Having just discussed the Monroe Doctrine, I think you might appreciate this column from New York Times columnist Roger Cohen. He describes an unspoken "Doctrine of Silence" that the Obama administration is pursuing. Unlike the Bush Doctrine, which called for pre-emptive war against potential threats (the best example being the invasion of Iraq), he claims that Obama is fighting terrorism largely with quiet assassinations and covert operations in places like Iran. While Cohen thinks the policy is wise, he believes it raises real issues of legality and transparency in a democratic government. Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/opinion/cohen-doctrine-of-silence.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Please share your thoughts on the article and the doctrine in the comments section.
i think the doctrine of silence is good because it does not openly declare war and put all Americans endanger but instead gets the job down secretly. The counter point may be that these nations can just do it back to us but they do not have the technology that we have in order to do the things we are doing.
ReplyDeleteJohn Marchisello
The Doctrine Of Silence is good for two reasons. The first is that it is saving us money in a time where money is short with the Recession. It is also good because it eliminates the chances of letting a terrorist go. There is no fear that they may strike again, they will already be dead. The only negative is that other countries could involve themselves and regular citizens could be at risk
ReplyDeleteCody Mangano
I disagree with both Cody and John in their belief that the Doctrine of Silence is beneficial to American foregin policy. Sure, the Doctrine has been fairly successful and helps America accomplish their goal to end terrorism without spending trillions of dollars. But, the Doctrine gives Obama infinite power, even if he might be attempting to dispense justice, to attack any threatening figure towards American foreign policy and domestic interest. The Doctine expands American ability to meddle in the business of countries all around the world. The Doctine might ignite a greater reactionary response from a country, in which drones have illegally trespassed, than the goverment had intended, leading to possible war. Ironically, the very reason why the Doctrine was passed was to prevent war. Basically, there will be no need for country boundaries. Furthermore, with the Doctrine of Silence, there is no knowing how far the President will take his power, without any Americans from knowing the governing, stopping or protesting government action. The world is open to U.S black op missions. And as Cody said, other countries now have reason to retaliate.- Braham Berg
ReplyDeleteAlthough Barack Obama is constantly saying that war in the middle east is and was unnecessary (against Bush's decision for war, taking troops out of middle east), he goes against what he is saying by fighting in this silenced war. I believe that this silenced war is appropriate for the time being but too much of it can cause damage to many cities and towns located in Pakistan. Obama stresses peace but more and more drone attacks are really pissing the peaceful citizens of this country. This in turn can cause a hatred for America by the Pakistanis and could possibly threaten the innocent bystander in the city. The last thing we want is a declared war in the middle east where trillions of money would be spent. I agree with Brahams argument pertaining to the flaws of the drone related Obamas power surge, but you have to realize that Obama must finish the war started by Bush.
ReplyDelete-Jake DeFonzo
I disagree with Cody and John. The doctrine of silence simply points out America being the bully in the world or doing unnecessary things for what the government believes is justice. Obama might be saving the U.S money but what is the point if he's attacking locations that wasn't involved in 9/11? I think it's abuse of power on Obama's part. If a mojoritt of Americans knew this, the response wouldn't be positive. If there's an attack on the U.S it would almost be right to blame Obama. I liked the article. I found it funny how Cohen seems to emphasize the death of the American citizen as if that changes anything or that it is more significant than the "doctrine of silence.".
ReplyDeleteIssa Sylla
This Time article honors Admiral McRaven and gives insight into more of the United States' covert operations. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102133_2102330-1,00.html
ReplyDelete-Braham Berg