The Pointless War

Recently, in a press release, U.S. President Bush and his Top Generals admitted their mistake in making policies in Iraq. Much to the world’s surprise, he said his mistake was that he had insufficient numbers of troops in Iraq. Therefore, his intentions were to deploy more troops in Iraq, one reason among the others was to fight the existing sectarianism.

U.S. initial reason in holding military operations in Iraq was due to the assumed existence of weapons of mass destruction. The focus has undoubtedly changed since then, leaving the world nonplussed (?). This brings the U.S. in a problematic position of whether it must maintain its ‘obligation’ to enforce security in Iraq or not. I (Sani) think that since the justification of the intervention itself was not even passed through a U.N resolution, this ‘obligation’ in the first place did not exist. It is to say that the U.S. must withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

This is why I see a harsh form of action is needed. We would like to propose to the House that the U.S. troops shall be pulled out of Iraq. We don’t agree with Bush’s definition of mistake. We believe that since firsthand, the strategy that the U.S. took in breaching the non-intervention policy was wrong, and that mistake has now crossed the border definition of acceptance: they are there for no more particular reason, even more a reason for intervention.

There is a reason why people uphold diplomacy all around the world, because negotiation is always, in many ways, the way to go compared to confrontation. We have witnessed many people died because of war, not only soldiers, but civilians, women and children died because of war. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. Thousands of people died, families were torn apart. These are people who really pay the cost, not that politicians sitting in the Oval Room for nothing. That is exactly the reason why team government (?) is here today, because we simply fail to see any reason since the U.S. deployment triggered the war, to start the long list of casualties. Saddam Hussein was perhaps in many ways a criminal to his society, but even after his death sentence, the U.S. is still there. Saddam might have been a terror, but a terror for who? The world? Never had it been proved that he actually had WMDs.

Now the U.S. is fighting against sectarianism in Iraq, but isn’t that an internal problem? It is something that the newly appointed Iraqi government should handle well. American controversial justification to enter Iraq was a global threat, and even though that takes process through the U.N. Security Council (nevertheless the U.S. went barging in), sectarianism is only a threat to each other. That’s a whole different situation. Again, since there is no more reason to justify its existence, U.S. troops should be pulled out of Iraq. Let Iraqis rebuild their country, something that will never happen if the U.S. is still there. Over 100.000 Iraqi casualties, and over 5.000 US soldiers dead, all for a vague reason. We simply don’t want to add to the list, because we’re paying to much, for a fruit we can never eat.

cheers,

SANI

The birth of political economy as a discipline

As a discipline, economy and politics are brought by it’s own disciple in separate way. Both of the subject grown with their own preposition and theories. We might say, economy politics science is a new discipline, or an old discipline. Since the era of Greek thoughts, many science master have learn about the relation between economy and politics. Both were related one to another, if politics taken as the struggle of someone to force something as they want it, then economy can be taken as a motif , why someone force something to another person. Therefore, as the red line, economy politics can be simply taken as an action of someone whose pursuing their interest by forcing another person to do as they told.

Well, it’s not that simple actually, the world have brought us many expert/masters in economy politics science. We know Aristotle, later in 18th century, we would also know Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes, J.S. Mill, Thomas Malthus, et cetera. They brought the world enlightenments era.

Knowledge grown as time passing by. Knowledge as a tree also grown their branch. We know an idiom, “You think, so you exist”. Experts from all over the worlds gain the pain that they had suffered. They think, then they build theories, other experts sometimes ‘help’ building it. Supporting their preposition, generalization, and theories. But, sometimes other experts also gone in opposite ways, they doubt the settled theories, proof it, and then a new theories born. It’s a natural way of life, also a natural way of building perceptions. When people agree with some theories, then they’ve build their own perspectives.

In economy politics, we know branch like, Liberal (classic), Socialism (Marxism), Neoclassic, Radicalism (Structuralism and Dependency), Institutionalism, Neoliberal, Keynesian, Globalism. Those branch of study were solid and valid as a theory. It has proven itself by case study, and generalizations. Those branch was build by those experts i have mentioned before. Todays writing wouldn’t explained them all. I’ll explain it one by one. Promise. I’ll update it, and keep this page as a sticky link.

best regards,

adityasani

p.s. : Thanks to Mr. Nur Rahmat Yuliantoro for correcting the title. 🙂

Welcome aboard!

Welcome to the analysis of economy politics blog. Here you can find anything related to the economy politics issues. We’re about to started, please be patient.

Best regards,

Admin

————————-

fyi — this blog have 4 contributors :

Adityasani (International Relations – Fisipol UGM),

Gde Wira Pradnya (International Relations – Fisipol UGM),

Joash Tapiheru (Political Science – Fisipol UGM),

M. Insan (International Relations – Fisipol UGM)