek that "The Taliban per se is not our enemy." While I have great respect for the Vice President, I strongly disagree with that statement. This is the same group that harbored Al-Qaeda while they were planning the attacks of September 11. The same group that continues to kill and attempt to kill coalition forces. This is the same group that prohibited education and healthcare for girls and women. This link was published in August 2010, almost 9 years after the invasion. I don't think the Taliban have changed very much in that time.