the horace mann Plunging into Afghanistan - Horace Mann School

the horace mann Plunging into Afghanistan - Horace Mann School

Reviewthehorace mannDomestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology - ViewpointsAfghanistanPlunging into AfghanistanLearning from the Pastby Nathan Raabby Stephen Paduano

Issue 4:AfghanistanDomestic4 The struggle withinby Jessica bernheim6 Murder and martiallaw in Maguindanaoby hannah junInternationalpbs8 Tehran and the bombby greg barancik10 Neutral no moreby andre manuelFeatures12 Plunging into Afghanistanby nathan raab14 Learning from the pastby Stephen PaduanopsaonlineEconomicsWas the surge really a good idea? Nathan Raab looks intothe topic on page 8.Science and Technology18 The Chinesefacadeby Deependra mookim20 To the dark side ofthe moonby alexander posner22 An inconvenient truthby Alexander Daniel33globalwarming1Could global warming be exaggerated?More on page 18.ViewpointsCover graphic edited by Aradhna Agarwal.Disclaimer: The views of the articlesdo not necessarily representthose of the editorial staff.2HM Review Vol. XIX

Letter from the EditorThe Horace Mann ReviewVolume XIX , Issue 4Letter from the EditorA Journal of Opinion on Current Events,Politics, Public Policy, and CultureKevin LinEditor-in-ChiefNicholas HerzecaJason SunshineExecutive EditorAlex FalkManaging EditorDan TemelHenry HoglundJames YaroStarlyte HarrisSpencer PennEditorial DirectorJordan FedererAntonia WoodfordMario AlvarezHill WyroughSenior ColumnistsBoard of TrusteesMaximilian D.C. Thompson, ZacharyFreyer-Biggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani,Venkat Kausik, Zachary MalterProduction AssistantsSeth Arar, Elisabeth StamAssociate EditorsDeependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei,Andrew Demas, Aaron Goldman, DanielleEllison, Victor Ladd, Daniel GrafsteinStaff WritersDorin Azerad, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris,Jessica Chi, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel,Alexander Familant, Emily Feldstein, MattFox, Adela Kim, Christine Kim, Alex Ma, AndreManuel, Avital Morris, Jacob Moscona-Skolnik, Zoe Rubin, Rebecca SegallContributing WritersHannah Jun, Nathan Raab, Stephen Paduano,Alex Posner, Greg Barancik, JessicaBernheimFaculty AdvisorsMr. Gregory DonadioNancy DaSilvaDan ShapiroFeatures EditorAradhna AgarwalWill DubbsProduction ManagerThe Horace Mann Review is a member ofthe Columbia Scholastic Press Association,the American Scholastic Press Association,and the National Scholastic Press Association.Opinions expressed in articles or illustrationsare not necessarily those of the EditorialBoard or of the Horace Mann School.Please contact The Review for informationon advertisements at The Review website at:© 2009, The Horace Mann ReviewJanuary 2010 HM ReviewFreddie AdlerBen MarksEric SchwartzBusiness ManagerCamille KnopAylin GucalpPhoto EditorDear Reader,Afghanistan has been onour radars for a long time now.From the years in which Americaarmed the Afghan mujahideenagainst the Soviets to the war onterror that President George W.Bush announced against al-Qaeda,our attention on this key part of theworld has waned and waxed overtime.With the recent electionof President Barack Obama,Afghanistan has been brought backto the forefront of the Americanconsciousness. Will the surgework? Should we seek to improvethe quality of life of the citizensor should we simply try to win thephysical confrontations againstinsurgents? Questions like thesearise ceaselessly.Thus, in the fourth issueof the Horace Mann ReviewVolume XIX, we ourselves takea look at the complex problem inAfghanistan, with two articles fromNathan Raab and Stephen Paduanodiscussing the effects of thesurge and the lessons of the past,respectively.Of course, we also covermany other events that have beengoing on in the world, from theramifications of banning minaretsin Switzerland, to the globalwarming “hoax” that set such afrenzy of press coverage againstthe notion of global warming, tothe shooting at Ft. Hood by Sgt.Nidal Malik Hasan and situationsof Muslim soldiers in the UnitedStates.As always, I am very proudto present to you this issue of theReview, having seen firsthand thework that our writers and editorsalike have put into the publication.So, I wish you all a happyreading. Merry Christmas andHappy New Year!Kevin LinEditor-in-ChiefVolume XIX3

DomesticTheStruggleWithinFaced with discrimination,Muslims in the military can have avastly different experience than thoseof other jessica bernheimRecently, while reading articlesabout discriminationtowards Muslims in Franceand Britain, I found a blogwritten by a soldier fromthe 3rd Battalion of the Marine Corps SecurityForce Regiment. Not only was hisblog factually supported, it was one of fewwith which I found myself agreeing. Thename of this blog was Muslim Discriminationin the U.S. Military. Not. This blogcould be seen as offensive, demeaningthe discrimination Muslims in the armyhave endured. But, after having read theblog, I completely agree with the author.Muslims are a valuable asset to our nation’ssecurity, and serve in virtually allsectors of our military as translators andservicemen. We as a country cry racialdiscrimination as a cause for attacks likethe one made by Major Hassan, when infact it was religious beliefs that propelledhis actions. Like the author states, if wehad tried to “questioned or detain[] himregarding his religious/ideological leaningshe would have been on the news asa poor, poor victim of a mean old ArmyMuslim hunt.”I do believe that discrimination exists.Estimates state that there are from4,000 to over 12,000 Muslims in the army,and it has been noted that some Muslimsoldiers do get mocked and teased in aderogatory manner. But I believe thatMuslims endure more discrimination ina civilian setting, where average peopleare unaware of the positive contributionsarmy.mil4HM Review Vol. XIX

DomesticEstimates state that thereare from 4,000 to over12,000 Muslims in the army,and it has been noted thatsome Muslim soldiers doget mocked and teased in aderogatory manner.wall street journalDevotionSgt. FahadKamal praysFriday atthe IslamicCommunityof GreaterKilleen nearFort Hood,Texas.Muslims make to society and see only themedia’s representation of Islam’s terroristnature. There are many Muslims whosympathize and agree with the actionsof extremists; in fact, one man on CNNsaid that the Qur’an specifically dictatesthat all non-believers must be terrorized.However, while there are extremists outthere, we cannot say the entire Muslimpopulation has extremist beliefs.Discrimination towards any ethnicityor religion is absolutely despicable. Itexposes the ugliest of human traits, andultimately provides evidence for ThomasHobbes’ belief that man is inherently evilin nature.It has long been human belief, frombefore the days of Social Darwinism, thatwe are superior to everything else on theplanet. But superior should mean that weare above petty hates towards those whoare different. Charles Darwin never intendedhis theory of natural selection toapply to humans, but unfortunately peoplesubverted his scientific theory to justifycruelty towards those they felt inferior.Humans are such a diverse group thatadapting any generalized beliefs to thehuman population proves destructive.Scientists have found that genetic mutationshave caused the human species toevolve over time. Are those with the abilityto consume milk, one of the first geneticmutations to arise, not human?While discrimination is wrong, I canunderstand discomfort amongst soldiersstationed in a country in which theirmain enemies are Muslim extremists.They are ordered to kill these people—these Taliban—who have murdered somany of their comrades, and yet at thesame time they are ordered to fight alongsidepeople who hold the same beliefs asthese enemies.That being said there is an enormousdifference between discomfiture and outrightcontempt. An American Muslimis American the same way an AmericanChristian is. The separation of church andstate is extremely important in America,and yet it is not properly enforced. Thisis one of the fundamental flaws in ourgovernment. Religion should not conflictwith nationality, yet it does, becausewhen we fight Afghans or Pakistanis, weare targeting extremist Muslims whoseintent is to destroy America. Because weas a country are battling with those of aspecific religion, all those who share thatreligion, even without the extremist elementthat threatens our safety, are viewedas a threat. This is the plight of AmericanMuslims in civilian environments.Conversely, joining the Americanarmy is voluntary, and anyone whochooses to join and fight for their countryis subject to the same rules and restrictionsregardless of religion or ethnicity.Muslims in the army have chosen to fightunder no obligation from the state. AllAmerican citizens in the army are subjectto restricted rights of speech, press, andexpression. For example, soldiers cannotparticipate in demonstrations in uniforms,on post, in a foreign country, orwhere violence is likely to be present. Asoldier cannot write for a publication regardingnational government operations,military matters, or foreign policies withoutsubmitting the article for review andapproval. A soldier cannot act in a waythat would seem as if he or she were representingthe views of the army. All thosesubject to these same laws should beentitled to the same rights, chief amongthem the right to keep and practice one’sreligious beliefs without being subject tohatred or discrimination.Everybody shares something witha criminal, be it skin color, race, gender,or religious belief. That does not meanwe are all criminals. We cannot groupextremist Muslim terrorists with otherMuslims. They share a faith, yes, but youand a terrorist share at least one thing—you are both members of the human race.You are both human beings. HMRShooter A photo of Maj. Nidal MalikHasan, the accused Fort Hood gunman.Hasan was paralyzed from thewaist down after the shooting.inthenewsJanuary 2010 HM Review 5

InternationalMurder and Martial Law inMaguindanaoby hannah junMaguindanao is the secondpoorest province inthe Philippines. Its economyis based solely onagriculture. When fiftysevenpeople were found murdered there,it looked to be the most violent politicalcrime in recent Philippine history. Thebodies were identified as the family andsupporters of Ismael “Toto” Mangudadatu,who had sent his wife and three sistersto file his candidacy papers to run forgovernor of Maguindanao after he hadreportedly received threats that he wouldbe kidnapped if he personally filed candidacypapers. The massacre was quicklyconnected to the Ampataun family whena government construction vehicle wasfound near the scene of the crime. Thepatriarch of the family, Andal AmpatuanSr. is the current governor of Maguin-eyesgonzalez6HM Review Vol. XIX

InternationalCandles Journalists light candlesfor the victims of the Maguindanaomassacre at a rally.danao. The Ampatauan clan is politicallypowerful in the region; relatives, in-laws,or close allies of the Ampatuan clan runmost of the Maguindao’s thirty-six towns.By filing candidacy papers, Mangudadatuchallenged the Ampatuans andtheir absolute control (enforced withguns and a reported private army of fivehundred men) over the province. Similarto cities controlled by gangs, very fewwill talk about the Ampatuans out of fear.These killings prove the desperate lengthsto which the elite are willing to go to protecttheir political power. “Political officeshave become attractive due to the billionsof pesos in I.R.A. [Internal RevenueAllotment] Remittances electoral victoryprovides,” Francisco Lara of the developmentstudies at the Institute of LondonSchool of Economics says, referring tothe share of national taxes local governmentsare given.Andal Ampatuan Jr., the currentmayor of Datu Unsay, is believed to haveordered the massacre. He and his brotherZalday, also a governor in the Maguindanaoregion, are now under arrest aftersurrendering a few days after the killings,and await trial on twenty-five counts ofmurder.What makes this ordeal controversialis that President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, along with declaring stateof emergency on the Maguindanaoprovince, declared martial law on thesouthern province on December 4 th anddeployed thousands of troops to theprovince. Martial law allows the militaryand police to make arrests and raidson property without warrant. Raiding awarehouse and ranch that belong to theAmpatuan clan, Philippine police andmilitary found firearms, ammunition,and vehicles. They have arrested seventysuspects including three other brothersof Andal Ampatuan Jr. and Andal AmpatuanSr. without warrants. The armedmen resisted on December 6 th in a firefight,withdrawing only after reinforcementswere brought in. But even withthese finds, critics remark that declaringmartial law sets a dangerous precedent,especially since neither of the two constitutionalconditions that allow a presidentto declare martial law—foreign invasionor rebellion—have not been fulfilled. Butisn’t a cache of 1,500 firearms and half amillion rounds of ammunition and fiftysevendead (including thirty reporters)enough to define a rebellion?President Arroyo probably did theright thing for this unique and horrificsituation both politically and ethically.But what makes this ordealcontroversial is along withdeclaring state of emergencyon the Maguindanao province,President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, had declared martiallaw as well as deployingthousands of troops to theprovince.With the power the Ampatuans have,would the national government havebeen able to conduct a speedy and fairtrial or even find the suspects involved?With 4,000 loyal armed men, the Ampatauanshave not surrendered to the 24-hour deadline they were given by leafletsdropped by helicopters urging them andclan followers to surrender and give uptheir firearms. Philippine military havenow started to move and position troopsblogspotin the Maguindanao region with intentto pressure the militiamen to surrender.Luckily, President Arroyo didn’t take thatchance and let the situation worsen orturn into a full-blown rebellion. She alsosaved face when people doubted if thegovernment would push the importanceof the situation when it was clear thatthe Ampatuans were involved, especiallysince the clan had supported the presidentpolitically since 2001. The clan’s riseto power probably also gained PresidentArroyo more support.Even with critics and more then halfthe senators opposing the declaration,martial law will likely not be overturned,due to the fact that only the House ofRepresentatives (dominated by Arroyo’sallies) can reject President Arroyo’s declaration.On the other hand, with theAmpatuans’ power shaky after numerousarrests and suspicion, the power in theprovince will probably shift to the familyof Mr. Mangudadatu, which controls theneighboring province of Sultan Kudarat.Mr. Mangudadatu filed his papers forcandidacy just days after the massacre,exclaiming that now nothing could stophim from running for governor. HMRJanuary 2010 HM Review 7

InternationalDigital JournalwordpressTehran and the Bombby greg barancikPresident Obama has pledgedsince his 2008 campaignthat he will open a dialoguewith Iran and negotiate ina way that his predecessordid not. This policy was most recentlyaffirmed by the Norwegian Nobel Committeewhen Obama was awarded theNobel Prize for “extraordinary efforts tostrengthen international diplomacy andcooperation between peoples.” While diplomacyis the ideal course for America’sforeign policy, the United States needsto remember that its national security isparamount, and that the complex natureof United States-Iran relations may callfor serious action instead of lofty rhetoric.Iran’s recent history is plagued bythe issue of nuclear proliferation. Thereis little doubt among our country’s leadersand top intelligence officials that Iranhopes to develop nuclear weapons. Iranianpresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejadhas publically stated that he wants to seeIsrael wiped off the map and after themost recent Iranian elections, it is clearthat Iran has become a dictatorship withno regard for human rights or human life.Almost all nations agree that appropriateaction must be taken against Iran in orderto prevent not only greater tensions,but also a total, chaotic destabilization ofthe entire Middle East region.One year ago, then Senator BarackObama promised that he would “engagein aggressive personal diplomacy” withIran. The move was supported by manyAmericans who rejected President Bush’sstatement that he would only engagethe Iranians in dialogue if they stoppedenriching uranium. The problem withPresident Obama’s plan is that it assumesthe Iranians have the same goals of peaceand international unity that guide theDemocrat’s exemplary foreign policy.When two opposing parties have oppositeviews but hold a common desire forinternational peace and security, engagementcan be a powerful tool. The worldwitnessed the power of engagement inthe context of nuclear weapons duringthe Cold War; the Strategic Arms ReductionTreaty between the United States andRussia led to a reduction in nuclear armaments.This strategy, whenever applicable,should be used to the fullest extentpossible.However, when both parties cannotagree on a common ideal, there are significantrisks to engagement, which theObama administration must considermore carefully. Engaging Iran without adisplay of good faith presents both riskThe United States should notand must not submit to Iranianterms while Iran continues toflaunt its disregard of internationallaw.of future extortion and moral hazard forthe world. If we appease Iran without demandinganything in return, we makeourselves vulnerable to perpetual Iraniandemands. If the Iranians believe that wewill continue to make concessions as asecurity building measure regardless oftheir actions, the Iranians will have noincentive to change their course of behav-8HM Review Vol. XIX

Internationalior. Similarly, if we reward Iran’s misbehaviorby unconditionally welcomingit back into the fold of InternationalDiplomacy, we establish a dangerousprecedent where other disenfranchisednations may act up in an attempt to gaininternational acceptance.Although President Obama’s intentionsare genuine, his offer should notbe extended unilaterally. There must bea visible Iranian commitment towardsdisarmament before we agree to sitdown at the table or we place our nationalsecurity at risk. The Iranians haveconsistently ignored binding UnitedNations resolutions and show no respectfor the Nuclear NonproliferationTreaty. Through their reckless disregardfor agreements, the Iranians have alreadyproved that they cannot be heldto their word. Now the burden shiftsto Ahmadinejad to make the show ofGood Faith; the United States shouldnot and must not submit to Iranianterms while Iran continues to flauntits disregard of international law. If theUnited States and Iran cannot agree ona similar goal on similar terms, any timespent on diplomacy is merely stalling onthe part of the Iranians in order to fullydevelop their nuclear technology.Considering Iran’s history and thedomestic risks associated with engagement,heavier sanctions would seem anideal solution to this issue. The premiseis simple: make the economic situationso bad for Iran that it will be forced tochoose economic stability over a nuclearweapons program. However, despitethe United States’ best efforts, enactingthese tough sanctions has proven farfrom straightforward. The principal issuewith sanctions is that they are onlyas strong as their weakest link. The UnitedStates may put any amount of sanctionson Iran but if China and Russiado not take similar measures, Iran maysimply trade with them and our sanctionswould have little consequence.So far, the United States has been ableto convince China and Russia to putstronger sanctions in place, butIran’s economy has remainedsteady. In addition, as we haveseen with North Korea, if a dictatoris determined to build nuclearweapons irrespective of harmto the country’s people, there isnothing that even unanimoussanctions can do about it.Although sanctions continueto be the best planat the moment, giventheir risks of failure,we cannot afford tolimit ourselves tothis option.When all diplomaticand economicmeasures have beentried, there is onlyone instrument of foreignpolicy left to preventIran from obtainingnuclear weapons. Americashould be preparedto use precision forceto disable Iran’s nuclearprogram. At this moment,the United States cannot affordto wage a full-scale waragainst Iran but the costof a small military strikeagainst specially targetsis far less costly than doingnothing, and allowinga dangerous country tobecome a nuclear power.This option is far fromideal. Fixing the Iranianissue through diplomacyor economic measures wouldbe a good model of peaceful foreignrelations. However, if these twooptions do not prove effective, we needto be prepared to use force against Iran.While Iran may not yield to diplomaticpressure and while the world may notunite in sanctions, the United Statescertainly has the power to disable Iraniannuclear weapons by force. Hopefully,the United States will not be obliged totake military action against Iran but weneed to be prepared todo so. HMRhuffingtonpost.comJanuary 2010 HM Review 9

InternationalNeutralNo Moreby andre manuelwebshots10In a blow to Switzerland’s reputationas a neutral stronghold, Swissvoters have overwhelmingly decidedto ban the construction of new minarets.Minarets—tall spires built on amosque— are a distinctive feature ofthe Islamic religion and used in thecall for prayer. This vote comes as asurprise to many, as the referendum,pushed forward by the rightist SwissPeople’s Party was expected by most tofail. Leading up to the vote, the SwissPeople’s Party led a campaign of negativeadvertising associating minaretswith Islamic terrorists, igniting fear inthe hearts of many Swiss voters. Thevote reflects not a tangible threat tothe people of Switzerland, but a fearof Islamic fundamentalism, the spreadof Muslim immigration, and the erosionof Swiss values. Of the around 150HM Review Vol. XIX

mosques in Switzerland, only four haveminarets, and only two currently haveplans to build them. The ban representsmore than the prejudices of the Swisspeople. It represents a growing trend ofanti-Muslim sentiments in Europe, theincreasing tensions between the Muslimworld and the West, and one of the biggestdrawbacks of a Democratic society:the possibility of a tyrannical majority.The ban has experienced backlashall around the world as Europeanleaders, including those in Switzerland,have been quick to denounce the ban.It has also caused anger in the Muslimcommunity and from religious leaders. Astatement released by the Vatican calledthe ban “a heavy blow to religious freedomand integration.” Yet the surprisingrealism of the situation is that Switzerlandonly represents the surface of theunderlying problem of religious tensionsnow being faced in Europe. In France, aban on certain traditional Islamic veilsis being considered to curb the effect ofsome of the more fundamentalist sects ofIslam. Europe, a continent often praisedfor its equality and ability to overcomedifferences appears to be reverting to thebigoted values that led to World War IIand the Holocaust.Yet to fully understand the ramificationsof this ban, which appears to beracial and religious prejudice at its worst,we must look at the circumstances thatmade it possible. Switzerland has a MuslimPopulation of around 400,000 anda total population of 7.5 million. ContinuedMuslim immigration to Europesparked by war in the Middle East haslead the Swiss people to become fearfulthat their identity was being lost ina flood of Islamic beliefs. The extremeSwiss People’s Party took advantage of theSwiss Constitution’s loose laws regardingamendments and proposed a one-sentenceamendment to the Constitution toban the further construction of minarets.In order to amend the Constitution,a majority of both popular votes andthe twenty-six cantons in Switzerlandis needed. When the ban was proposed,world leaders quickly looked to Swissleaders to strike down the amendmenton one of two grounds. The Swiss Constitutionguarantees religious freedom, andin addition, the International Declarationof Human Rights drafted in and signedby Switzerland states religious freedomis a fundamental human right. However,Swiss leaders allowed the referendum totake place, citing that the failure of thisamendment would be a testament to thetraditional tolerance and understandingof the Swiss people.Despite this, in a surprise result,57.5% of voters and twenty-two of twenty-sixcantons voted for the ban. Now,the Swiss Parliament will have to draftthe amendment to the Constitution, aprocess that often takes over a year. Theconsequences of this ban will not onlybe felt in Switzerland, Europe, and theMuslim community, but in the UnitedStates as well. The ban serves as a sad reminderthat democracy, the most prizedAmerican value, can often be just as evilas dictatorship, tyranny, and the oppressionthat we so often seek to eliminate.Switzerland’s pure democracy has provenAmerica’s founding fathers’ biggest fear:The ban serves a sad reminderthat democracy, the mostprized American value, canoften by just as evil as thedictatorship, monarchy, andoppression that we so oftenseek to eliminate.the persecution of a oppressed majority atthe hands of the tyrannical majority. OurConstitution and method of governmentis apparently safe from the policies of intolerancecurrently being implementedin Switzerland. Ours is a representativegovernment, not a direct democracy, inwhich the wishes of a more moderateand reasonable body of representativesand elected officials makes decisions governingthe nation. And while voters pickthese representatives, the diversity of theAmerican people and the safeguards setin place help prevent obvious narrowmindednessand discrimination. Ourfounding fathers’ fear that a tyrannicalmajority was no better than a tyrant ledthem to develop our intricate system ofgovernment that has worked so well toprotect America from travesties such asInternationalthe minaret ban in Switzerland.America is not completely freefrom the burden caused by the hypocrisyof preaching democracy. Proposition 8 inCalifornia and similar measures in severalstates around the nation have sent aresounding message of intolerance to thegay community. While legislation againstgay marriage may not seem as discriminatoryas the minaret ban in Switzerland,it is, in reality, quite similar. Proposition8 struck down the right of gay couplesto marry and directly opposed the notionthat marriage is a human right, asstated by Article Sixteen of the InternationalDeclaration of Human Rights. Thefact that Proposition 8 was struck downexpresses a clear cultural bias (often instilledby religion) evident in the unlawfuland immoral persecution of a particulargroup of people, in this case the LGBTcommunity in California and acrossAmerica. Americans, regardless of theirreligious views, should strongly opposemeasures to strip the gay community ofits rights, lest our country sink to Switzerland’slevel of discrimination.Even if the recent vote in Switzerland,which happened miles away, isnot a reminder of the dangers of democracy,than the current situation involvinggay marriage should be. The majority isnot always right. Some form of democracyis a necessary part of a free state, butthe tyrannical majority is a severe sideeffect. The floodgates of democracy haveopened, releasing a torrent of inequality.Those who doubt the effectiveness andfairness of the Electoral College and arein favor of a system where a popular votedominates need look no farther for affirmationof the system. Those who areambivalent toward the effectiveness ofour Congress need only look across theAtlantic Ocean. While Congress maybe petty, partisan, and corrupt at times,it protects us from the radicalism andbigotry that has recently engulfed Switzerlandand threatens to harm America.HMRJanuary 2010 HM Review 11

FeaturesFeaturesPlunging into AfghanistanIs the surge a tonic for peace or a recipe for disaster?Timeby nathan raabThat every brave man andwoman who leaves his orher country to fight cancome back in a casket is anunalterable truth of war.Bearing this in mind, America cannotsend her soldiers to foreign lands withoutgood reason; we may instead onlyput them in danger when the benefitsto the safety and security of our nationoutweigh the terrible toll of human lifeand limb. President Obama’s recent escalationof the war in Afghanistan doesnot pass that test: terrorists will thrive inAfghanistan whether it has a strong, prowesterngovernment or not, and a militaryoccupation of the area will only breedresentment and hatred among those wholive there. Thus, the best thing we can doIt is an unalterable truth ofwar that every man and womanwho leaves his or her countryto fight could come home in acasket.for our troops, for our nation, and for ourworld is send those fighters back to theirfamilies and take other, more effectivesteps to halt terrorism.Islamic extremism is primarilya religious and transnational movement,not a political organization, and suppressingit in Afghanistan will do little or nothingto stop its overall success. Because itis so diffuse and ingrained, it will not disintegrateif what it views as an imperialWestern power exerts military pressureagainst its members. Instead, the Talibanwill merely shrink into far off corners ofAfghanistan and Pakistan, where therehas been no effective central governmentor police for six thousand years, and everysingle military force since the Greekshas been ravaged by insurgents and guerillas.There, they will continue to planterrorist attacks with a renewed vigor.No army could occupy or control thesesemi-autonomous areas and we would befoolish to try; our last attempt in Vietnamended only with the loss of over 50,000soldiers. Occupation would also breed resentmentamong the local Pashtuns, eventhose not affiliated with the Taliban, andcollateral damage—accidental shootings,poorly aimed bombs, and other mishapscaused by the fog of war—would devas-12HM Review Vol. XIX

FeaturesTimetate the region and add to the povertythat drives so many unemployed youngmen to jihad. A U.S. drive to deny extremistsa safe haven in Afghanistan willfail, merely provoking them. While in theshort term they may retreat, in the longrun they will spring back more motivatedthan before.Even if an occupation only partiallyfails, the loss in space and resourcesfor Al Qaeda (which currently is not evenofficially affiliated with the Taliban, makingeven more tenuous the connectionbetween a strongAfghan governmentand safetyfrom terrorism)in Afghanistanwould not significantlyimpacttheir operations.Training terroristsdoes not requirelarge amounts ofland or labor; onlya few square mileswill suffice. Theycan make bombsin small apartments.Even if afew are caught,what can happento them? Twooptions presentthemselves: eitherthey are be summarilyexecuted,in which case theybecome martyrsfor Islam, or theyare sent to prisonand then released,Timein which case they rejoin the jihad withgreater resentment toward their captorsand a better knowledge of how the systemof capture and trial works. Neitheroption appeals, to say the least.History itself is telling concerningthe probability of success in eventemporarily occupying and building astable government in Afghanistan. Alexanderthe Great managed to hang ontoit only for a brief while, as did GenghisKahn; Britain did not keep it as a colonyfor very long and Russia bogged itselfdown in a war there that eventually led tothe fall of communism and the U.S.S.R.Nor have foreign interventions in otherlands proven themselves successful in recentyears. Somalia, for example, is still afailed state even after the United Nationsdeployed a peacekeeping force there (andironically, only began to see a rise in itsstandard of living after the peacekeepingforce left). After eight years of bloodshed,Iraq is about as stable as it was before theUnited States sent troops in, and althoughthe U.S. did remove a brutal dictator, theydid it at a cost of some three thousandlives and one trillion dollar—enough,more or less, to buy all Iraq’s land insteadof fighting for it (Iraq’s GDP was $19 billionin 2001 and 2002, and $12.5 billionin 2003). Everyone knows how Vietnamand Korea turned out. All these failedinterventions inspired what is known as“blowback” or resistance to military occupationfor ideological reasons. We canexpect the same blowback and failure inAfghanistan.Just because Islamic terrorism isan indestructible ideology does not meanwe cannot neuter it without massive lossof life; it merely means we must be morecareful in our fight. In our quest to makejihad against America cease, we must firstseek to minimize the collateral damage topeople and property and avoid the blowbackthat has caused previous attempts tomake peace to end in failure. We mustensure every strike against a member ofthe Taliban is exactly that, and not themurder of an innocent civilian. We mustuse our massive technological advantageeffectively, through precise surveillanceand proper targeting. We must foster relationshipswith the Afghan people, andinvest in development in their economy,so that they turn tohonest work andnot suicide bombing.We must notoccupy their landor remain an overbearingpresence intheir lives but insteadwatch carefullyfrom afar, destroyingonly what requiresit via tactical strikeswith drones andother, less invasivemeasures. This ishow we can suppressviolence and terrorsuccessfully andwith minimal loss oflife. We will succeednot through tearingdown but by buildingup, not throughkilling innocents butby singling out theguilty, not throughbrute force but byclever strategy, notthrough the dirtand grime of war but by the warm fire ofpeace and prosperity, interfering with thelives of the Afghan people only when utterlynecessary. If we leave the Afghansalone and give them no reason to hate us,but instead lend a helping hand in theirdevelopment, they will abandon the Taliban.The fanatics who are left will beabandoned in a dark corner of the country,helpless to harm the rest of the world.HMRJanuary 2010 HM Review 13

FeaturesLearning from thePastthat rendered the Soviet bombers useless.The Mujahideen situated themselvessafely within the caves, yet were still ableto fire at the advanced military airplanesusing Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG-7s). Warlords placed their RPG-7-wieldingfighters throughout the area and orderedthem to fire at any Soviet vehicle.As a result, the Soviets were forced toabandon their planes lest they be shot outof the sky and their High Mobility MultipurposeWheeled Vehicles (HUMVEE)lest they be shot at or blown up by mines.The Mujahideen forced the Soviet Unionto descend to their level to fight – soldierto soldier. By that point in the war, theMujahideen knew the battlefield too wellto lose. Throughout the previous decade,members of the Mujahideen carved outcaves and tunnels from the mountains.Snipers and soldiers on turrets had beenplaced throughout the region. It was in1989 that the Soviet Union realized itsinevitable failure in the region and had towithdraw.Afghanistan’s lawless Tora Bora regionstruggled for years between localleaders who ignored the rule of the sittinggovernment. As time passed, theonce united Mujahideen disintegrated.The local warlords individually led thenewly divided states of the Tora Bora.The most notable of these warlords is theSaudi-born Osama Bin Laden, leader ofAl-Qaeda. He and his warriors have beenlinked to attacks such as the bombing ofthe U.S embassy in Kenya, the bombingof the USS Cole, and the attacks on theWorld Trade Center and the Pentagon.After the attacks on September 11th,2001, the U.S government sent the mostqualified soldiers to the most troubledregion of Afghanistan. The elite SpecialForces Unit, knows as Delta Force, wassent on a mission to capture or kill BinLaden. Along with Delta Force, membystephen paduanoIn recent weeks President BarackObama has met with the JointChiefs of Staff to determine thefate of the United States’ armedforces in Afghanistan. The wartorn country is used to foreign militarypresence within its borders. The countryhas been occupied by three of the mostpowerful nations of the last two hundredyears: the United Kingdom, the SovietUnion, and the United States. In 1839,when the UK attempted to establish itsmilitary superiority over the RussianEmpire, Afghanis began forming theirown militias to fight back, successfullydefending themselves from the larger,more powerful United Kingdom.More than a century would passuntil the Soviet Union’s failed attemptat supporting a weak Afghan government.The Soviet Union attacked theeastern borders of Afghanistan to defeatthe Islamist Mujahideen who ruled overthe lands with no regard for the Afghangovernment. The Soviets deployed theirtroops to Afghanistan in an attempt tosupport a fellow Marxist regime, whichwas the official ruling party of Afghanistanat the time. However, when one ofthe most powerful and feared countriesof the time attempted what should havebeen a quick invasion and occupation,the Mujahideen’s lack of power provedfalse. The Soviet Union, unlike the Mujahideen,was equipped with cutting edgemilitary technology, with the ability to attackvia air and land. The Mujahideen, bycontrast, were stuck in the notorious cavecomplex known as the Tora Bora. Eventhough Soviet General Secretary MikhailGorbachev deployed nearly 280 militarybombers similar to United States’ C-141crafts, the Mujahideen prevailed. The SovietUnion was misled into believing thatthe Mujahideen were savages, but theyhad actually devised a military strategyPatdollard14HM Review Vol. XIX

FeaturesJanuary 2010 HM Review 15Boston

Featuresbers of the Special Air Service and theSpecial Boat Service, the British Queen’selite commandos and six intelligence operativesfrom the CIA were deployed tothe region. Learning from previous mistakesin Afghanistan, the CIA workedwith members of the Mujahideen to drawthem from Bin Laden’s grip.This latest attempt at stabilizing thelawless region is the most successful sofar. However, despite the evident technologicaladvantage of the United States andits allies, Delta Force did not achieve itsmain goal of capturing or killing Bin Laden,though the elite warriors did succeededin killing or capturing most membersof Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the region.President Obama has now been leftdealing with a situation with which fewhave succeeded. The president must decideif the United States and its armedforces will remain in the region until theyentirely wipe out the remaining fighters.The main problem is that intelligence reportsfrom CIA and Delta Force have discoveredthat Bin Laden and his top advisorAyman Al-Zawihiri, have escaped tothe turbulent, northwest region of Pakistan,called Waziristan. If Barack Obamagoes ahead with his plan to deploy 30,000more troops to the area, it will be crucialfor the troops to cross the border towhere Bin Laden and his closest allieshave escaped.As President Obama plans to bringan end to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, heand the members of the JCS must realizethat we are fighting a mobile force. An intelligencereport by military personnel inthe field following the final days of DeltaForce in Tora Bora states that we lost BinLaden and Ayman-Al Zawihiri on December13th, 2001, when Bin Laden hadallegedly been working on a peace treatywith members of the Mujahideen whohad allied with the United States. However,during this time, Bin Laden, his topadviser, and other members of Al-Qaedaescaped over the Pakistani border. Therefore,as of December 13th, 2001, membersof the U.S Special Forces, whose missionwas to capture or kill Bin Laden, hadno business in Afghanistan. It is crucialto listen to intelligence reports and actaccordingly if we want to capture OsamaBin Laden. Unfortunately, this abhorrentdisregard for military intelligence datesback to the beginning of the Bush administration,when the President’s DailyBrief landed on his desk at his Crawfordranch entitled, “Bin Laden DeterminedTo Strike in US.” These blunders haveled us to our current state; approximately38,000 troops are deep in Afghanistanand our targets in Pakistan. Continuingthis course of action would lose us thewar. Despite progress in the occupationof Tora Bora, it is time that we address thePakistani government for its approval tocross the border and hunt down Bin Ladenin Waziristan. Looking forward in thiswar, we must use strategy, technology, intelligence,and even brute force. Ignoringthese key components as we have donefor the past eight years will prevent progressand allow the enemy combatantswho fled from battle at Tora Bora to reestablishthemselves in an untouched andunregulated land. The war in Afghanistanis no longer in Afghanistan. HMRdigitaljournal16HM Review Vol. XIX

FeaturesWar’s DevastationTimeTimeNewsweekFollowing the attacks on September 11, 2009, U.S. intelligencesought the persecution of Osama bin Laden. After the Talibangovernment ignored demands to deliver him to justice, a U.S.-led coalition of forces began bombing Afghanistan, and a fullscale invasion caused further animosity. A resurgent Taliban,supported by al Qaeda, has made the future of Afghanistanextremely bleak. Further exacerbating the devastation was thefraudulent Afghan election in 2009. Obama has been forced toincrease troop numbers and try to instate a more centralizedeffort. Despite all efforts, the devastation of war remains piercingin the hearts of all civilians both in the United States andAfghanistan.BostonNewsweekJanuary 2010 HM Review 17

PanoramioEconomicsThe Chinese FacadeAn Unconventional Analysis of the Chinese Economyby deependra mookimDue to its dynamic G.D.P.growth, burgeoning middleclass, and future prospects,China has caught the attentionof those on Wall Streetas well as Americans on Main Street withits potential as an emerging superpower.After this tumultuous period in economichistory, China is now helping to leadthe global economic rebound despite thecontinued negative pressures on the system.However, predictions for Chineseeconomic growth are no longer tetheredto reality or sound economic principles.The European Union Chamber ofCommerce in China (EUCCC) believes18that China’s overcapacity is “wreakingfar-reaching damage on the globaleconomy.” The 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion)stimulus package passed last year isexacerbating this excess industrial capacity,especially in the steel, aluminum, andcement industries, among others. Spendingin these industries will likely yield alow return on investment due to the inefficientnature of many of the projectsbeing funded or subsidized. Money thatcould have been invested in research anddevelopment or the like is instead spenton making goods in excess of the marketdemand. Instead of spending more moneyon health, education, and innovationthat are more likely to increase Chineseliving standards and benefit the economyin the long run, the Chinese governmenthas been allocating a disproportionateamount of resources with only next quarter’sG.D.P. report in mind. Investors andpoliticians in China are so set on G.D.P.growth of 8% in 2009 that there is a tremendousincentive for politicians to undertakeactions to reach this growth rate,regardless of whether or not their actionsare beneficial to the long-term prospectsof the Chinese economy.China’s own state council has admittedthat annual output of cement wouldincrease to 2.7 billion tons, compared todomestic demand of 1.6 billion tons, ifChina’s planned cement projects were allHM Review Vol. XIX

launched. The Wall Street Journal reportsthat “Chinese industrial company profitswere down 10.6% on year to the endof August, with state-owned industrialcompanies -- major beneficiaries of thestimulus efforts to date -- seeing profitsoff 25.2%.” This suggests that the goodscreated in excess of demand are hurtingsuppliers and their bottom lines. If thisdecrease in profits continues for Chinesefirms producing in excess, many ofthese firms would have to layoff workersand possibly shut down. Additionally,Chinese exports fell by 1.2 percent yearover-yearas reported in data for November.Although exports are shrinking at aslower rate and a probable return to exportgrowth is in sight, China’s exportswill likely remain under stress with a subduedeconomic recovery as the consensusfor China’s major trading partners.Chinese credit markets have expandedcredit by $1.3 trillion this year, potentiallyindicating a credit bubble that couldburst as more and more debtors default.This cheap credit accentuates the problemof excess capacity in China, sincemoney is flowing to increase productionnotably into Chinese state-owned enterprisesthat are also stimulated by lowerunit costs from subsidies. The extensionsof the Communist state seem to act moreand more as artificial inflators of economicgrowth utilized by Chinese politiciansto serve their personal interests andnot those of the Chinese people.China’s official economic statisticsmust be taken with a grain of salt, to saythe least. In fact, Chinese economic datain general should be scrutinized. For example,Chinese car sales surged in thelast few months but gasoline demand hasnot made a similar comeback. It is likelythat the data used to report these twostatistics were incomplete or otherwiseflawed. However, there are reports aboutthe Chinese central government forcingstate enterprises to buy fleets of cars thatare then simply stored in parking lots.The banking industry in China also facesMoney that could havebeen invested in researchand development or thelike is instead spent onmaking goods in excess ofthe market demand.the dangers of corruption in a commandeconomy, since politicians choose mostof the top executives at state-owned enterprises.Much of China’s growth resultsfrom federal officials requiring a certainamount of production at the state and locallevels. These governments naturallyrespond by finding ways to boost growthEconomicswithin their jurisdiction, even if resourcesare misdirected to inefficient uses asa result. Ordos, a Chinese city, exemplifiesthe inefficiency within the Chineseeconomy. This very modern city, built injust five years, was meant to house onemillion residents, yet almost nobody currentlylives in Ordos. Chinese officials saythat the majority of the houses in Ordoshave been bought, not as homes but asinvestments. (This, in itself, suggests thewarped perception held by the Chineseregarding real estate markets.) Of course,no individual person is going to move toOrdos unless many people move into thecity at once. Those that would actuallylike to move to Ordos also commonlycite high property prices as an obstacle.In addition, vacancy rates for realestate in many major Chinese cities arehigh not because there is not enoughdemand, but that there is excess supply.Prices continue to rise in Chinese real estatemarkets, though, since demand hasalso significantly increased, partially dueto the increased availability of credit.If expectations remain irrationallyhigh for a long stretch of time, China’sexcess capacity, coupled with factors suchas a real estate and credit bubble, couldeventually cause an economic crisis tantamountto the one the world is nowstarting to shake off. HMRJanuary 2010 HM Review 19

Science and TechnologyTo the Dark Side of the MoonAs NASA plans for the future, the Space Shuttle may be headed for alex posnerOn January 14, 2004,George W. Bush delivereda speech highlighting anew U.S. plan for spaceexploration, in whichNASA would achieve three new goals inspace exploration. This plan won widebipartisan support, a rare occurrencefor the Bush Administration, and it representeda new direction for NASA followingthe fatal 2003 crash of Columbia.On December 15, 2005, Congress passedwhat would be called the NASA AuthorizationAct of 2005.To fully understand the Act, we haveto look at it piece by piece. The first goalwas for NASA to both complete the InternationalSpace Station (ISS) and retirethe Space Shuttle fleet by 2010. The spaceshuttle has for many years been NASA’sprimary spacecraft since its first flightin the early 1980s. Over the past few decades,the shuttle has launched humansinto space 127 times on a variety of missions,including the deployment of theHubble Telescope as well as the installationof many satellites in use today.For the past few years, the shuttlemissions have focused mainly on theconstruction of the ISS. Early conceptionsfor a space station have been aroundsince the time of the Cold War, when theUnited States was in a space race with theSoviet Union. Since then, there have beenfew attempts at the creation of a longtermspace station, and none have beensuccessful.In September of 1993, Vice President20Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister ViktorChernomyrdin announced plans fora new international space station. Japanand several countries from Western Europewere included as primary investorsand participants in this new project. Fiveyears later, when the first piece of the stationwas launched into space, the stationwas on track to be completed in 2003. Aseries of unexpected delays eventuallyforced NASA to move the completionback until 2011. Throughout the courseof its construction, astronauts have continuedto live on the space station forperiods of six months at a time. TheyUnfortunately, this means thatthe United States will be withouta spacecraft for four yearsafter the shuttle retires. Thisis even more of a reason to extendthe lifetime for the SpaceShuttle program.spend their days performing various experimentsthat are all key to making continuedscientific discoveries, improvinglife on earth, and helping prepare for andimprove future space travel. Because thethree remaining shuttles in the fleet areset to retire in 2010 and the ISS is set tobe completed in 2011, spacecrafts fromother countries, which tend to be less efficient,will have to fend for themselveswith the final pieces of the construction.It makes much more sense to keep theshuttle in operation until the completionof the ISS, but that currently seems unlikely.The second major part of the NASAAuthorization Act of 2005 calls forNASA to develop and test a new CrewExploration Vehicle by 2008. Accordingto the legislation, it will take its firstmanned flight in or before 2014. This isthe most dramatic aspect of NASA’s newspace program, since the last time NASAworked to develop a new spacecraft wasin the 1980s, when the shuttle programwas created originally.NASA began by introducing theConstellation Program. Developed byLockheed Martin, the human space flightprogram consists of two launch vehicles,Ares I and Ares V. As the crew launch vehicle,Ares I will carry astronauts into theearth’s orbit. Ares V, on the other hand, isa cargo launch vehicle that will not carryany humans. Instead, it will carry materialsand equipment needed for longermissions, such as fuel and food, outsidethe confines of earth. These extra supplieswould attach to Ares I in space beforeheading to the moon or Mars.NASA has been working on Ares Isince early 2007 and hopefully will publishthe design by July 2010. Testing willcontinue until 2012 and a human launchis scheduled for no later than 2014. Unfortunately,this means that the UnitedStates will be without a spacecraft for fouryears after the shuttle retires. This is evenmore of a reason to extend the lifetimefor the Space Shuttle program.The third and final aspect of NASA’snew initiatives calls for the return of humanexplorations to the moon by 2020.Humans have not traveled to the moonsince the final Apollo mission in 1971.HM Review Vol. XIX

Considering that the computers used tobring the Apollo to moon had less processingpower than today’s pocket calculator,this is a great time for this initiative.The Constellation Program is largely derivedfrom the original moon missionsas many of the fundamental designs thatwere used 40 years ago still are being appliedtoday.The recent downturn in the economyhas forced NASA to re-evaluate its proposedfuture programs and projectedtimelines. The Constellation Program,which is supposed to be implementedover the next decade, is expected to cost$97 billion by 2020 and $200.6 billion bythe end of 2030, as NASA plans to constructa space station on the moon. In anattempt to fully evaluate the effectivenessof NASA’s current programs, the Obamaadministration ordered a panel review ofthe Constellation Program as well as aninvestigation completed in mid-November,which proposes five alternatives tothe current program.One proposed modification is essentiallya minor reworking of the currentspace shuttle with a side mount to carrythe astronauts. This side mount wouldbe attached to the fuel tank, which is potentiallyvery dangerous, since if the fuelwere to ignite, the shuttle would explode.Unfortunately, this new rocket designwould not be powerful enough for a futuremission to Mars. Another idea isalso based on the current shuttle in placeand would require a redesign by puttingthe capsule on top. This idea is safer, becausethe astronauts would be furtheraway from the rocket fuel, but it still isn’tenough for missions to Mars. Two otherdesigns call for a lighter Ares V and arebelieved to be the best alternative to thecurrent Constellation Program. Thiswould eliminate the need for Ares I, asthe new vehicle would be capable of carryingboth crew and cargo. The final designwould be to build an all-liquid fuelrocket similar to Saturn V, the rocket thatbrought people to the moon 40 years ago.It would eliminate the need for expensivesolid rocket fuel.These plans will be presented toPresident Obama in January 2010, offeringhim a range of options from which todecide NASA’s future. According to manypredictions, President Obama will mostlikely decide to change the new spaceprogram from a two-vehicle system to aone-vehicle system. This will cost more inthe short term, as NASA will work to redesignthe spacecraft, but in the long runwill cost less because one (not two) vehicleswill be needed to travel to the moon.In light of our precarious economicsituation, some will ask why the U.S. governmentcontinues to invest billions ofdollars on trips to the moon and spaceexploration. What do we have to gain byexploring space? The answer is knowledge.Among the questions space explorationcan answer are these: Are we alonein the universe? What other living thingsmay exist? Scientific advances from pastspace exploration are readily apparent.Freeze-drying food, heat shield materialsthat protect skyscrapers, bar codingitems at stores, memory foam found inmattresses, invisible braces, swimsuitsthat reduce drag, technology that allowsfor minimally invasive knee surgery, theGivens Buoy Life Raft (which has beencredited with saving over 400 lives),infrared ear thermometers, ingestibletoothpaste, wireless headsets (Bluetooth),carbon monoxide detectors, foam in athletichelmets, various passenger airplanetechnologies, Anthrax detectors, artificiallimbs, and plasma screen displays are allScience and TechnologySpacearium.comtechnologies engineered in full or partthrough NASA’s various space missions.These technologies did not exist beforeNASA’s work in space exploration andfor these we owe NASA credit. The scientificdiscoveries we can make in the nextdecade through the development of theConstellation Program would be key toimproving life on earth.The moon itself has groundbreakingresources. There are large amounts ofhelium-3 present on the moon’s surface,a substance easily adaptable into rocketor automobile fuel. Also important is thefrozen water that exists just below themoon’s surface, which could be importantto helping sustain life.In the next few months, there willbe much debate as President Obama decideson the fate of NASA’s ConstellationProgram. Some experts believe that hewill call for a one-vehicle system, similarto the Apollo Program, which would bebased on Ares V. If he does, the timelineof the project goals will most likely bepushed back by several years. As countriessuch as India, Japan, and Russia havealready pledged their own lunar explorations,the U.S. must continue its scientificjourney and continue to lead the world inboldly exploring the final frontier. If wedo not, we will lose our largest territory:the skies. HMRJanuary 2010 HM Review 21

Science and TechnologyAn Inconvenient TruthPerhaps the dangers of climate change fromglobal warming have been alexander danielIn 1633, Galileo Galilei and theviews of rational science weretried by the Inquisition, in themost notorious trial in the historyof science. The church establishmentrefused to accept an inconvenienttruth—that the Earth revolvesaround the sun. Yet, today scientists havebetrayed their martyr and have now becomethe inquisitors, suppressing factsand data pertaining to climate changeand waging a crusade against researcherschallenging the Global Warming Doctrineand its globalist clergy.As leaders and national representativesconverge in Copenhagen to reach awatershed agreement addressing climatechange their efforts are hindered by thecloud of uncertainty and scandal revolvingaround climate change’s substantiationthrough suspect practice. For thepast decade, European progressives andleading scientists have demanded sweepingreforms to address perceived climateirregularities. Despite the plethora of issuesconfronting the developing world,international security concerns, and anunstable global economy, the United22Their unwillingness to publicizetheir findings calls fora serious inquiry into thevalidity of their data andmeans of conducting research.Nations has shifted its attention to combatingclimate change and catalyzedan enormous shift in energy policiesthroughout the world. However, these effortshave been based on incomplete orfudged data, exaggerating the externalitiesof man-made emissions and rate ofclimate change.In November 2009, hackersbroke into a server from the Climate ResearchUnit (CRU) of the University ofEast Anglia, one of the leading researchentities investigating climate change.Over 1000 e-mails and 2,000 documentswere stolen and disseminated, revealingdisturbing information regarding the natureof climate change research. The CRUis no ordinary university research program;it plays a central role in shaping internationalperception on climate change.The director of the CRU, Professor PhilJones, heads the Hadley Center, a researchand data collecting institutionwhose statistics are the primary scientificdata selected by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC).For years, members of the CRUhave evaded Freedom of Informationlaws in the U.K. Their unwillingness topublicize their findings calls for a seriousinquiry into the validity of their data andmeans of conducting research. The explanationfor these scientists’ secrecy is clearby the nature of the leaked emails: theresults of their research were wrong andskewed. In November 1999, Dr. Jones,explained to a colleague that “I’ve justcompleted Mike [Mann’s, a leading scientistsuggesting that after 1,000 years of decline,global temperature has dramaticallyrisen] Nature trick of adding in the realtemps to each series for the last 20 yearsand from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”This admission to blatant tinkeringwith scientific data further sheds lightupon the willingness of scientists andactivists to intimidate and manipulatethe public and politicians to fulfill theirradical agenda. These scientists have notonly revealed the pitfalls and inexplicableaspects of arguments for climatechange, but also shamed the field of sci-HM Review Vol. XIXsouthenergy

Science and Technologyentists. Their conspiracies might soundfar-fetched, but considering the billionsin research grants funneled to scientistsby gullible politicians and fearful privateinstitutions, the scientific communitycertainty has a monetary incentive tooverhype global warming. Furthermore,Jones branded skeptics of climate changeas “idiots” and even expressed desire touse violence on a skeptic. Such vitriol iscommonplace in the highest echelon ofthe scientific community. Prominent opponentsof the theory of climate changehave been ostracized for failing to signthe IPCC assessment reports.The central problem at the forefrontof Climategate stems from statisticsand trends in temperature and climatethat belie the popular notion promotedby unwavering adherents to the theoryof climate change. Although man-madeemissions certainly play some role in thedeterioration of the ozone layer and thetrapping of heat in the atmosphere, scientistshave exaggerated the severity of thesituation. The truth is that temperatureshave declined over the past two years, contraryto the ethos of climate change, andaccording to the BBC, temperatures havealso steadily declined since they peakedin 1998. Moreover, in the aftermath ofWorld War II, from 1945- 1977, whenglobal industrial activity and fossil fuelemissions rose, temperatures dropped.Consequently, it is of little surprise thatscientists devoted to the perpetuation ofa myth would go to extraordinary lengthsto cover up their lies. Kevin Trenberthof the National Center for AtmosphericResearch summed up this sentiment amonth ago in the leaked e-mails by noting:“The fact is that we can’t account forthe lack of warming at the moment and itis a travesty that we can’t.” Americans arenow becoming skeptical of the notion ofglobal warming, as the number of individualsbelieving that warming is causedby humans declined from 47% in April2008 to 36%. Furthermore the percentageof Americans thinking that there is credibleevidence indicating climate changehas slipped from 71% to 57% in that sametime period.Furthermore, the approach endorsedby the United Nations, the IPCC,and most environmentalists will hindereconomic growth throughout the internationalcommunity. The most disturbingaspect of the so-called agreement is themassive expenditures required, potentiallyupwards of $100 billion annualy to developingcountries, with the intention ofinvesting in “environmentally-friendly”energy. Such expenditures are not onlycounter-intuitive, but outrageously expensive.These measures will not directlyimpact struggling people in the developingworld. Environmentalists claim swiftaction is needed to ensure the developingcountries are not adversely affected by“climate change”; yet in reality the internationalcommunity is just pursuing anIn light of Climategate,politicians and the publiccannot afford to throw theirunwavering support behindan unsettled theory. Quitesimply, the hacked e-mailsrender the science of climatechange fraudulent.?themoneytimesunsubstantiated threat, rather than usingthe potency of multilateralism to addressreal concerns, namely developmentand the eradication of poverty. The E.U.plans to divert funds from Official DevelopmentalAssistance to pay for the $10.6billion stipend for “green” technologiesin the developing countries. Moreover,developing countries emit a fraction ofall fossil fuels. The real culprits (yet inreality all countries have the right to pursuetheir own economic interests)—TheUnited States and the People’s Republicof China, which account for over 40% ofcarbon dioxide—have been reluctant toratify the Kyoto Protocol and have mademeager emission cuts. China’s stated goalof reducing its carbon intensity, a measuringof emissions per unit of GDP, by40% will in fact cause an increase in itsemissions. The international communityshould scrap these rash plans.Most concerning, these proposalswill jeopardize fiscal growth on a hugescale in a time of economic tumult. Greenenergies, namely bio-fuels, wind power,solar power, and geothermal technologiesare cancers to economic systems.Not only are such energy sources ineffectiveand unreliable, but they carry obsceneprices. According to the non-profitElectric Power Research Institute, solarenergy costs 300% the price of coal, whilewind energy costs 150% of the price ofcoal. The United States would inevitablysuffer the most from these unsustainableeconomic practices, which willfurther strain our economy. PresidentObama has promised to cut the UnitedStates’ carbon dioxide emissions by 17%from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025,42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. Accordingto the Congressional Budget Office, theproposed 17% cut would cost Americanhouseholds an average of $890. Obama’senvironmental policies are tantamountto a tax on all Americans and would alsosignificant reduce our manufacturingcapacity—resulting in job losses. In essence,the American people will saddle adebt based on the climate change hoax.In light of Climategate, politiciansand the public cannot afford tothrow their unwavering support behindan unsettled theory. Quite simply, thehacked e-mails render the science of climatechange fraudulent. In his inauguraladdress, President Obama noted his intentionto “restore science to its rightfulplace.” His credo, and that of all individualsand nations seeking responsible science,has been marginalized by globalefforts to address an illegitimate concernbased on the baseless inclinations of ideology-drivenscientists. HMRJanuary 2010 HM Review 23

The Horace Mann ReviewHorace Mann School231 West 246th StreetRiverdale, New York 1047124HM Review Vol. XIX

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines