A gap of research in the sources examined in the TiC was how subscribers of neo-conservative ideology gained a significant enough influence over the Bush administration to undermine the entire American defense intelligence system. An interesting gap in the research is how a group of neoconservatives managed to hijack Congress and public opinion to fight a parallel war against American intelligence agencies.
All posts by aakank1
The Real Causes of the Iraq War
While the Bush administration portrayed the Iraq War as a natural extension of 9/11, U.S. involvement actually stemmed from national politics and potential economic gains, such as foreign natural resources. This is significant as most scholars view the Iraq War as a mistake cause by lack of representation of what Americans wanted at the time and lies propagated by the Bush administration, and understanding what went wrong is vital for preventing future transgressions.
Others have explored how the Bush administration conflated 9/11 with the Iraq War and how the administration was trying to spread western ideals across the Middle East in order to gain public approval. This explains how the Iraq war was tied to national politics, as the Bush administration was trying to gain public popularity by throwing its weight behind western ideals in foreign countries shortly before the 2004 election. Hinnebusch and Fawn assert that the Iraq war was caused by Iraqi oil and defiance towards America. Iraq was the only Arab nation with an educated enough population, sizable oil resources, and water supplies to maintain independent foreign and domestic policy without any aid. As such, America’s historical imperial ambitions and resentment towards nonconformity pushed the Bush administration to invade Iraq. In my Research Based Argument, I will continue analyzing how evidence used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, the process behind authorizing the invasion of Iraq was corrupt, and the lies the American public was fed in order to gain public support for the cause. In order for the American democracy to function, our executive branch has to represent the views of its constituents and maintain a layer of transparency.
An Examination of Star Trek in Cold War Context
The USS Enterprise, a starship in the Starfleet, which is the military service of the United Federation of Planets, parallels the American army and navy during the nineteenth century. Even though the Enterprise is a military ship, it is framed as participating in a peaceful five year mission to explore new worlds in hopes of seeking out life and civilizations. Sarantakes shows how the Star Trek ship mirrors the primarily scientific focus of the US army and navy during the examined timeframe, saying, “Many fans have argued that this mission makes Starfleet a scientific service rather than a military organization, but the assignment is similar to the role that the U.S. Army and Navy performed during most of the nineteenth century”.
Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the series, memorably summed up the power of science fiction, saying: “Today in TV, you can’t write about Vietnam, politics, labor management, the rocket race, the drug problem realistically.” In other words, due to the politically correct and nationalistic culture of the time, artists and television shows could not openly complain about American policies. By turning to science fiction and fantasy writing, television and fiction writers would veil their political commentary by asserting that they were discussing a mythical time and place. This would allow them to take controversial stances without censorship or backlash and spread their views to the public.
Writers’ projecting their political stances into fictional media is not exclusive to Star Trek. A recent and memorable example would be Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. The movie, pitched as an emotional and engaging story following an observant, albeit poor boy through the streets of India, could also be interpreted a scathing critique of class segregation, poverty, and violence in poor areas in the third world nation. While it would be politically incorrect and controversial for Boyle to make a public statement on these issues since he has never faced them, by building his stance into his move, he was able to show viewers his beliefs.
Blog Post 2: Farish
- The quote “Every city is a potential battleground, every citizen a target…” captured the fear permeating through American society due to the potential for nuclear warfare.By calling every city a battleground, Farish establish the American sentiment that nobody was truly safe and every city was threatened by the Soviet Union. Throughout his analysis, Farish establishes a case for how Hiroshima and Nagasaki had caused Americans to start fear living in cities: high populations combined with industrial capacity served as a prime spot for nuclear attacks.As such, Americans began “limited dispersion”, as they migrated to suburban communities with 30,000 to 50,000 people. This helped reduce the probability of high impact nuclear attacks that could wipe out millions of people with the drop of one bomb. The suburban community was viewed as a safe haven from cities, which had high levels of immigrants, who were often associated with communism, and high nuclear threat levels.
- Post-9/11 media was flooded with images of the Twin Towers falling, constantly reminding Americans of the 2,996 civilians who died as a result of being in the city on that day. Facing the constant imagery associated with the tragedy on daily basis, Americans began to become increasingly paranoid about living in cities with high population levels: if New York could be attacked once, it could be attacked again. Media during the time played off these sentiments, as seen when Camus’s noir vision of New York was “a prodigious funeral pyre at midnight”. Farish also explored American’s reactions to envisioning the Hiroshima bombing occurring in the streets of Manhattan. When Americans thought about the same atrocities occurring back home, they had much more emotional reactions.
Gay Rights and the War against the “Un-American”
The Washington Times, a relatively prominent newspaper in the early 2000s, embodied the homophobic spirit of post-9/11 America. Cheryl Wetzstein’s widely-known article “U.S. sees HIV cases rise among gay, bisexual men” (July 2003) is a classic example of their thinly veiled attacks on homosexual men. The article starts by quoting a statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, claiming that HIV cases among homosexual men had risen over seven percent in one year. Wetzstein continues to characterize same-sex relationships as inherently dangerous, quoting a scientist who asserts that “‘preventing infection is the…only true protection against the disease’” and claiming the cases could very well be the start of a new trend. The article then adds a politicizes the issue, suggesting that the Bush administration needs to intervene to reduce the number of these dangerous relationships by educating the public on the risks of homosexuality and by researching the health risks of homosexuality just as it researches the risks of smoking. Comparing homosexuality to smoking reflects the Washington Time’s position that being a homosexual is a choice, and people can choose not to become one. Moreover, Wetzstein criticizes homosexual men, referencing the position that expensive AID-prevention campaigns are not particularly helpful as long as same-sex relationships persist.
The Washington Time’s homophobic undertones mirror the homophobia entrenched in Cold War rhetoric. During this era, homosexuality served as grounds for job dismissal and persecution as Americans turned to traditional family and gender roles in order to feel a sense of security (May 4). The government encouraged traditional heterosexual marriages with tax breaks in hopes of creating an illusion of safety. As such, both post-9/11 America and post-WWII America reflect a fallback to traditional domesticity and a rise of intolerance with respect to same-sex relationships. Homosexuals became a domestic enemy and were marked as “un-american”, as they challenged the concept of the safety offered by affluent heterosexual households focused on children.
May, Elaine Tyler. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era.
Wetzstein, Cheryl. “U.S. Sees HIV Cases Rise among Gay, Bisexual Men.” The Washington Times, 29 July 2003.
The Rhetoric of Containment 