The Joint Strike Fighter Program was designed to field a universal fighter jet for the needs of not only the Marines, Air Force, and Navy of the United States of America, but also numerous other allied nations. The programs scope is so massive, in fact, that it has become the single most expensive weapons program in human history. By the year 2070 $1.508 Trillion dollars contributed by 12 participating nations, the largest of which being the United States. Other than being the largest multinational weapons development program ever, the program has also become a source of domestic and global debate because both its cost and early malfunctions. Most recently the crash of a Japanese F-35 on April 9th 2019 has led to increased speculation by citizens of all participating nations. Moreover, the risk that this fighter is not adequate to fight efficiently also poses a potential foreign policy issue.

The F-35 program saw its start in 1997 when the United States sought a replacement a single aircraft for A-10, F-16, F-18, and AV-8B. This tall order required many boxes to be checked all by one aircraft. These strict requirements included variants of a single base aircraft that could replace the Air to air attack capabilities of the F-16, the Air to ground attack capabilities of the A-10, the F-18’s ability to land on an aircraft carrier, and the ability to hover and land on marine vessels like the AV-8B. The extremely difficult nature of all these requirements represented a colossal engineering task for American contractors. One contractor built a jet that could do it all. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 revolved around a never before tested shaft-driven engine and this key attribute would be the source of its glory and downfall.

Very soon into the process of developing the F-35 the complexity of the engineering plagued it. The arduous process of testing new parts and ironing out kinks in the aircraft’s system not only lengthened the duration of the program’s development, but it also made it increasingly more expensive. Increased expenses and deadline extensions only made the program less desirable in the eyes of governments, but also the taxpayers footing the bill for a truly massive military development project. However, true to the United States’ developmental philosophy money was allocated over and over until the F-35 was in a state in which it could be deployed to the various buying nations around the world, but also the United States military. This process of producing and finally delivering the highly anticipated aircraft began in 2011. Since being delivered to various military branches and worldwide military powers around the world, the F-35 has continued to be in testing by the United States, to iron out the problems of its slow roll out. All this process has continually cost even more money. On top of this, the plane has also suffered a few different crash incidents. The most crash recent happening this year has reignited the discussion over whether this immensely expensive weapons system is worth it. While critics world wide have used the statistics of part failures and increasing expenditures to prove that the weapon is not worth it, the opposing side has raised various counter points.

The main argument behind the F-35 program being worth the money is that while the program is expensive, it is distributed among many countries so that the individual unit cost is roughly $90 million per plane. While this sounds incredibly expensive, in the world of fighter jets this is relatively cheap in comparison to other platforms that cost hundreds of millions of dollars per plane. Additionally, pilots and the air forces of the United States and other countries have continually advocated for the aircraft because of its vastly superior combat ability in comparison to rival nations. Currently the F-35 and F-22 (another aircraft operated by the United States) are the only operational 5th generation fighter aircraft which means that the F-35 is the only globally available plane that can go supersonic without afterburners while also possessing stealth technology and advanced avionic systems/computers. Thus, the extreme price of the aircraft is put into some context when compared to what rival nations are fielding.

While many argue that this foreign policy price is much too high, others still argue that the quickest and most effective way to achieve peace is to make the price of war too high for our rivals. The F-35 program was designed to do this in essence. Whether or not it will be able to achieve its goal in spite of a decade of developmental remains to be seen. What is for certain is that the United States is committed to the program for better or worse. Events such as those that took place this week may shake the resolve of the public and partnering nations, but the U.S. government will continue to be an advocate for the product it sells.

For decades Taiwan has existed in limbo as a state whose existence is fiercely debated among the world. However, this debate is not a new one as the country of Taiwan has been under siege since its creation. In fact, the nation stands as the last piece of a free and capitalist China that revolutionary leader Mao Zedong fought to destroy completely. During the 1949 resumption of the Chinese civil war, the Nationalist government lost 4 different capital cities and was forced to retreat completely from the mainland of China. Their chosen destination was Taiwan. While this nation cried for help from the outside world community its pleas were hard to answer because of the unique circumstances with China actively seeking to control Taiwan. The United States originally abandoned the Nationalist government of Taiwan assuming it would fall to the communists, but the governments longevity later prompted loose relations.  Although relations exist between Taiwan and the outside world, the majority of nations refuse to formally have diplomacy with Taiwan. To this day, this dicey status exists as Taiwan remains an economic powerhouse with a tense relationship with China.

While this longstanding status quo has been upheld with periods of varying heat levels within the relationship between China and Taiwan, the reality of the current relationship is heavily influenced by the broader geopolitical climate. The United States plays a key role in this relationship as a trade adversary and military rival of the Chinese. In recent days, this tension has been personified by the freedom of navigation missions the U.S. navy has been partaking in. Similar to missions in the South East China Sea, the operations in the Taiwanese straight are designed to test China as well as advocate for the sovereignty of Taiwan. However, while accomplishing these intended goals, the missions also put American warships into potential hostile situations and the risk for war is intensified. These actions by the United States military have also been countered by the Chinese in the form of Chinese J-11 fighter jets encroaching upon the negotiated territory of Taiwan. Even as the Chinese make aggressive moves such as these, however, they also claim that Taiwan is not worth military confrontation. State media was quoted saying; “Taiwan is not worth targeting anymore. All of our military strength is used to tell the U.S. to stop where it should stop… The island of Taiwan causes trouble because the U.S. supports it. When the U.S. calms down, it will calm down.”

Similar to the issues involved in the South China Sea, the United States has a clear choice of whether or not to press on and continue. The interventionist politicians within the United States will continue to fiercely advocate that the actions of the United States are only seen as inflammatory because they are being opposed by China. This approach does have validity as the actions of the United States are, in fact legal by the international laws governing the open seas of the world. Taiwan, on the other hand, will take any allies that it can get in order to bolster its independence agenda. China is opposed to this agenda as they see themselves as the true owners of the island. Additionally, the success of Taiwan makes capitalism seem to be a shining example of the opposition ideology for the communist party in Beijing. Thus, the communists would enjoy finishing what they started under their dear leader Mao Zedong and to conquer Taiwan to finally snuff out the last flame of opposition in the region.

Despite these very real consequences for the pulling out of American naval vessels, the argument does exist that the United States should be more concerned with its own affairs and not be meddling in those of other nations. Nonetheless, these practices have been carried out by presidents from both the right leaning republican party and the left leaning democratic party. This practice has not only been commonplace, it has become expected of the United States leaders. Changing this practice now may be increasingly popular, however, it is potentially unlikely to ever come to fruition because of the investment that already exists. This fact will not stop more extreme entities on both sides of the aisle to advocate for change. Those on the right leaning side want a  more “America First” policy that encourages focus on American issues. Those on the democratic side would agree with this sentiment, but would allocate funds much differently.

Whatever the future holds, the fate of Taiwan and peace in the surrounding region is at stake. Similarly to the South China Sea incidents, the United States and China are pitted against each other in a potentially hazardous staring contest. The world can stand and watch, but those within government of the United States are encouraging policy to remedy the situation. The end results of these policy debates will be critical in the future of not only Taiwan, but also the United States.

After 2 years of waiting, $25 million dollars of tax money spent, and party lines made deeper, the Mueller Report has been released stating “No Collusion” between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. While the dust is just now only beginning to settle from this colossal bomb-shell, the American people are rightly shaken by accusations of collusion, election interference, and the integrity of American democracy. Whether or not Trump sought collusion with the Russians, Americans rightly deserve to be worried that Russia even sought to interfere with our most sacred institution in America. While we as a people are united against the common threat against our great Democracy, we stand divided on party lines on what the real source of the problem is and how to solve it.

Whether or not collusion was found between Trump and the Russians, it is undeniable that the Russian government attempted to influence the American election in favor of Donald Trump in 2016. The Russian government may very well have sought to contact Trump and attempt to aid him, however, the special counsel has said there is no evidence that Trump ever colluded with the Russian government. Despite this, there is evidence that the Russians did in fact succeed in influencing the election in other ways.  In fact, last year thirteen Russians were indicted with interfering in the 2016 election. Among their charges were posing as Americans, funding political ad-campaigns, organizing and funding political rally’s,  created fake accounts on social media, created social media accounts promoting certain political stances, and other activities. These activities stated were direct efforts by the Russian government to manipulate American democracy. Thus, the American democratic process was indeed under attack, however, how the people of America choose to interpret this information and act upon it is very much debated.

Many on the democratic side of the aisle have spent the better part of the past two years accusing Trump of collusion with Russia and while this accusation has been shown to false, their stance against Trump’s relationship with Russia is still hostile. This meaning, most democrats in Congress and within the DNC have came out saying they either still believe Trump colluded with Russia or that he knowingly benefited from the Russian aid. In fact, many voters that support the democrats still believe that Trump colluded with Russia. According to Reuters this number is at or around 50% of all American. Thus, the problem over dealing with Russian interference is framed. Republicans do not believe Trump colluded for the most part. Both sides may agree that Russian interference happened, but democrats always put Trump in the same picture as Russian interference. In the future this will continue to be an issue and will surely influence the election in 2020. It is undeniable that the Russians have permanently shaped American politics with their actions, but how we as Americans choose to act against this information war the Russians are waging is very important.

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Anatoly Maltsev/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock (9762785o)
Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin
Russia US Summit in Helsinki, Finland – 16 Jul 2018
US President Donald J. Trump (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shake hands during a joint press conference in the Hall of State at Presidential Palace following their summit talks, in Helsinki, Finland, 16 July 2018.

Bipartisan support of strengthening our country against future leaks and breaches by Russians is an important step in this process of ensuring the integrity of American democracy. Nonetheless, it would most likely be more beneficial for a united stance against Russia rather than the divided stance currently. What Russia means to Democrats and Republicans is a sticking point because of 2016, but getting past this troubled past and pushing forward to establish a fair election system now and for the future is a problem for this generation of political leaders to solve.

According the White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee, the government is taking a holistic approach to stopping further election interference in 2020, but concrete details have yet to be announced. In congress, $380 million dollars was put forth to help with modernizing America’s election system and to incorporate cyber-security. Despite this, the issue of Russian meddling on the internet and through information remains a difficult problem to solve for legislators.  While Russia was the perpetrator in 2016, the 2020 election could be the battlefield for other nations to also attempt to influence elections. Many nations have seen the results of Russia’s interference and believe in the possibility of successful meddling. Thus, it is more important than ever that the United States of America remain vigilant in the face of a daunting new enemy. While it is an enemy cloaked in the ambiguity of the internet, it is an enemy nonetheless. While blame for the problems of the 2016 election can be passed between party lines, it is important to mesh these lines in an attempt to protect the constitution of the United States by ensuring that each citizen has the right to vote and the right to vote without interference.

How America chooses to response to the crisis that has presented itself the last couple of weeks will be a defining factor of American democracy in this country. History will remember how the leaders of today act.

Israel was a nation born out of the turmoil of the second world war. Following the fall of the Axis powers and in Europe the Jewish people had been thoroughly annihilated through the holocaust and were lost without a home. The Nazis had brutally and systematically murdered over 6 million Jewish people throughout Europe. The Allied powers saw the horrendous atrocities across the liberated territories of Germany. From Auschwitz to Buchenwald concentration camps full of malnourished and dying Jewish men, women, and children were suffering at the hands of the Nazis. In attempt to repay the Jewish people in any way possible, the Allied powers collectively agreed to give the British Palestinian territory to the Jewish people.

What may have seemed like an easy and popular decision on the part of the Allies would quickly turn into a hotly debated topic. While the lands given to the Jews were their ancient birthplace, the land had been inhabited by Arabs for hundreds of years. The influx of Jewish people in to the land and the new Jewish government was not popular by any stretch by the Arab-Palestinians. Moreover, in 1947 the surrounding Arab nations invaded Israel. While the Israelis won the war, this initial invasion would not be the last invasion, however.  In 1967 the Arab nations once again invaded. Each act of aggression by the Arab states was countered by the Israelis. To this day, Israel has stood its ground. However, they have not done this alone. The United States has been the largest state sponsor of the Israeli state by providing funding, weapons, weapons development, and military advice. This relationship has now become an issue more than ever.

In the current political climate, the Israeli government has become not only militarized against its own Islamic inhabitants, it has been in continued conflict with them. All the while, the United States has stood by the Israeli military as a proud partner. In the United States, this relationship has long been celebrated, however, now more than ever this relationships appears to be in jeopardy. Recent controversy inside of the United States Congress has exposed varying viewpoints regarding the current U.S. relationship with Israel. In 2018 more Democrats were elected that were sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. One of those people, Ilhan Omar, was even accused of anti-antisemitism for her comments about Israel. Despite anti-Israeli sentiments within the government, the Trump White House is a firm supporter of the Israeli cause.

The support for Israel has many valid reasons. Firstly, the government is friendly to the United States and allies in the middle East are not a common thing currently. Moreover, the power of Israel represents the power of America in the region beyond the ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. With a firm base of power in the region not only does the United States gain political power, they gain a launching point for military operations. Additionally, the American government gains assets within the region that make other nations tread cautiously. This presence has been argued to be a key to future stability in the region. Even today, many argue that a stable American backed Israel promotes more stability in the current day.

Despite the reasons stated for the backing of Israel, many have countered that the current situation is a humanitarian atrocity. They claim that the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli rule has been improper. This argument does have some traction as from the outside it does appear the Israelis treat their direct neighbors very poorly. The West bank is a walled in portion and has major disparities in comparison to the rest of the country. Similarly the police presence and use of force against Palestinians is often very strong in Palestinian dominated ares. Those who argue this advocate for more Palestinian rights perhaps by giving them their own separate state.

The problems of the treatment of the Israelis are not without justification, however. While the level of force used could be debated, the past history of invasion and the current climate of Palestinian aggression via rocket attacks and terrorist attacks has given the Israelis plenty to be worried about. While they are defending themselves, is their presence in this part of the world truly justified? This is a debate that has been had many times over and will continue to rage. Just as the debate has raged for nearly a century, the conflict will most likely rage on. How the United States involves itself will also evolve based on this complex debate. While Americans, politicians, and leaders all contemplate the current diplomatic relationships, the fate of Israel certainly hangs in the balance. For better or worse, the United States will always have a place at the table within this complex debate. The level of involvement, however, will be debated by democrats, republicans, and governments alike.

The Korean continent has been divided since the fall of Imperial Japan in 1945 following the second world war when the East and West pitted their stakes in two independent nations. The North supported by the Soviet Union hand picked its leader in Kim Il-Sung and propped up a communist regime while the United States and the Western powers supported the democratic South Korea founded in 1948. This divide that still exists today would not result in peaceful relations, however. On June 25th 1950, the North Korean military struck the South in a swift invasion that nearly conquered the entire peninsula. The United Nations assembled a coalition force led by the United States to protect the South and this conflict would go on to become the Korean War or the “forgotten war” as it is known in the U.S. The United States and coalition forces battled the North back until they were nearing the Chinese border in the North, however, the Chinese launched a surprise counter-attack that forced the coalition to retreat. The battle lines would eventually line up on the 38th parallel where they still are today. A cease fire was signed, but much the conflict never truly ended. Now two nations and the world stand daily divided into cold war factions in a conflict that has experienced dramatic changes throughout history.

Perhaps the most intriguing and unique period in this conflict’s history is the current chapter unfolding today. The always tense relationship between North Korea and the United States (South Korea’s biggest ally) has seen an unprecedented shift. Within the first few months of the Donald Trump presidency, the conflict had picked up where it had been for each previous president. North Korea made threats against the South and the United States on a regular basis and continued testing of weapons, especially those of the nuclear variety. However, this quickly changed as the page appeared to turn when Trump and Kim Jong Un made history by being the first North Korean and American leaders to meet in person.

Source: Reuters

What would have been thought of as preposterous months before the summit quickly became a reality as two leaders that had previously threatened nuclear war upon each other now shook hands together. However, this meeting did not come without public controversy in the United States. Supporters of Trump claimed that the President had finally brought the North Korean dictator to the negotiating table because of tough policy. This outlook was countered by opposition democrats as they quickly criticized the meeting as nothing, but an opportunity for Kim Jong Un to better his own nation’s public image. Additionally critics called the president a puppet who was just doing as Kim Jong Un wanted. What neither side could deny was that this extreme of an approach had never been taken by previous administrations. While the Obama administration was more open to direct diplomacy,it never actually met with the dictator. Trump’s approach has changed the way the United States and North Korea act diplomatically in a way that no other president has. The results of this still remain to be seen, however, the return of the remains of American soldiers as well as the halting of missile testing were positive steps toward America’s long held goals of dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program and ballistic missile program.

Nonetheless, verifiable evidence that North Korea is on a sustained path towards de-nuclearization has opponents of Trump’s policy up in arms. It is notable that no written agreements were signed at either of the Trump-Kim summits. Thus, it may appear that Trump’s long term goals are not being accomplished midway through his first term in office. Despite the critics and the ongoing debate surrounding Trump’s success, the president claims that progress has been made at each of the summits and that a deal will be signed by the end of his term. This promise seems up in the air, but the completion of the promise may help to settle the debate of whether or not the new policies are working as Trump advertised. The whole situation is as uncertain as it ever has been, however, the previously stagnant lines set in the 1950’s are now crossing.

The 68th parallel once divided Korea indefinitely, however, with recent events, the border seems to be more and more ready to become open. Despite the current climate, the relationships between all the involved nations can always shift like the winds and plunge back to the cold war state that they have been sustained at for much of the country’s existence. Whether meeting with Kim Jong Un was a positive will be hotly debated for months to come, but only history can truly tell what the end result of this long standing conflict will be. Peace and War are always on the table within this ongoing war and until the cease fire is met with a permanent peace treaty.

The United States and China have long had a contentious relationship. This relationship dates back to the rise of Communism within China under Mao Zedong and into the cold war. Throughout the cold war flash points such as the Korean War and Nixon’s historic visit to China have represented varying relationship temperature levels between the two powers. While China struggled economically throughout much of the 20th century, the relatively recent opening up of the Chinese economy has made the nation the fastest growing economy in the world. China’s rapid expansion greatly effected the relationship it had with the United States. As China became a major trade partner of the United States for imports and exports a like, trade practices of China began to raise eyebrows. China has long been accused of intellectual property theft against American companies and the American government. Everything from trade secrets, patents, information about secret military programs, and other important information has been stolen by the Chinese as a result of factories and other business practices being handled within China. The total loss of U.S. companies and the government is estimated to be $300 billion dollars worth of profit annually. Additionally, many including U.S President Trump have also made the case that China has been unfair in its dealings with the United States and that this has resulted in an unfair trade deficit. The current deficit between the U.S and China in trade is $375 billion in favor of China. Thus, the claims of unequal trade practices may be warranted.

Source: National Geographic

All of these accusations and tensions have resulted in what is now being called a “Trade War” between China and Trump.  This all began with the U.S. governments directive to investigate Chinese trade practices in 2017 and then the first set of tariffs hitting on solar panels and washing machines in 2018.  Since then the trade conflict has ballooned as stakes have gotten higher and tariffs have sky rocketed. Currently the United States has slammed China with nearly $300 Billion in tariffs on a wide range of products. China has responded with a slightly lower amount of tariffs in the range of $200 billion. While the effects of this trade war are only starting to be felt, the issue of the economic and international relation fallout has become a hotly debated issue in the United States.

Typically proponents of the trade war believe that it is advantageous because the U.S. can force China into better trade for the U.S. and win the war. This would be done by slowly crippling the Chinese economy by making it more and more expensive to send goods to the United States. This idea is called a tariff and forces foreign governments to pay to import certain things. This practice turns into a war when the nation slammed with tariffs places tariffs back against the other nation. Essentially, the war boils down to which economy can withstand the profit hit more. Opponents of the trade war very strongly believe that the hit to local businesses including agriculture would be too high of a price to pay in the long run for any gains in trade agreements. Different still, many believe that this trade war is a draw or worse a lose, lose situation for each country. While in the 1960’s the global economy accounted for less than 30% of the American economy, today it represents close to 60% of the total American economy. Thus, many argue that continue the continued trade war would not only hurt China and the United States, but potentially the worlds economy as a whole.

Despite opinions, current indicators show that China is, in fact hurting more than the United States is as a result of the trade war. Although recent stock market slides and a downturn in Agriculture exports has sparked concern, the desired effect on crippling China is occurring. While the U.S. stock market is down 3% the Chinese stock market for the year was down over 20%. The current trade standings go to show the truth to the statement:  “if we cannot trade with China, we sneeze. If China cannot trade with us, they catch pneumonia.”  While the risks are still incredibly high for both countries, Trump is not backing down any time soon it appears. So far, Trump has gone through on all threats to China and seemingly has leverage in the trade battle at the moment. While many will be hurt by these actions and opinions will continue to be very divided, the trade war appears to be primed to continue until one nation blinks in front of the other.  For Trump this means public opinion of the trade war will be crucial. Currently 34% of Americans are concerned about the continued trade policy between Trump and China. If this number continues to rise and debate continues to intensify the war may be over sooner rather than later.

Source: IBtimes

Countries around the world have always sought to increase influence, power, wealth, and dominance in their corners of the world or even on the global stage. This fact of international political behavior is nothing more than an extension of the most human of survival instincts. No differently than human conflicts, the act of striving for power by a nation is bound to spur both political and violent conflicts. In the South China Sea this behavior is on display in a complex dispute between many Southeast Asian nations and now the United States of America.

The area of the South China Sea has long been a contested area of the Pacific Ocean due to its strategic importance as a key international shipping route. Trade from Asia, Europe, and the Americas all often ventures in and out of these straits of water and as such the freedom of navigation is an important aspect for many nations’ economies. The South China Sea is also very contested because many of the nations in the region have disputes over land claims of the many islands in this area of the Ocean. Control over these islands effectively increases the influence and borders of a nation as nations can lay claim to a 12 nautical mile radius of water around an island. Nations such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Philippines, and China all have claims in this region. Thus, the region already is very divided by its strategic importance as well as nations vying for influence over areas through territorial acquisition within the South China Sea.

In an attempt to artificially gain influence and territory as well as impose will on the region, China has recently been turning coral reefs into islands where it houses ports, military facilities, military airbases, and many other undisclosed facilities. While this has inflamed local issues further, the actions of China have also brought the United States into the picture. The United States Navy and all shipping lanes have been operating closely to these new islands as they were previously international waters. While this action has angered China, the United States argues it has the right to travel in those waters as they are technically still international. On the other side, China argues these waters are apart of their 12 nautical mile territory surrounding the island.

Chinese Dredgers seen creating an artificial island.                  Source: New York Times

The United States’ continued “freedom of navigation” operations have prompted harsh responses from the Chinese government that have made explicit threats against the United States.  Foreign Ministry Spokespeople have said; “The US action violated the Chinese laws and international laws, infringed China’s sovereignty, damaged regional peace, security, and order. China will take necessary actions to protect state sovereignty.”  Additionally, the Chinese government has made even further claims of war saying; “If a US warship illegally enters into Chinese territorial waters again, two Chinese warships should be sent, one to stop it and the other to bump against and sink it.” Thus, the actions of both nations could be seen as dangerous steps towards a regional war or something much larger.

Source: Defense News

This conflict has created argument over what the proper course of action is for the United States in this situation. Is the region our place to be poking at? Many would answer this question by saying that defending the sovereignty of the South East Asian states while aslo upholding international waters is a noble cause. Still, others warn that this is, but another inflammatory and necessary move by the United States to prove its power and or increase its influence in a strategic region of the world. Vietnam has routinely prompted both nations to settle disputes through peaceful dialogue, however, even this nations stance on the issue is intensifying with China’s heavier and more threatening stances. Thus, it seems ever more likely that some sort of confrontation could take place between the United States and China. Whether this conflict arises due to direct engagement between warships or aircraft, or the conflict arises from one between allies of the United States and China, the risks are high in the region.

This issue, however, has not yet become a hot button issue within the United States as domestic policy has been the focal point of the United States since the election of Donald Trump. Although conflict within the United States is at a minimum currently, continued escalation of the the South Eastern Chinese Sea conflict could bring this conflict into Congress and the homes of the American people.

Overall, the continued pressing of China within the South East China Sea has prompted response from neighboring nations as well as the United States. Tensions have been rapidly rising since 2015 when the creation of artificial islands began. Debate over the United States’ involvement in the region will be contentious as this issue continues to arise in the future.

Since the early 1800’s, the United States has repeatedly found itself involved in the affairs of South American nations. This involvement dates back to 1823 when the Monroe Doctrine was declared. The interventionist declaration stated that anyone who made themselves an enemy of a nation on the American continents also made enemies with the United States of America. While this declaration was first issued in 1823, it has become a fixture of American foreign policy throughout the decades since its issuance. In 1898, the Spanish American war erupted due to the Americans claiming that Cuba demanded its freedom. Thus, the Americans sought to back the Cubans for this reason among others. Even in more recent times, the United States has continually referenced this 1800’s proclamation. Under the Reagan Administration involvement in El Salvador and Nicaragua was justified because of this very declaration. While the Monroe Doctrine was thought to finally have been decommissioned under the Obama Administration, President Trump has made moves that appear to signify the Monroe Doctrine is back into the field of play within U.S. Foreign Policy. In one such case, the stakes are very high. Venezuela, a nation in complete turmoil at the hands of decades of  socialist rule by Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro has found itself fighting an internal battle between the more democratic National Assembly and the Government. Meanwhile nations around the world have been busy picking sides and issuing warnings to the other sides. The United States like many other nations has gotten involved by backing the National Assembly leader Jose Guaido. While many other nations are limited in what support they can render within Venezuela, the controversy of the situation has taken a firm root in the United States because of the potential for further U.S. involvement.

Since Donald Trump’s backing of Guaido, many within the United States and Abroad have been speculating and arguing about the potential effects of further involvement in the crisis. The argument of those advocating for involvement is that we should support the Venezuelan people in their efforts to form a more democratic government. Additionally, many argue that a friendly government in Venezuela would be better for the United States, especially since the nation is rich in Oil. Thus, many argue that the United States would be justified in utilizing military force in Venezuela similarly to the use of military force in Syria. Despite this argument many on the opposition claim that the United States should not be involved at all. Additionally, they use Syria as an example of a failed military intervention. Moreover, the complex nature of the politics within Venezuela may make military action even more complicated. Many within the Venezuelan Military still support Maduro who was the successor of the revered leader Hugo Chavez. While there still is support for Maduro in the military, many also support Guaido. To make things even more complicated, Venezuela boasts armed militias with 1.6 million people within them. Thus, the nation is heavily armed and capable of waging a deadly civil war. Perhaps even more dangerous is the international link each side has. Maduro’s socialist government is supported by Russia, China, and many other adversaries of the United States. Guaido’s side is supported by the likes of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Thus, the whole situation appears to be a powder keg ready to explode.

Source: Youtube

Still, the issue remains as to what the United States should do if it does not involve itself militarily. There are worries that a further destabilized Venezuela could lead to destabilization of the region. While the argument may be made that this is near inevitable, the reality of the situation does put pressure on the United States to act in some way. As leaders in the world many nations currently are looking to the United States for leadership in this current situation just as they have in numerous other conflicts globally since the end of the second world war. Thus, many are calling for a different kind of American leadership in negotiations rather than military strikes. Some claim that coordination among neighboring nations in negotiations of the nations future may be able to put enough pressure on the nation to solve things peacefully. Still, the nation remains split as the majority support democracy while most of the military supports the socialist regime. Thus, it appears that this option is very fragile and may even be futile already as the situation has already escalated to a point where violence seems inevitable.

Overall, the world is very divided on the issue of Venezuela. Whether the United States chooses to involve itself further in the nation will remain to be seen. Debate over the course of action will continue to rage on. In the end it appears that the issues of Venezuela will not be contained within its own borders for much longer.

Source: Common Dreams

Since the end of World War Two, the United States has been the most technologically advanced and dominant fighting force on the planet. The U.S. has led the world in developments ranging from missile technology to aircraft development. As a result of being on the leading edge of the arms industry, the demand for American made weapons is extremely high. This high demand for a desirable product has prompted Congress and Presidents alike to capitalize on the lucrative aspect of the arms industry. Selling weapons has become a favorite past time of the United States for both political and non-political reasons since the end of the second world war. In fact, the United States sold weapons to 98 countries from 2013 to 2017 which accounted for 34% of all global arms sales during the same period of time. This practice has traditionally been accepted as a method to support allies and to aid in funding expensive military projects such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet which is subsidized by nations including, but not limited to Israel, Australia, Canada, and South Korea. However, the practice has more recently been scrutinized following the largest arms deal in American history to Saudi Arabia in 2017. While the arms deal itself was potentially non-problematic, the use of American weapons in wars abroad has created controversy.

On August 9th 2018, an American made Mk 82 500-pound laser guided bomb deployed by the Saudi Arabian-led coalition destroyed a Yemeni school bus and left dozens of children dead. In many other cases throughout the Yemeni civil war this very same bomb has been used in horrific bombings of civilians. In October 2016, 155 people died in a bombing at a funeral hall and in March of 2016 another bomb killed 96 people.  These horrifying attacks on innocent civilians prompted the Obama Administration to ban further sales of these bombs to other nations, but the practice was resumed with the 2017 arms deal.  With the continued frequency of American weapons being used in attacks unsupported by the United States, the morality of the arms industry has been put into serious question.

Shrapnel from the Mk 82 bomb used against civilians in Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Source: CNN

In light of the recent bombings, the debate over the selling of these weapons has become further inflamed within the United States. While the Pentagon and Congress support the selling of the weapons, oversight into their use is now being applied more stringently. However, many have continued to ask whether American weapons should be used in wars that are not ours. Proponents of continued use claim that they are a method of supporting allies, but more importantly they support a key part of the United States economy. Those who argue that the selling of weapons is important for the U.S. economy cite the “Military-Industrial Complex.” Meanwhile many countering this argument continue to use events such as those occurring in Yemen as proof of the need to reign in or completely abolish arms trades to other countries. Additionally, opponents of military arms deals often use history to point out the failures of arms deals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both the Taliban and ISIS have routinely used American made weapons against America and its allies. While this was never done on purpose the weapons and funding given to the Mujahideen  rebels (The precursor of the Taliban) against the Soviet Union has seen American made weapons unintentionally fall into the nations own enemies’ hands. Likewise, weapons given to Iraq have also ended up in the hands of ISIS.  Still, the weapons given to American allies have proven to be the counterpoint of this argument. While many argue U.S. weapons can easily fall into the wrong hands and or be misused, others point to the success of Israel and South Korea repelling their enemies as a counter-argument. In Israel, the United States has helped provide for Israeli defense through many wars in order to ensure the sovereignty of the key middle-eastern Ally. Similarly, South Korea has utilized American weapons to act as deterrence against its hostile neighbor North Korea. Through this, South Korea has built a formidable military and has kept its border secure. For American this means it has also ensured another stable ally in the region. Finally, the United States is also engaged in an arms deal war with Russia and China. Whether this is morally acceptable or not, strategically, the United States continues to attempt to exert influence by selling weapons in competition with Russia and China. Though the practice is questionable considering the reward is purely political, it nonetheless is still occurring on a growing scale.

While there are many success stories and failures of the American arms trade, the debate over their morality will likely continue as the sales of American arms are only increasing.  Global arms sales have risen 10% in the past decade and this trend is likely to continue. Thus, this debate is also on track to continue into the future as both proponents and opponents of global arms deals continually use current events to bolster their cases.

PHOTO: US ARMY

Following the attacks on the United States on 9/11/2001, the United States began its global war against terrorism. This new conflict immediately began in Afghanistan and has since became a fixture of the nation’s existence for the past 18 years. While the United States has been involved in the nation’s seemingly unending conflict with the Taliban, the front lines and territorial markers have shifted like the sands of a desert repeatedly. As a result of this undefined conflict persisting, the debate on what the appropriate course of action is in Afghanistan has taken center stage within American foreign policy.  Additionally, involvement in Iraq and Syria have also been up for fierce debate.  President Donald Trump’s sudden announcement of plans to reduce troop numbers in both countries or to even pull out all together has further intensified this debate.

To understand why the United States continues to involve itself in a nearly 2 decade old war in Afghanistan and a seemingly endless civil war we must first understand the international affairs surrounding both nations.  In Afghanistan, the U.S. military is fighting an ideological enemy in the form of the Taliban. The goal of this fight is loosely defined as a fight to prevent a future 9/11 like attack on the United States. Part of this mission is attempting to ensure a stable democratic Afghanistan. Unfortunately for Afghanistan this goal has been far from attained. Despite military success, the Taliban has consistently proven its ability to rebound and mount insurgent warfare throughout the country. This fact has left the United States in an uncomfortable position as the continued presence of U.S. troops is to protect Afghani democracy and to prevent the Taliban from gaining enough power to plot against America. Despite this, there seems to be no long term solution to defeating the Taliban or ensuring a democracy in the country. Thus, America must decide to either pull out and accept a Vietnam-like failure or to continue in what may be a never-ending cycle. On one side many argue that America has an obligation to the Afghani people to ensure democracy and needs to continue to suppress terrorists so they cannot strike America. As said by Lt. Gen. Scott Miller, “There is a threat from this region to our homeland. So our choice is fairly simple: We either keep the pressure on them here, or they bring the fight to our doorstep.” Despite these arguments many on the other side continue to claim the war is already lost and America is unwilling to admit it. This debate continues to rage on while the war continues to cost billions of dollars. As a result of the continued money spent, President Trump has ordered many troops to pull out of the nation in a move to reduce involvement in the country and perhaps pull out all together.

While the war in Afghanistan has its own unique debates surrounding it, the current conflict in Syria is a far more complex and polarizing engagement for the United States. This complexity is due to the nature of the conflict as a proxy war between numerous nations. In fact, Syria has become a proxy war between Russia, The U.S., Israel, Iran, and Turkey. It is these political conflicts that have kept fueling the civil war in Syria. What began as an anti-government revolution has now ballooned into a globally relevant, high-stakes war.

Agencja Gazeta/Reuters

While the civil war in Syria was originally debated because America was unsure of who to support, the debate has only intensified as multiple new players have entered the nation while the U.S. now appear non-committal to its involvement. The original objective of the U.S. military was to rid Syria of ISIS (an enemy of the Assad regime). However, when many other adversarial nations began to join in on defeating ISIS, the lines began to blur within the conflict. Russia began to attack ISIS, but also appeared hostile to the U.S. and backed the Assad government. Similarly Iran attacked ISIS, but brought troops to the nation. This action was seen as a grab for influence by Israel who also allied the United States in the fight against ISIS. Another actor in the conflict, Turkey, began its involvement in the region to fight ISIS, but also was worried about the growing influence of the U.S. backed Kurds (a minority group in both Syria and Turkey). Turkey began to fight against the Kurds as they are an enemy of the nation. Meanwhile, the backing of the Kurds by the U.S. continues to be a sticking point in diplomacy between the U.S. and Turkey. Thus, the conflict in Syria has sucked in many historical rivals and pitted them against each other (U.S. vs Russia, Iran vs. Israel, Turkey vs. Kurds) in what has become a major proxy war today. However, this complex power struggle became even more uncertain as President Trump announced plans to pull out of Syria. This development would leave the Assad totalitarian regime in charge, allow for the Kurds to be targeted by the Turks, allow Iran to expand influence, and increase the probability anti-western groups take hold of government in Syria. Despite an already rocky relationship President Trump claims that pulling out in Syria is conditional upon Turkey’s protection of the Kurds and the complete destruction of ISIS.  Realistically, neither of these goals seems completely possible in the immediate future as the Kurds are a mortal enemy of the Turks and ISIS is an ideological enemy that can rebuild quickly. Thus, a complex situation remains so and a stand-off in a international chess match appears to be setup. All the while, fierce debate over the need for U.S. involvement in the nation remains a topic of contention.