Author: Sara Hilbert

Representative Cliff Stearns, like so many Americans, has had enough. September 11 of this year, he was quick to express strong dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq, when he sponsored House Resolution 1431. “Expressing the sense of the House of Representative that the Department of Defense and the Department of State should withhold funds for any new reconstruction projects in Iraq until the Iraqi Government reimburses the United States for previous reconstruction projects, and for other purposes.”

As soon as I type, “withhold funds from Iraq” I feel military families tense up at the idea of leaving their men and women without gear. Then I hear the conservatives rant about American pride and support for our troops. Therefore, lets look at the facts:

Since 2003, the United States has approved huge budgets in Iraq. An estimated $21,000,000,000 spent in the first few years in Iraq, provided by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). In May of 2005, another fund created by the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), estimated spending $18,000,000,000. Again the importance of these cost: they were not for our military, but for Iraqi security forces and its’ citizens.

This is the same country that generated $96,000,000,000 in revenues from 2005 to 2007 – 94% of that amount coming from crude oil exports. The Government Accountability Office reports Iraq had a budget surplus of $29,000,000,000 from 2005 to 2007. Most recently, Congress has approved over $4,000,000,000 for Iraq reconstruction in the fiscal year 2008-2009.

What are the reasons we continue to write out checks at this magnitude when Iraq can clearly fund this project without assistance? I know it might be easy to forget this little economic obstacle in front of us, but that alone should make Iraq reconstruction spending a lesser priority for our checkbook.

Cliff Stearns calls for immediate action to be made regarding the situation. The Department of Defense should withhold funds for any new “reconstruction project” in Iraq, unless Iraq reimburses the US for previous projects or Iraq matches future assistance on a dollar-by-dollar basis. The accountability office also said “evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared y the Iraqi Finance Ministry- reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.”

If these were not reasons enough to stop funding, compare Iraq’s budget to its personal spending on reconstruction efforts. From 2005-2007, Iraq devoted only 1% of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions with James Glanz and Campbell Robertson, over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.

Enough is enough. Without evidence, solid facts, and convincing reports that make a reliable claim to continue funds to Iraq, enough is enough. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, and all other governmental agencies involved should withhold funds for any new mysterious “reconstruction project” to Iraq. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

I remember that day, the fateful day of September 11, 2001. It has become a day that no single American will ever forget. I was sitting, ironically, in a history class at the time, watching as history was being made right in front of my eyes on that television. There were feelings of outrage, disbelief, and even fear all across the nation. Suddenly, the security once felt had vanished within just a few hours.

History books will soon enough see the affects of such drastic acts.

Seven years have sped by since the attacks on the World Trade Center. Lives have changed. Times have changed. The United States is currently fighting two wars that seem to have no clear end in the near future. Security has tightened at the airports. Sometimes, it is almost worth driving now days to avoid the hassle of going through security. Although gas prices are lower than what the average American has become accustomed to, they still remain higher than what they were just a few years ago. Furthermore, the United States is currently navigating its way through a mortgage crisis paired with the financial crisis – both of which have made significant effects around the globe. Many people are altering the way they live (including myself) just to survive the high prices and live comfortably at the same time. The world certainly has become a different place.

Recently, General David Petraeus was promoted to the new Chief of the United State’s military’s Central Command, with the responsibility of overseeing the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. With this new title, General Petraeus made the important step of visiting Pakistan on Monday, November 3 – a nation extremely vital to coordinated efforts against terrorism. Shortly after his arrival, jihad militants carried out a rocket attack(s) on the airport in the city of Peshawar, which demonstrates a deterioration of security that needs to be addressed. General Petraeus met with several important officials during his visit, including Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhlar and army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Pakistani officials warned him on Monday that the numerous missile strikes the American military have made on militant targets in Pakistan is creating anti-American sentiment. As of August 2008, Washington is suspected in at least seventeen missile strikes to counter insurgents.

The situation in the Middle East is an ugly one. Will there ever be peace? The United States has become entangled in a web that it cannot seem to release itself from. Where do we go from now? This web is now being handed down to a new Presidential administration. One that many believe will bring about the change we are seeking and desperately need. The United States has made it a mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. However, we have also had our own faults.  Nevertheless, with this historical moment in time and as many across the world celebrate its significance, perhaps we can now truly exemplify the freedoms we have been trying to spread. Jimmy Carter said it best: “The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation”.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Regrettably America remains ignorant concerning international affairs. We are so focused on our American lives that sometimes we tend to forget about the increasingly globalized world. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always give us the full picture or even a much needed background of an issue we may all be unfamiliar with. Due to this, I wonder how many Americans actually know the details of the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Or, perhaps an even more compelling question, where in the world Georgia is even located? No, I am not speaking about that lovely state on the East Coast. Let’s broaden our horizons, shall we?

Georgia is a small nation in South Western Asia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia. One might say this small nation has been a thorn in Russia’s side. What has triggered the recent crisis? A series of clashes between Georgia and South Ossetia had prompted Georgian forces to react with force, launching attacks on August 7th. Georgia kept its grip on the capitol city of Tskhinvali for part of the next day. Russia reacted with bombing raids over the province and other targets throughout Georgia. It is unclear whether Russian forces entered before or after the attacks. On one hand, Georgia claims they attacked due to intelligence that a large procession of Russian amour was making its way to South Ossetia. Russia, on the other hand, maintains that they were only acting to defend Russian citizens in the area as well as Russian peacekeepers. Many civilians have escaped the South Ossetia area and traversed into the Russian Republic of North Ossetia. More than half or South Ossetia’s 70,000 citizens are said to have taken Moscow’s offer of Russian citizenship. Until recently, Russia said it appreciated Georgia’s territorial integrity. It was only looking out for Russian citizens. Putin announced it was unlikely for a South Ossetia-Georgia reunion.

The South Ossetia and Abkhazia areas both represent important territorial regions. In South Ossetia, there are crucial pipelines that carry oil and gas, while Abkhazia has some key tourist areas and important ports. South Ossetia fought for independence in 1991-92. It usually runs its own affairs. On August, 26, 2008, the Russian president announced it recognized S. Ossetia’s independence. The Ossetians are a distinct ethnic group, initially from the Russian plains south of the Don River. In the 13th century, they were forced southwards by Mongol incursions into the Caucus Mountains, settling along the Georgian border. The South Ossetians would love to reunite with their counterparts in North Ossetia. Georgia rejects the notion.

In recent years, Georgia has become a close ally to the United States. In recent years Georgian troops have worked closely with American troops in Iraq. The U.S, in turn, has helped train and arm the Georgian Army. Furthermore, the United States support Georgia’s goal of becoming a member of NATO. Recently, a resolution by the U.S Congress has been introduced concerning Georgian membership. H.CON.RES.409 supports awarding membership to Georgia and Ukraine in the December 2008 meeting. Congress believes that the expansion of NATO will bring more effectiveness. Also, Congress recently introduced the bill, H.R. 6851, which would provide assistance to Georgia with recovery. Both the United States and Europe have condemned the move for independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to NATO, the Russian declaration violated numerous U.N Security Council resolutions that Russia had initially supported.

The fight for independence and the widespread recognition of that independence is no stranger to America. As I am not an authority on the subject, I cannot say that the events in Georgia were right or wrong. Nevertheless, I will leave you with some food for thought. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .” (Declaration of Independence, 1776).