Hear ye, hear ye! I want to hear ye!

In the world of academia, where does one find a niche?

PhD students struggle with this all the time as they write and rewrite their thesis topic, waiting for approval from their advisor and hoping they haven't been scooped by anyone else. So what is a lowly undergraduate to do? Stare at the proposal sheet until they bleed from the forehead? (I know I have when writing some of my college essays.)

I also have the unfortunate timing of choosing a regional topic where papers are being churned out as often as iPad commercials pop up on the TV, but Afghanistan is getting slightly overlooked as combat troops are bidding Iraq au revoir and the US is going "OH NOES IRAN NUCLEAR BAAAAD".

Researching the dearth of articles already in the e-journal system, I noticed that there haven't been a lot of studies on what the public thinks of the war in Afghanistan. Sure, there have been opinion polls; in fact, as long as the 24/7 news networks are on, there is sure to be a poll flashing somewhere on the sidebar or raw data crawling along the bottom of the TV screen.

What about college students though?

Has anyone asked them?

Do the news networks actually care?

We are voters, after all. Well, you might be, I've only cast votes across the pond.

In light of this, I am thinking of researching how the public sentiment may affect future US foreign policy in Afghanistan. With the midterm elections coming up, this will be particularly important. The bloke (or…blokette? Whatever the female equivalent is) you vote into Congress may have a say in what step the head honchos are going to take next. Checks and balances and all that. And as it is 2010, it's time for potential presidential candidates to start prepping for 2012.

So public opinion and domestic politics matter A LOT. Which is why I'm going to research them. In particular, I will look at the opinions of young, college-age Americans whom are enrolled in school or have recently graduated. How much they even know about what's going on, do they agree with it, are there any alternative solutions if not, and whether this will affect their potential votes on the midterms.

Long story short, my question is this:

What is the general opinion among college-age students of the conflict in Afghanistan, and to what extent will this affect the future of domestic politics?

Catchy, I know. I'll think of a sexier title later.

As per requirements from the higher echelons, this will include some sort of survey.

Having been traumatized by composing and printing out dozens surveys on vegetarianism and healthy for a year-long, 30-page, graphic-heavy, A3-sized project back in high school, I will most likely enlist the help of SurveyMonkey this time around, since I've noticed that students are less willing to stop and take the survey when they have already been accosted by activists from Greenpeace to UNICEF. And we are in the age of social media, after all.

Questions may include:

· What they thought back in 2001 of the war in Afghanistan,

· How they feel about more recent developments, and

· Their predictions for the future.

Students with a background in political science may be able to provide more detailed opinions and suggestions, but I want to accommodate as great a variety of majors and disciplines as possible. Background matters as well; this survey will be heavy on demographics. Of course, the majority of respondents are likely to come from the same university campus, but that could in turn be an interesting sociological study.

I am genuinely curious about the results. I mean, the answers can be predictable if you belong to an organization that supports or opposes war in the Middle East, but for those in the middle, anything goes.

Oh, hello, what's this? Karzai arranging talks with the Taliban? Excuse me, I'll be right back….

Will this olive branch break?

It's official: Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban. A peace council has been announced, including former Taliban government officials and a handful of female representatives.

It's a cute idea.

Joshua Foust has posted an interesting commentary defending Karzai's situation. I agree in that he really does have a mountain to climb, between pacifying constituents, insurgents, and warlords. The corruption in his administration, whether of his own making or not, is also another thing he has to contend with.

There is however a BIIIIIG issue.

There really is no "one" Taliban.

Remember (if you are old enough and lived in the UK) when wearing orange in certain parts of Belfast would've gotten you shot? Or living on a certain street could get your house bombed?

That supposedly ended with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 between the IRA/Sinn Fein and the British.

But as recently as Saturday, there have been reports of increasing dissident activity from fringe elements of the IRA. Or the "Real" IRA, as they call themselves. And they don't give a rat's rear end about peace agreements.

So there is an inherent danger that even if the Karzai administration makes peace with some of the leading Taliban leaders, there will be others in the wings who don't like the principal actors waiting for their moment in the spotlight. And it won't be pretty.

I have a professor who is of the opinion that this may be more of a publicity stunt, making this olive branch one of plastic. It would benefit the US withdrawal plan as they can fully hand over the reins to the government, and it would look good to the public if the more hardline elements look like they're willing to bargain.

Annotated Bibliography

Our most recent assignment was to find an article relevant to our topic and write an annotated bibliography on it. My chosen article for the draft was a neat little informal discussion on wearing the hijab and using the Internet for support, but sadly it wasn't as relevant to Afghanistan as I wanted it to be. Therefore, I present:

Mac Ginty, R. (2010). Warlords and the liberal peace: state-building in Afghanistan. Conflict, Security & Development : CSD, 10(4), 577.

Roger Mac Ginty, a Reader at the University of St Andrews, analyses the contradictions in relying on local warlords in Afghanistan in building a new state that follows the model of "liberal peace" He first defines liberal peace as the type of intervention in a post-conflict state based on the ideas of international institutions, which is usually implemented along with democratic institutions. However, introducing liberal peace into Afghanistan has been difficult because the administrations following the fall of the Taliban have often included local warlords, whom operate within a policy of clan loyalty and military superiority over one another. They were particularly useful in the fight against the Taliban because of their military and financial strength, but their woeful human-rights record was overlooked until now, and many warlords continue to pursue their own agendas even in the new administration. Therefore, Mac Ginty's argument is that the expectation of a smooth transition to a Western-style democratic state in Afghanistan is unreasonable because of its context, and that trying to use Western-style models in local politics overlooks the social constructs of the warlords and their loyalties.

This article highlights a very important and complex issue confronting coalition forces and the local Afghan government, as one decides how to use one's resources to construct a stable, reliable administration that the people can rely on, and in what capacity should the local warlords be used. While the article is undoubtedly very informative and detailed, it is very long and the writing is filled with technical jargon that is difficult to understand without at least a background in political science. Although "liberal peace" is defined, it is used in conjunction with other obscure terms where the author assumes the reader will immediately understand the context. In addition, Mac Ginty's use of vocabulary is not particularly concise, as he describes something as "a costly endeavour" when "expensive" would have been an adequate substitute.

On the whole, this article would be very useful when researching international relations theory, political institutions and post-conflict reconstruction, as well as studying the social and political culture of Afghanistan. For my part, the presence of the warlords and the power they can wield will be an important factor as I continue to explore the country's security issues and how the United States will respond in their foreign policy.

Lesson for the kids: Drugs and guns and bad writing don't mix.

It sounds like a series of bad movie plots being tested in real time.

You have the action-crime-comedy (or thriller) of soldiers trying to smuggle drugs out of the country using military equipment.

Or the slasher horror with soldiers going ballistic and killing people and collecting bits of them of souvenirs. (Link below)

And at that point you would want to file that screenplay in the unmarked circular cabinet next to your desk and hope for something better to drop into the inbox.

But no. Although the investigations, and concurrently the news stories, are still in an ongoing process, more sticks have been poked into the proverbial bicycle of Afghanistan’s relations with the West, which recently has been struggling up and down more hills than a Tour de France novice. If at least one of these cases proves to be true, everyone is going to be in a world of hurt.

Let’s take the first story. British soldiers have allegedly (key word here, if it’s not true I will be relieved) used military planes to transport heroin out of Afghanistan. In addition to the fact that you really should not be smuggling drugs while you are trying to wage war in a foreign country, this case highlights the issue of where a lot of the money flows in Afghanistan: the poppy fields and the opium produced which can raise cash for warlords in the countryside.

Journalists have trained their spotlights on the airstrike of the day and the political debate of the week for so long, ongoing concerns such as drug trafficking aren’t mentioned quite as often. Like the plant, the issue has been there for a while, growing and wilting and then growing again. Destroying poppy fields, paying farmers to destroy poppy fields, trying to find other sources of income for the farmers, are all methods that have been tried and not proved particularly successful so far.

It’s the money that’s the concern. The money from selling the opium is likely to fund campaigns by warlords and insurgents in areas such as Helmand. Coincidentally, opium poppies are primarily grown in Helmand province, where a lot of British soldiers are currently stationed. Possibly the same soldiers that may or may not have bought heroin. Made from opium.

[2 hours later]

It was at this point where I had finished writing a much harsher version of the above paragraphs, when I double checked the news articles I’d read.

This word sprang out.

“Unsubstantiated.”

Basically, no evidence for the claims.

Phew.

Also, I may have jumped the gun a bit.

So this is a lesson in basic journalism: try not to Monday morning quarterback while the game is still going on. In the two hours I’d left this article alone, the situation had changed. For the better too, although security measures are going to be increased and the suspicion still lingers as the Royal Military Police are going to investigate. Nevertheless, I went back and rewrote most of this entry.

So that’s the thriller flick taken care of. What about the horror?

The second story is much more serious as it is, even when you don’t count the macabre element of the orthopedic souvenirs. I don’t pretend to know what makes a soldier tick, what gets him out of bed in the morning and back into it at night, what makes him finally snap.

And I try not to judge as a civilian when cases like this come up in the military. War is hell on anyone.

But even as the investigation continues, as Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell stated, “whether ultimately proven true or not, [the charges] had already damaged the U.S. military's reputation.” Which is really the last thing they need in a country where you’re not sure if the local you’re working with actually likes you or not.

Until the case is fully made to light, this is one screenplay that is not going to be discarded just yet, no matter how much we want it to.

Trifecta

(Reposting of previous posts, now edited)

Hello world!

“Taliban claim two Spanish victims.” ” US General: 2011 Afghanistan Deadline 'Giving Our Enemy Sustenance'.” “Corruption Tie in Afghanistan Has Echoes of CIA's Past‎.”

The above headings were found after a 2 minute Google News search. The power of Web 2.0!

Follow me as this college senior and blogging novice tracks the development of current events in Afghanistan over the course of the semester. There is certainly no shortage of newsworthy events at the moment. As an International Relations major with a focus in International Security and a minor in Middle East Studies, I guess it feels almost natural to be interested in Aghanistan’s role in the Middle East (and NATO’s role in it to an extent), and how that role will change in the immediate future.

But I do find writing purely about politics a wee bit dull, so I am keen to explore how other aspects of life such as culture, religion and economics play into the overall picture. I will however confess that my knowledge of the area is very limited, and I hope this blog will enable me to further develop my understanding as I seek out various news sources and create my own analysis.

Bit of a heavy subject, I know. One that may result in me sleeping with my stuffed toys for comfort again. So why am I doing this?

Besides the academic interest, I have always wanted to work in the non-profit sector in some capacity, whether it be in an office or out in the field. I understand that there are certain risks that come with the job, depending on what you do and where you are. At least, I thought I did.

There really is little justification to have people like Karen Woo expect an average lifespan of a few days once they set foot on the land they choose to work in, especially when the job description is to preserve life, and you have someone trying to end yours. The increase in deadly attacks against peacekeepers and NGO personnel in the Middle East has made such professions extremely dangerous, as many organizations have pulled out workers from hotspots or ceased operations all together. Security and charity may seem like they are on opposite ends of the international relations spectrum, but the two are irrevocably linked, especially in such volatile regions.

On a final note and a warning to readers, I enter this debate from a politically liberal background. While I do not have significant ties to Afghanistan or the United States (you can probably tell from the way I spell certain words), I spent this past spring wearing down Edinburgh’s cobblestones persuading voters-to-be to cross that box for the Labour party. (We all know how that turned out.) Such influences will no doubt be reflected in my commentary, but I have been moving to a more centrist position and am always happy to accept ideas and arguments from other points of view.

My main objective is not to be overly partisan (and feel free to let me know if I am straying from this path); there are enough columns, op-eds, and blogs out there for that. The goal of this blog is to ensure I am well-informed to make my own judgements about each situation, and help readers to do the same.



Blog profile

In trying to find an example of a blog that would be as close as possible to what I had in mind for my own, I found myself looking at those written by academics living stateside. Afghan Notebook is one such blog, written by Vikash Yadav, an Assistant Professor of Political Science. His specialises in “sovereignty, security, and identity in South Asia”, and is conducting research on India’s strategy in Afghanistan. He states in his profile, “I don't claim to be an expert on Afghanistan…which is why I am keeping this log of what I am learning.” A humble approach, and he seems to have been following it so far.

Afghan Notebook’s prominence in the world of social media appears minimal, as it does not appear on the Technorati scale, and in fact doesn’t even appear in the first few Google search results on Afghanistan blogs. This could be due to his erratic posting, alternating periods of frequent updates with months where he travels to conduct research and posts maybe once or twice a month. It is a bit of a shame that his blog is not more prominent as it is very resourceful, with a variety of sources on his blogroll, a public Twitter account that regularly posts links to articles he finds interesting, and another sidebar that posts the titles and excerpts of news articles.

As inferred in the blog title, Yadav examines issues in Afghanistan that also concern countries such as India and Pakistan. He also discusses US military action and developments in foreign policy since the conflict began, and two of his more recent posts are of particular interest. The first one is his summary of what has changed, with some interesting points on the coining of catchphrases to describe new strategies and the increasing radicalisation of religion, not in the Middle East and Asia, but in the Eastern world; recent events certainly seem to support these points. The second post recalls a debate he had with a fellow professor over counter-insurgency tactics in Afghanistan, where he questions if the method of “terrorizing citizens” used in the Vietnam War would be effective today, listing a number of public protests in the region that occurred in response to attacks by NATO.

I feel that these two entries highlight just how much has changed in Afghanistan since the US began military operations, and whether the US can learn from its previous war experiences. They also highlight Yadav's blogging format, a combination of long detailed personal commentaries with occasional cross-posting of quotes and videos. He also sometimes draws from his previous discussions with other academics and comments on whether their hypotheses fit the current situation. At the same time, neither of these entries link to any sources to support his argument, which could be undermined if someone posts a counter-argument.

What I particularly like about Yadav's writing style, however, is his use of cultural references. He knows how to mix politics and pop culture. How many academics will use an episode from The Wire as a model for the Taliban organisational situation? Or describe a prominent, not-so-dearly-departed Taliban leader as “young and handsome (in a swashbuckling, Captain Jack Sparrow-ish sort of way)”? . It's a nice way to address potentially tricky topics.

I believe that Yadav’s approach to the topic of Afghanistan is close to mine, as he is using this blog to educate himself as well as disseminate the knowledge he already has to the general audience. In contrast to the dozens of blogs kept by military and civilian figures stationed in Afghanistan, whom have firsthand experience with the issues every day, Yadav is in my position: very interested in the subject matter and its significance, but having to rely on other sources first to inform ourselves. While his comes from an academic background, his blog appears to be written for a general informed but ignorant audience based on his use of more informal language and attempts to link the reader to the content using references they might be more familiar with. His analysis reflects the amount of research he has conducted without overtly pushing an agenda, and his style of writing engages the reader. On a final note, he makes an effort to encourage the audience to find other sources either through the links on his Twitter or his news sidebar.

My blog will probably (okay, definitely) not be as vivid and nuanced in its arguments due to our different academic levels, but his would not be a bad model to follow. If my blog is the developing zygote, Afghan Notebook is going to be the surrogate stepmother.



Voice Critique

If you have ever read Dune, or seen its various visual forms, take a tip from the Bene Gesserit.

It's all about the Voice.

No matter how accurate, interesting or informative a blog may be, it will not attract readership if the author does not have a compelling and engaging voice. Even a voice that touches a nerve is better than none.

I'm still working on mine, as you can probably tell. And thus I search for blogs whose authors can use their Voice (it's probably too important to be just a voice) particularly effectively, in the hope that I can glean some inspiration.

So what makes Ghosts of Alexander stand out? Well, as I said before, even the world's best academics will not get someone to read their writing unless they attempt to package it into something you want to read, or your professor forces you to read their writing because they happen to be the world's best academics.

Christian Bleuer, a PhD student in Central Asian Studies, makes an effort to avoid the dry, verbose manner often seen in academic journals, instead using concise sentences to make his point accessible, adopting a more conversational tone, and breaking up paragraphs into smaller ones when he can for easier reading. In addition, he uses a variety of media from other sources as a platform for his opinion, and thus we get a better sense of his voice by his use of personal pronouns, adverbs, imagery, and asides. In his case, the voice is particularly sardonic, regardless if he agrees or disagrees with the subject matter. Think David Mitchell if you're into Brit comedy, or House if you like American TV shows (starring a Brit comedian).

Consider his post “ISAF Colonel Swings a Dead Cat, Hits Another Colonel”, which promises to be interesting simply by the mangling of metaphor in the title (and the possibility that a dead cat might actually be involved, who knows). He then uses a pop culture reference in “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”, complete with a link to a video for those who don’t get it. While this post is quite short and doesn’t contain much of his own analysis after each block quote, the comments he does make succinctly inform us of what he thinks of the article: ”Well, that was candid. It sounds like the French civil service.” “My God, the next morning at work must have been so awkward.” Sounds snide out of context, but in this case he does support the colonel, calling him “one step away from being my choice for officer of the week.” He concludes the post with an embedded video (another pop culture reference) that cleverly poses a question for everyone.

And the majority of his posts follow this format. One can see a more diluted version (in terms of vitriol) in “The cost of an Afghan life is…?”, where he questions the evidence based on his own knowledge: “I don’t recall anything about punitive damages being higher based on ability of the liable party to pay.” There's that sarcasm again. At the same time, he makes us aware that it is wholly his own opinion. He doesn’t employ fire-and-brimstone rhetoric to convince others to accept his side, and accepts his limitations: “Of course, I’ll admit when I’m the wrong person to speak to.”

What I particularly enjoy about Christian’s writing is his use of a Socratic-like commentary, peppering his analysis with rhetorical questions to make one think about the issue at hand:

“Right, OK. Let’s just say A and B were somehow implemented – unlikely as it is – how does C work?”

Even if he doesn’t have the answers, and neither do we, he encourages us to look past the black-and-white of the newsprint. I find that this method works particularly well when discussing a topic with so many grey areas such as Afghanistan, as it encourages readers to engage in the discussion. And if you read the comments sections of his previous posts, you will see that many have done so, with such zeal that he has closed comments for future posts and now encourages contact through more private channels. Not sure if I entirely agree with that, but I guess one's spam filter can only handle so much.

Overall, Christian’s blog is a pretty thought-provoking read, and his combination of a conversational style with an overlay of sarcasm helps him make his point on a more informal level. Even if you may not agree with his point, even if you feel personally insulted by one of his points, even if you have no idea what on earth he’s referring to, he’s still got you thinking.

And with that, I continue my quest for my own Voice.

Voice post

No matter how accurate, interesting or informative a blog may be, it will not attract readership if the author does not have a compelling and engaging voice. Even a voice that touches a nerve is better than none. Ghosts of Alexander is a blog that covers political and military developments in Afghanistan and Tajikistan from the viewpoint of PhD student Christian Bleuer in Central Asian Studies (it says so right there in his profile). The very idea of the author having a PhD might generate an alarm bell from the general audience because they may think it stuffy, long-winded, inaccessible. It definitely would have for me.

So why did I keep reading? Well, although Christian is an academic, he makes an effort to avoid the dry, verbose manner often seen in academic journals, instead using concise sentences to make his point accessible, adopting a more conversational tone, and breaking up paragraphs into smaller ones when he can for easier reading. In addition, he uses a variety of media from other sources as a platform for his opinion, and thus we get a better sense of his voice by his use of personal pronouns, adverbs, imagery, and asides. In his case, the voice is particularly sardonic, regardless if he agrees or disagrees with the subject matter.

Consider his post “ISAF Colonel Swings a Dead Cat, Hits Another Colonel”, which promises to be interesting simply by the mangling of metaphor in the title. He then uses a pop culture reference in “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”, complete with a link to a video for those who don’t get it. While this post is quite short and doesn’t contain much of his own analysis after each block quote, the comments he does make succinctly inform us of what he thinks of the article: ”Well, that was candid. It sounds like the French civil service.” “My God, the next morning at work must have been so awkward.” Sounds snide, but in this case he does support the colonel, calling him “one step away from being my choice for officer of the week.” He concludes the post with an embedded video (another pop culture reference) that poses a rhetorical question.

And the majority of his posts follow this format. One can see a more diluted version (in terms of vitriol) in “The cost of an Afghan life is…?”, where he doesn’t attack outright, but does question the evidence based on his own knowledge: “I don’t recall anything about punitive damages being higher based on ability of the liable party to pay.” It smacks slightly of arrogance, but at the same time, he makes us aware that it is wholly his own opinion. He doesn’t employ fire-and-brimstone rhetoric to convince others to accept his side, and accepts his limitations: “Of course, I’ll admit when I’m the wrong person to speak to.”

What I particularly enjoy about Christian’s writing is his use of a Socratic-like commentary, peppering his analysis with rhetorical questions to make one think about the issue at hand:

“Right, OK. Let’s just say A and B were somehow implemented – unlikely as it is – how does C work?”

Even if he doesn’t have the answers, and neither do we, it encourages us to not take the news at face value. I find that this method works particularly well when discussing a topic with so many grey areas such as Afghanistan, as it encourages readers to engage in the discussion.

Overall, Christian’s blog is a pretty thought-provoking read, and his combination of a conversational style with an overlay of sarcasm helps him make his point on a more informal level. Even if you may not agree with his point, even if you feel personally insulted by one of his points, even if you have no idea what on earth he’s referring to, he’s still got you thinking.

*Bible-thump-head-desk*

Oh, lordy, lordy.

I'm jumping onto this rather late, but I have had other things on my mind. Such as the beginning of the football season.

Only kidding, but it is an odd and poignant coincidence that this Saturday (staple day for football games) is 9/11. The day after Eid. And the day that a certain church has decided to hold a book-burning party. But not the benign kind like my friend's roasting of her O-chem notes.

In response, there have been protests in Kabul and other cities around the world. And it's not just Muslims; the Secretary of State and General Petraeus have also condemned the event, with the latter saying that it puts troops in Afghanistan at risk. But the church are going ahead with it anyway.

And technically they have the legal right to. Freedom of speech, what previous generations have fought for. But someone has to put out an Amber Alert for common sense. Whatever you feel about the politics or theology of it all, this is really no time to be fanning the flames. Or more than just Qur'ans will get burnt.

Afghan Notebook

Afghan Notebook is a blog written by Vikash Yadav, an Assistant Professor of Political Science. His specialty is “sovereignty, security, and identity in South Asia”, and is conducting research on India’s strategy in Afghanistan. He states, “I don't claim to be an expert on Afghanistan…which is why I am keeping this log of what I am learning.” A humble approach, and he seems to have been following it so far.

His frequency of posting varies with the time of the year, as there are periods where he posts very frequently, followed by months with only one or two posts because he has to take time off to travel as part of his research (he usually posts a warning beforehand). As of Afghan Notebook’s prominence in the world of social media, it does not appear on the Technorati scale, and there is little indication of how much traffic it receives per day. (Heck, it doesn’t even appear in the first few Google search results on Afghanistan blogs.) He has several blogs on his blogroll, with some written by individuals and others created by think tanks; as a supplement, his blog also has a public Twitter account that posts links to articles he finds interesting, and another sidebar that posts the titles and excerpts of news articles.

While Yadav does cross-post quotes and videos from other news sources in some of his blog entries, the bulk of them are composed of solely his own commentary and/or analysis. Nearly all his blog entries are long and detailed, and usually cover one topic at a time. He also sometimes draws from his previous discussions with other academics and comments on whether their hypotheses fit the current situation, and has on at least one occasion used popular culture (referencing episodes from the Wire and describing someone as “young and handsome [in a swashbuckling, Captain Jack Sparrow-ish sort of way]”) to make comparisons.

As inferred in the blog title, Yadav examines issues in Afghanistan that also concern countries such as India and Pakistan. He also discusses US military action and developments in foreign policy since the conflict began, and two of his more recent posts are of particular interest. The first one is his summary of what has changed, with some interesting points on the coining of catchphrases to describe new strategies and the increasing radicalisation of religion, not in the Middle East and Asia, but in the Eastern world; recent events certainly seem to support these points. The second post recalls a debate he had with a fellow professor over counter-insurgency tactics in Afghanistan, where he questions if the method of “terrorizing citizens” used in the Vietnam War would be effective today, listing a number of public protests in the region that occurred in response to attacks by NATO. I feel that these two entries highlight just how much has changed in Afghanistan since the US began military operations, and whether the US can learn from its previous war experiences. At the same time, neither of these entries link to any sources to support his argument, which could be undermined if someone posts a counter-argument.

I believe that Yadav’s approach to the topic of Afghanistan is close to mine, as he is using this blog to educate himself as well as disseminate his knowledge to the general audience. In contrast to the dozens of blogs kept by military and civilian figures stationed in Afghanistan, whom have firsthand experience with the issues every day, Yadav is in my position: very interested in the subject matter and its significance, but having to rely on other sources first to inform ourselves. While his comes from an academic background, his blog appears to be written for a general informed but ignorant audience based on his use of more informal language and attempts to link the reader to the content using references they might be more familiar with. His analysis reflects the amount of research he has conducted without overtly pushing an agenda, and his style of writing engages the reader. On a final note, he makes an effort to encourage the audience to find other sources either through the links on his Twitter or his news sidebar. My blog will probably not be as vivid and nuanced in its arguments due to our different academic levels, but his would not be a bad model to follow.

Hello world!

Hello world!
“Taliban claim two Spanish victims.” ” US General: 2011 Afghanistan Deadline 'Giving Our Enemy Sustenance'.” “Corruption Tie in Afghanistan Has Echoes of CIA's Past‎.” These headings were found after a 2 minute Google News search. The power of Web 2.0!

Follow me as this college senior, blogging novice, and perpetually confused Third Culture Kid tracks the development of current events in Afghanistan over the course of the semester. There is certainly no shortage of newsworthy events at the moment. As an International Relations major with a focus in International Security and a minor in Middle East Studies, I am greatly interested in Aghanistan’s role in the Middle East (and NATO’s role in it) and how that role will change in the immediate future. I am also keen to explore how aspects of life such as culture, religion and economics play into both Afghanistan’s domestic politics and foreign policy. I will however confess that my knowledge of the area is very limited, and I hope this blog will enable me to further develop my understanding as I seek out various news sources and create my own analysis.

Yes, it is a heavy subject. Yes, it is a subject that should be handled delicately. Yes, it is a potentially depressing subject that may result in me sleeping with my stuffed toys again. So why am I doing this?

My interest is not all academic. I may specialize in International Security, but I have always wanted to work in the non-profit sector in some capacity, whether it be in an office in Washington DC or out in the field. I understand that there are certain risks that come with the job, depending on what you do and where you are. At least, I thought I did. There really is little justification to have people like Karen Woo expect an average lifespan of a few days once they set foot on the land they choose to work in, especially when the job description is to preserve life, not end it. The increase in deadly attacks against peacekeepers and NGO personnel in the Middle East has made such professions extremely dangerous, as many organizations have pulled out workers from hotspots or ceased operations all together. Security and charity may seem like they are on opposite ends of the international relations spectrum, but the two are irrevocably linked, especially in such volatile regions.

On a final note, I enter this debate from a politically liberal background. While I do not have significant ties to Afghanistan or the United States, I am a British citizen, whom spent this past spring wearing down Edinburgh’s cobblestones persuading voters-to-be to vote for the Labour party. (We all know how that turned out.) Such influences will no doubt be reflected in my commentary, but I have been moving to a more centrist position and am always happy to accept ideas and arguments from other points of view. My main objective is not to be overly partisan; there are enough columns, op-eds, and blogs out there for that. The goal of this blog is to ensure I am well-informed to make my own judgements about each situation, and help readers to do the same.