Volume VII Issue I by JHU Politik

September 19, 2011 Volume VII, Issue I

JHU POLITIK

American Jobs Act

Sets Stage for Fiscal Action

Issue VII INTERNATIONAL WAR IN AFRICA—UNITED STATES’ INVOLVEMENT IN LIBYA by Mike Bodner, ‘14 - Page 3 INDIAN ACTIVISTS’ FIGHT TO END CORRUPTION by Sindhusha Ravi, ‘13 - Page 4

opinion CHANGE WE’RE STILL WAITING FOR by Eric Feinberg ‘12 - Page 5 Does bachmann stand a chance? Vice President Joe Biden (left) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (right) overlook President Obama’s speech urging Congress to pass the American Jobs Act.

by Colette Andrei, ’14 Staff Writer

This past Monday, President Obama went before a joint session of Congress to urge lawmakers to put aside partisanship and pass the American Jobs Act: a $447 billion plan designed to create jobs as the nation struggles with persistent high unemployment. While Obama repeated the refrain “pass this bill” throughout his speech, the fate of the legislation may fall more along the lines of “pass some of this bill at some time…maybe.” Many of the President’s proposals are unlikely to pass Congress, but some parts of the president’s proposal, such as payroll tax cuts for individuals and small businesses, stand a better chance of securing bipartisan support. The American Jobs Act represents an effort by the Obama administration to support the struggling economy. The plan would go a

long way in stabilizing confidence, forestalling another recession, and jump-starting self-sustaining economic expansion. About $250 billion of the plan would go to tax cuts and about $200 billion to spending increases. To put it in context, the bill equals approximately 3% of the current gross domestic product (GDP) and just over half of the $825 billion final price tag for the 2009 Economic Stimulus Plan. However, the plan has the potential to add 1.25 percentage points to GDP growth next year and add 1.3 million jobs to the fragile American job market. The plan includes a wide range of temporary tax cuts and spending increases, including one-year extensions of this year’s employee payroll tax holiday, full expensing of business investment, and increases in the size of the temporary payroll tax cut

by Robert D’Annibale, ‘15 - Page 6 FOREIGN POLICY FOR FREEDOM: LESSONS OF THE LAST TEN YEARS by Ari Schaffer, ‘14 - Page 7

johns hopkinS’ OnlyWeeklyPublished Political Magazine

for employers and small businesses. Employers and small businesses would, however, get a tax holiday for hiring new workers. The plan helps state and local governments pay teacher and first-responder salaries, and boosts funding for unemployment insurance while reforming the system overall. The plan also provides $140 billion for modernizing schools and repairing roads and bridges, spending that Obama says is imperative for maintaining competitiveness on the world stage. Consumer confidence in the na(continued on Page 2) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

September 19, 2011 Volume VII, Issue I

THE POLITIK

NATIONAL/international REPORT (Continued from page 2)

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Hannah Holliday

Will Denton

Layout Editor

Assistant editors

Ana Giraldo-Wingler

Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro

Staff writers

Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Rachel Cohen Cary Glynn Ben Goldberg Eric Feinberg Daniel Roettger Ari Schaffer Hilary Matfess Briana Last

Managing Editor

Alex Clearfield production manager

Neil O’Donnell faculty advisor

Steven R. David

JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are solely those of the author.

NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) tion continues to be very low as a reflection of continuing unemployment, mounting foreclosures, high inventories of unsold commercial and residential real estate, and deepening government deficits. Businesses and consumers remain shaken by the financial crisis and long economic slump, and are awaiting clear signs of an economic recovery before they begin to spend at a healthy pace again. Whether the current confidence crisis will cause the economy to fall into a double-dip recession depends on how policymakers respond. The Federal Reserve has continued its monetary easing policy, but with interest rates close to zero, monetary policy alone may not be enough to stabilize the economy and improve confidence; quick and decisive fiscal action from Washington is needed. Recently, Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke addressed lawmakers and explained that Congress and the Obama administration need to not only follow through on plans for long-term debt reduction, but also provide additional short-term support for the economy. Despite Obama’s call for bipartisanship, it is unlikely that all parts of the bill will pass Congress, as Republicans immediately took aim at the proposal to pay for the plan through tax increases on more affluent Americans, many of which were previously rejected by lawmakers. White House officials nonetheless appear hopeful that the pro-

posal will pass Congress. Some officials have stated that they have heard conciliatory messages from lawmakers in response to voters’ cries that they were unhappy with the political brinkmanship that characterized the recent negotiations over the debt ceiling. However, Congressional Republicans were quick to voice their displeasure with the plan. Virginia Republican and House majority leader Eric Cantor stated that he was open to President Obama’s proposals, but made it clear that if the plan is to be financed mainly through tax increases, Republicans will not go along. Congressional Republicans are now saying that Obama is being too inflexible and they will instead pick pieces of legislation to pass through their committees and put to separate votes. The parts of the proposal that seem most likely to win Republican support and pass Congress are the extension and expansion of payroll tax cuts for individuals and small businesses, while President Obama’s spending initiatives seem less likely to pass. Currently, Americans appear skeptical of big legislation, so breaking the bill into several smaller initiatives could increase support. Voters also believe that the GOP is too concerned with the budget, an economic matter they consider of lower priority. A combination of Republicans put off by tax increases and Democrats caught in reelection struggles (Continued on page 3)

www.JHUPOLITIK.org

may keep the plan from getting through congressional obstacles. Despite differing opinions from both parties, lawmakers recognize the need for quick and decisive fiscal action to support the struggling economy and work to prevent a fall back into recession. Unemployment and the economy will no doubt define the upcoming presidential election and shape the political landscape as they have since the economic crash of 2008. While members on both sides of the aisle work to provide legislative solutions to these problems, the American people continue to struggle and await such answers. s

The War in Africa—United States’ Involvement in Libya by Mike Bodner ’14 Contributing Writer

s night fell over Libya on March 19th, 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles soared over the Libyan boarder and slammed into Libyan air-defense targets. The United States military intervention in Libya had begun. What started as civil protests against longtime dictator Muammar Gadaffi had escalated within a month to a civil war involving the premier militaries of NATO and the Middle East. What drove the United States to attack and what actions has the United States taken during the intervention remain a mystery. On February 15th, peaceful protests started in Benghazi. These protests set off a chain of harsh responses followed by more protests that quickly spiraled into a full-scale civil war. Libyan authorities quickly lost control of Benghazi, the second-largest city in Libya and what would become the capital of the rebellion. As Gadaffi saw his 32-year hold on Libya slip, he resorted to more drastic methods of repression against the protesters. Beatings became shootings, and shootings became airstrikes. Still, Gadaffi insisted that he had not ordered his armies and security officers to use force. He warned his nation on February 22nd that should he actually decide to use force, “everything will burn”. On the 27th, anti-Gadaffi protesters organized under the Transitional

National Council: the protests had become a rebellion. Loyalist forces quickly moved to crush the rebellion. Intense battles were fought to dislodge the rebels from Brega and Adjabiya. Gadaffi’s tanks moved into Benghazi as his aircraft pounded the city from above, shooting indiscriminately at rebels and civilians alike. As these battles raged, US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice pushed for the UN to approve a no-fly zone over Libya. On the 17th of March, the UN Security Council voted to create the requested no-fly zone. Two days later, they began a missile assault to enforce it. In a change to previous UN military doctrine, the United States did not lead the attack on Gadaffi’s forces. It was French forces, backed by Nicolas Sarkozy’s promise to “oppose any aggression by Colonel Gadaffi against the population of Benghazi” which led the bombing raids. That is not to say the U.S. did not use significant force in the attack. Cruise missles burst forth from beneath the ocean, while B-2 stealth bombers pounded Libyan targets. Within days, NATO forces had relieved much of the pressure pushing down on Benghazi, allowing the rebels to go on the offensive. On March 31st, NATO officially took command of air operations over Europe, relieving U.S. Africa Command. While the sorties flown by the United States and NATO were a smashing success, there were certainly critics of the operation. Congressmen within President Obama’s own party thought the attacks on Libya were made without the required Congressional approval. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) condemned Obama’s attack order as “a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone”. He questioned whether the order wasn’t an impeachable offense. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the most senior Republican in the Senate, attacked the cost of the campaign. “We cannot afford more wars now,” the Foreign Relations Committee member said. Obama defended his decision, saying that a failure to act in Libya would have been “a betrayal of who we are”. Political critics have been confused as to whom exactly the U.S. is supporting. The rebels are split into multiple factions and ideologies, and fears are abundant that the United States may be deposing a dictator and installing anarchy. Rebel commander Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted that around 25 of his fighters had fought the “foreign invasion” in Afghanistan. The rebel’s top military commander, Abdul Fattah Younis, was killed by other rebel troops for crimes he supposedly committed (Continued on page 4)

www.JHUPOLITIK.org

September 19, 2011 Volume VII, Issue I

International REPORT

International REPORT/OPINION

(Continued from page 3) while serving under Gadaffi. This, along with allegations of massacres of black Africans by rebels and reprisals against Gadaffi supporters, have led many to think that the United States may be taking down one evil and replacing it with another. One need only look to the chaos present in Egypt to see what happens when a dictator is deposed with no strong ruler to take his place and unify the country. Now, thanks to NATO support, the rebels have captured Tripoli and are currently on the hunt for Gadaffi. They are currently attacking Bani Walid and Sirte, two of the last remaining Gadaffi strongholds. It is unclear whether Gadaffi is hiding in either city. Just this week, Nikolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Libya to show their support for the rebels. Will Obama be next? Next week, the President plans to meet with transitional council head Mustafa Abdel Jalil to discuss transition of power plans. The NTC is now the official head of Libya, and as such they have been granted access to frozen Libyan funds and Libya’s UN General Assembly seat. While NATO may have saved the rebellion, it remains to be seen whether the new Libya will emerge as a pro-West liberal democracy, a new dictatorship, or worst of all, a failed state like Somalia. s

Indian Activists’ Fight to End Corruption by Sindhusha Ravi, ’13 Contributing Writer

2003, Hazare fasted for four days and inspired the NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) to investigate four state officials. This four-day fast drew in tons of supporters for Anna and forced the state government to recognize him as a powerful leader of change. On April 11th of this year, the 74 year-old Hazare launched yet another hunger strike in New Delhi, India; this time, he aimed at corruption on the national level. Hours after Hazare started the hunger fast, he was arrested by Delhi Police for the “breach of peace and tranquility of an area” to “prevent the commission of cognizable offences,” this according to the Criminal Procedure Code. His arrest, directly preceding another one of his planned hunger strikes, set off nationwide protests and a plethora of support by admirers conducting candle-light vigils and street protests. Due to the intense amount of public pressure, an order was sent for Anna Hazare to be released only a short time after he was arrested in the government’s hope that they could encourage him to abandon his protest and form a committee with him and his staff to draft a bill. However, Hazare and his staff implied that the current anti-corruption bill (known as Lokpal) was too weak and vowed to start another hunger strike. The Lokpal Bill tries government officials for corruption, but does not deal with investigation into corrupt Supreme Court and other high court judges. By conducting these recent hunger strikes, Anna Hazare tried to tap into the national system in order to reduce corruption at this large-scale level. He and his staff chastised the government for issuing the Lokpal Bill and for remaining weak in anti-corruption efforts. Intially, Anna Hazare and “Team Anna” (his support staff ) threatened to hold hunger strikes and stir unrest unless

the government strengthened this bill. In response, both parties came together to draft a new version of the Lokpal Bill, known as the Jan Lokpal Bill, which calls for the setup of an independent body that would investigate cases of corruption fully in one year and then try the case the subsequent year. The bill also allows an independent body (known as Jan Lokpal) to persecute government officials without government permission, including the Prime Minister. Hazare’s hope was that the bill would uplift the common man by imposing a monetary penalty on government officers that did not respond to effectively fulfilling proposed complaints. Instead, the Indian government came up with the Jan Lokpal Bill, which Hazare and Team Anna refer to as the “Joke Pal Bill.” Hazare responded by waging another hunger strike for twelve days, refusing to stop it until Parliament adopted his version of the bill. Finally, after twelve days on August 28th, Parliament accepted some of his demands and Hazare ended his hunger strike. Thousands of supporters came out to celebrate Hazare’s victory as Parliament government officials were finishing their speeches. There are numerous steps Parliament has yet to take before implementing this final version of the law, but Hazare’s hunger protests have served to symbolize India’s platform for anticorruption and empower a nation struggling to overcome its government’s misdeeds. s

Still Waiting for Change

ccording to the conventional wisdom of the Western world, democracy is the accepted political structure of a country. However, India’s history of bribes and abuse of government-issued funds leaves many of its poorer citizens behind and blurs the line between democracy in name and democracy in practice. It is common Indian wisdom, for example, that government officials use funds for their own purposes, such as building a complex with seven movie theaters. Solutions for population problems like access to adequate health care for the poor are often not fully implemented and despite its significant economic growth, India’s rural areas are characterized by poverty. Inspired by this rampant corruption, social activist Anna Hazare is taking steps to change the system. In

(Continued from page 4)

by Eric Feinberg, ’12 Staff Writer

Two young supporters feed Anna Hazare coconut water and honey at the end of his two-week-long hunger strike to protest Indian government corruption.

(Continued on page 5) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

s the 2012 presidential race has heated up, it has been no surprise how fiery the rhetoric from the right has been. A couple years ago, Tea Partiers denouncing President Barack Obama as a treasonous socialist might have made the evening news, but by 2011 they have grown routine and unremarkable. What has been less expected is a growing wave of disillusionment among those on the left who only a few short years ago, delirious after eight years of George W. Bush, saw Obama as nothing less than America’s political messiah. These expectations have come crashing back down to earth, presenting perhaps the most dangerous obstacle to the president’s

reelection campaign. The crash of confidence began almost immediately with Obama’s stimulus package, which, though seemingly enormous at $787 billion, was actually far smaller than many economists thought necessary to get the economy growing again. It also came loaded with non-stimulative tax cuts—the single largest component of the package— designed to placate the right. Predictably, it mollified precisely none of them, and has been spun ever since as the last nail in Lord Keynes’ coffin. All of this came much to the chagrin of liberals who think we could use, if anything, even more stimulus. Then came the year-long healthcare battle in which the left’s dreams of a single-payer system were quelled almost immediately, condemned as unrealistic and replaced with a more benign sounding public option, which the left then rallied around after a sigh. But then, after having Hitler mustaches sketched on his face and after being accused of plotting death panels to exterminate the elderly, the president retreated on the public option as well. By the time “Obamacare” became law, any celebration on the left was emasculated by emerging thoughts of what might have been had a stronger president held the reigns. This pattern continued to play out with financial reforms. It had appeared that after the crash of 2008, any credibility Wall Street may have still had with Main Street was effectively down the toilet. Yet by the time a bill finally passed under the title Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Washington lobbying machine had watered down many of the common-sense reforms that economists had hoped for. As Nobel Laureate and Columbia economics professor Joseph Stiglitz put it, “we could have avoided this [crisis] but the bankers didn’t want it, and unfortunately the Obama administration gave in to the bankers.” Score another against the left. Perhaps Obama’s worst betrayal from their perspective was the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The administration claimed it was necessary to extend unemployment benefits, but more the more jaded of the progressives feared that a kind of “Obama Doctrine” of politics was beginning to emerge: instead of ever being so bold as to ever fully adopt the left’s positions, the president preferred to preempt the opposition by making big concessions before even sitting down at (Continued on page 6)

www.JHUPOLITIK.org

September 19, 2011 Volume VII, Issue I

opinion

(Continued from page 5)

the table, in an effort to appear reasonable. The problem was the Republicans would simply accept his gift and then come back with the same demands, giving no extra credit for Obama’s bipartisan efforts. The pattern continued with the debt ceiling negotiations, and appears likely to continue with Obama’s new proposal, the American Jobs Act. Though the president has amped up his rhetoric with repeated demands for Congress to “pass this bill now,” the Republican Congress has been little deterred, having won so many political battles already. The pledge to bring a swift end to the War on Terror —which arguably enabled Obama to triumph over Hillary Clinton in the primary—somehow morphed into a military escalation, and little has been done nationally in terms of global warming other than a word or two about green jobs periodically dropped into a speech. Considering all of these grievances, it will be interesting to see how the president goes about winning back his base – which he will need to do if he wants to win in 2012. Looking back, it’s hard to imagine how the president who ordered a bullet into Osama bin Laden’s head and had his body cast into the ocean depths is now, only months later, struggling to retain his office. But with an approval rating hovering below 40%, this campaign is looking more like an uphill battle for our commanderin-chief every day. s

the question is, will Perry’s entry into the race cut into her? But she’s got a lot of support, a lot of enthusiasm. People are excited about her message.” The first primary election is set for February 6th, 2012 in Iowa and with time ticking down, Bachmann has slipped in the polls. In the latest Bloomberg News National Poll, the representative placed third with about eight percent of the vote, falling behind Perry (26%) and Romney (22%). Does Michele Bachmann still have a chance to defeat the two governors and win the nomination? It’s going to take a little more than some faith and a prayer for her to pull this off, but she is definitely not out of it. In the most recent debates, the Congresswoman has proven herself time and time again. Her criticisms of President Obama, her core conservative beliefs, and her attacks on the Republican frontrunners have drawn much applause from the audiences. “Rick Perry’s got executive experience and will dim Bachmann’s star a bit, but she will remain in the race,” Steven Clemons, Washington editor of The Atlantic, stated. “She will put up a show.” This past Monday night, Wolf Blitzer hosted the CNN/Tea Party Republican Debate, in which all of the candidates discussed current controversial issues. The debate grew intense as Governor Perry felt the heat coming from all different directions. He was attacked on job creation by Governor Romney, on taxes by Congressman Ron Paul, and on his 2007 mandate that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus by Representative Bachmann. When questioned about his mandate, Perry replied, “If I had to do it over again, I would have done it differently.” However, his response proved not to be enough for Bachmann. She addressed the audience and stated, “I’m a mom of three children and to have innocent little twelve year old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong.” The crowd cheered for the congresswoman as this was her moment to shine. She continued her attack by stating that the drug company that produced the vaccine had donated five thousand dollars to Rick Perry’s campaign. His response? “If you’re saying that I can be bought for five thousand dollars, I’m offended.” The crowd had a light applause, anticipating Bachmann’s response. She did not hold back. “I’m offended for all of those little girls and the parents who didn’t have a choice. That’s what I’m offended for,” she fired back as the crowd grew wild with applause. Bachmann’s performance at the debate confirmed

Does Bachmann Stand A Chance? by Robert D’Annibale ’15 Contributing Writer

It has been almost three and a half years since President Obama took office and the United States is in critical condition. The rising unemployment rate, the raising of the debt ceiling, and the lowering of the U.S. credit rating are just some of the consequences with which the United States has been faced. As the 2012 election inches closer, the Republicans and Tea Party activists gear up for a crucial election. Currently, the GOP has eight candidates lined up, ranging from the libertarian Ron Paul to businessman Herman Cain. Despite the large number of candidates, the race has turned into a two-man race between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and current

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R—MN), one of the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination.

Texas Governor Rick Perry. However, there’s one candidate who has stirred up some excitement. Her name? Not Sarah Palin, but Michele Bachmann: a Republican representative from her childhood state of Minnesota determined to win the Republican nomination. If elected president, she promises to repeal many of President Obama’s acts, most notably Obamacare. She is the first Republican woman to represent Minnesota in Congress and is also an early supporter of the Tea Party Caucus. Despite her astonishing achievements, she has become the talk of the town with her bizarre and comical statements. In January of 2005, she was quoted as saying, “If we took away the minimum wage – if conceivably it was gone – we could potentially wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.” Although this is a creative solution to our 9.1% unemployment rate, it is quite unfathomable and insubstantial. I’m sorry, Mrs. Bachmann—nice try. After declaring her candidacy on June 27th, 2011 in Waterloo, Iowa, her campaign seemed to spark a fire within the GOP. Raising nearly 6 million dollars in a matter of months and receiving over 400,000 “likes” on her Facebook page, she proved to be a valid candidate. On August 13th of this year, Michele Bachmann became the first woman ever to win the Iowa Straw Poll. Although this doesn’t count towards the primary election, it exemplified her strength and legitimacy as a candidate. However, on the same day of the Iowa Straw Poll, Governor Rick Perry of Texas announced that he would be running for the Republican nomination. When confronted about the issue, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R) replied, “Bachmann got off to a really strong start here. And now

Foreign Policy for Freedom: Lessons of the Last Ten Years by Ari Schaffer, ’14 Staff Writer

Source: US Airforce

he decade since the September 11th attacks has been an important one for foreign policy. America has fought two wars following a radical change in the American outlook on foreign policy. Yet, these wars (Continued on page 8)

(Continued on page 7) www.JHUPOLITIK.org

that she is in it to win it. She appealed to the Tea Party activists on issues they generally care about – limiting the federal government, cutting down big businesses, and restricting illegal immigration. Even though Romney has had experience in the private sector and Perry has had “hands-on” experience with border patrol, Bachmann was able to break out from the shadows of the governors and draw much support for her plans on both topics. If she continues to perform at this caliber in upcoming debates and Governor Perry remains at the center of her attacks, she might have a chance to turn this thing around. In order to do so, she must remain focused on fixing the problems America currently faces. While attacking Governor Perry on his mandate and attacking Governor Romney on his Massachusetts healthcare plan are valid points, Bachmann should focus on discussing ways to solve the economic crisis and put America back on top. Despite losing her campaign manager, she has exceeded many expectations and continues her trail to become the next president of the United States of America. So, should Perry and Romney fear a Bachmann triumph? Slow your rolls, governors—Michele Bachmann’s in town. s

www.JHUPOLITIK.org

September 19, 2011 Volume VII, Issue I

opinion (Continued from page 7) have incurred massive costs and a concurrent worldwide recession has prompted policy officials in our government to reevaluate our role in the world. However, a decision to relinquish our role as a “beacon on top of the hill” and the premier scion of democracy in the world, will prove costly. The last ten years have certainly been turbulent. My generation will always view international politics through the lens of the September 11th attacks. Horror stories of prolonged international conflicts and rogue states inching closer to gaining access to a nuclear arsenal arsenal will forever haunt our perspective. Nonetheless, debt reduction in the near future will almost certainly be followed by calls for defense budget reduction. All of these factors come together to make the perfect recipe for isolationism. It is not, however, the time to give into isolationism or succumb to international pressure to step back from our unwavering support for democracy. The last decade of terror, war, and political missteps has had a thick silver lining. After decades of waiting, the peoples of the Middle East have finally answered the clarion call of democracy and stood up to their government oppressors. They have demanded the rights due to them: the liberties that belong to every person, but which have been withheld for so long. Despite pessimistic predictions in the days immediately following the September 11th attacks, there have been no major attacks on the US since. Many attempts have been foiled by both government intelligence and civilian action. Osama bin Laden, the veritable boogeyman of our adolescence, has been removed once and for all. Al Qaeda is on its last legs of retreat, cracking under the pressure of the ten-year-long hunt. The flag of perpetual peace and universal freedom has come a long way. Sadly, there is a movement in America to withdraw from the international sphere despite these many gains. Entirely justified, they claim that the costs, both monetary and political, are too great to be worth the while. America would be better off taking care of itself for a while and leave the other countries of the world to solve their problems on their own. It is not America’s responsibility, many argue, to “police” the world. It is not America’s job, they say, to look out for anyone’s interests but its own. Anyone who has studied the history of Japan or China knows that isolation causes more problems than it

solves. It provokes conflict rather than avoids it. Even the British isolation was rudely ended to a burgeoning alliance system and the first steps of World War One. American isolationism following World War One and the Great Depression allowed appeasement and the enabling of Hitler’s Nazi regime. As the most powerful nation in the world, and the most powerful in history, America’s decision to step out of a position of leadership could give rise to another aggressive challenger. That is the last thing anyone wants. Finally, if there is any lesson to be learned from the September 11th atrocities, it is that Americans, or any supporters of Democracy, individual rights, or freedom, for that matter, will never be truly safe as long as there exist those who ideologically oppose these rights. In his “Letter to the Americans,” bin Laden condemned Americans for the very ideals upon which this country was founded; the very same rights for which we have been fighting for the past ten years and people in the Middle East have finally begun to reclaim. How would it look if, in the face of these ideological challenges and with so much opportunity just over the horizon, America were to lay down its flag with the whole world watching? After ten years of struggle for the very ideals we live and breathe for, “hope” should not be all the oppressed of the world have to hang their hats on. They need to know that there is one nation at least who will stand up for their rights. They need to know that there is one country that will help them even when their own governments refuse. Everyone knows that for true hope to endure in the world there must be someone willing to defend it. Let that be America, now and forever. s