Over the past few days I’ve finished forty-five pages of scholarly writing, one thirty page paper and one fifteen. Both were turned in as rough drafts but the bulk of the work had to be done. One professor said he doesn’t read rough drafts. He only critiques the argument. If there are too many grammatical errors in the first few pages, he returns it to you unread and you have to guess on how the argument stands with him. Over the next few weeks I’ll get feedback and make the final edit on both papers. I’ll write more about my semester’s work as it is final.
I still speak with some of the friends I made during my undergraduate years. They’re all amazed that I can still do this. They look back to all the pressures of school as something they’d never want to do again. But I wouldn’t choose any other way.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Crunch Time
The next few weeks are going to be very busy, as it always is at the end of a semester in graduate school. By this time next month, I will have finished forty-five scholarly pages. Sometimes that seems like an impossible task, but for me it’s manageable. I just don’t seem to want to kick into high gear this time. I’ll be glad when it’s over.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Our President at His Finest
Pakistan is the latest area of the world in crisis. America has always had a strange relationship with the country, supporting them and allowing them to develop nuclear weapons even while we didn’t agree with their leaders or the way they ruled the country. My thesis covers much of the origin of how and why we supported Pakistan, basically because they would help us support the rebels in Afghanistan because they would fight the Soviets. It’s gotten much more complicated.
W. had a talk with Pakistan’s leader, Musharraf, the other day. He summed up his comments by claiming he told Musharraf, “You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time.” Hmmm…
I guess Bush hasn’t read such important documents like the Constitution or anything else that might give his job description. One of the president’s main duties is as Commander-in-Chief of the American military, the top dog. Just because he doesn’t wear a uniform like Pakistan’s leader doesn’t make it not so. When I was in the Army, every company had a display of the chain of command. At the top of each was the current American president. So which is it, W? Can a president be the head of the military or not?
W. had a talk with Pakistan’s leader, Musharraf, the other day. He summed up his comments by claiming he told Musharraf, “You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time.” Hmmm…
I guess Bush hasn’t read such important documents like the Constitution or anything else that might give his job description. One of the president’s main duties is as Commander-in-Chief of the American military, the top dog. Just because he doesn’t wear a uniform like Pakistan’s leader doesn’t make it not so. When I was in the Army, every company had a display of the chain of command. At the top of each was the current American president. So which is it, W? Can a president be the head of the military or not?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Thesis
Scrolling through my previous entries, I realize I’ve only mentioned my Master’s Thesis in passing. I finished it, and earned my MA, in December of 2006. Instead of writing something new about the work, I’ll just cut and paste the abstract:
“The purpose of this thesis is to examine the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and his Administration in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. The study is based on newly declassified documents from the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, Georgia as well as published material by and about Jimmy Carter.
“The thesis challenges the popular caricatures of Jimmy Carter, that he was ineffective in matters of foreign policy and that he was largely concerned with establishing a legacy as a peacemaker. The thesis contends that Jimmy Carter was a much more cunning Cold Warrior than his detractors give him credit for and that the shift in American foreign policy towards the Soviet Union largely credited to Ronald Reagan actually began with the Carter Administration.”
“The purpose of this thesis is to examine the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and his Administration in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. The study is based on newly declassified documents from the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, Georgia as well as published material by and about Jimmy Carter.
“The thesis challenges the popular caricatures of Jimmy Carter, that he was ineffective in matters of foreign policy and that he was largely concerned with establishing a legacy as a peacemaker. The thesis contends that Jimmy Carter was a much more cunning Cold Warrior than his detractors give him credit for and that the shift in American foreign policy towards the Soviet Union largely credited to Ronald Reagan actually began with the Carter Administration.”
Friday, November 2, 2007
Latest Reading
The latest book read for my American-Middle Eastern relations class was Charles D. Smith’s Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Here are my thoughts:
Charles D. Smith’s Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict provides a history of Arab-Israeli relations, placing the current conflict in context of more than two millennia of history. Smith’s premise is that both sides have legitimate claims to the region, yet their intractability prevents a solution and leads to strife. The book begins by establishing the dual claims to the region, the historical Jewish state and a sacred area of Islam. Smith then swiftly brings the text to the modern era, next covering the rise of Zionism, developed in Europe in response to anti-Semitism. Europe and the United States then become primary agents in the story. Smith covers the numerous Western declarations and treaties that led to the creation of Israel before devoting the bulk of the work to the tumultuous existence of the modern Jewish state in the Middle East. The book ends with current events and a sense that little progress has been made despite decades of peace negotiations, furthering Smith’s point of view that bitterness on both sides has led to a bloody stalemate.
The Middle East is characterized as volatile, with every faction sometimes at odds with everyone else, even themselves. Furthermore, the Middle East is portrayed as chiefly passive through much of the early twentieth century, at the mercy of European and American strategists. Though their autonomy strengthens through the century, the Middle Eastern leaders are never free from outside influence. Much of the story reveals the struggle for Israel and Palestine to control their own destinies, free from outside influence and competing Middle Eastern objectives.
The text is both topical and chronological, a series of essays that form a seamless narrative. The work is intended to be a textbook, written to foster an understanding of the issues without necessarily rendering a judgment. For the most part, Smith is fair while dispensing criticism mixed with little praise, though he does devote more time to the trends within the Israeli and American governments than the Arab states. Both Israeli and Arab agents are portrayed as intractable. Even when official channels appear to reach a tentative agreement, independent factions undermine the progress. Both Europe and America appear as self-serving, especially during the Cold War. When addressing current events, however, Smith loses some measure of objectivity, going beyond his practice of letting the basic facts stand for themselves. He is never overtly critical of the George W. Bush administration, for instance, but chooses to include facts that subtly affect the narrative. For example, on page 530 Smith mentions American evangelist Pat Robertson’s claim that Ariel Sharon’s stroke represented the wrath of God because Israel was withdrawing from strategic areas. While the religious right in America certainly supported Israel, the fact was already established and the specific information hardly seems relevant to a study of Palestine.
The narrative is exhaustive, covering the issues from multiple angles. The language is concise without being dull, lending the text an academic yet accessible feel, though the sheer volume of facts can weigh down the reader. Smith’s sources are wide-ranging, though he fails to include many foreign sources that might lead to a more complete understanding. He complements the text by providing excerpts from documents in between chapters, typically treaties and important speeches. In the end, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict is an excellent introduction to the history of the current unrest in Palestine, a useful text for students who will not read additional works or those who want to understand the history without reading the full historiography.
Charles D. Smith’s Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict provides a history of Arab-Israeli relations, placing the current conflict in context of more than two millennia of history. Smith’s premise is that both sides have legitimate claims to the region, yet their intractability prevents a solution and leads to strife. The book begins by establishing the dual claims to the region, the historical Jewish state and a sacred area of Islam. Smith then swiftly brings the text to the modern era, next covering the rise of Zionism, developed in Europe in response to anti-Semitism. Europe and the United States then become primary agents in the story. Smith covers the numerous Western declarations and treaties that led to the creation of Israel before devoting the bulk of the work to the tumultuous existence of the modern Jewish state in the Middle East. The book ends with current events and a sense that little progress has been made despite decades of peace negotiations, furthering Smith’s point of view that bitterness on both sides has led to a bloody stalemate.
The Middle East is characterized as volatile, with every faction sometimes at odds with everyone else, even themselves. Furthermore, the Middle East is portrayed as chiefly passive through much of the early twentieth century, at the mercy of European and American strategists. Though their autonomy strengthens through the century, the Middle Eastern leaders are never free from outside influence. Much of the story reveals the struggle for Israel and Palestine to control their own destinies, free from outside influence and competing Middle Eastern objectives.
The text is both topical and chronological, a series of essays that form a seamless narrative. The work is intended to be a textbook, written to foster an understanding of the issues without necessarily rendering a judgment. For the most part, Smith is fair while dispensing criticism mixed with little praise, though he does devote more time to the trends within the Israeli and American governments than the Arab states. Both Israeli and Arab agents are portrayed as intractable. Even when official channels appear to reach a tentative agreement, independent factions undermine the progress. Both Europe and America appear as self-serving, especially during the Cold War. When addressing current events, however, Smith loses some measure of objectivity, going beyond his practice of letting the basic facts stand for themselves. He is never overtly critical of the George W. Bush administration, for instance, but chooses to include facts that subtly affect the narrative. For example, on page 530 Smith mentions American evangelist Pat Robertson’s claim that Ariel Sharon’s stroke represented the wrath of God because Israel was withdrawing from strategic areas. While the religious right in America certainly supported Israel, the fact was already established and the specific information hardly seems relevant to a study of Palestine.
The narrative is exhaustive, covering the issues from multiple angles. The language is concise without being dull, lending the text an academic yet accessible feel, though the sheer volume of facts can weigh down the reader. Smith’s sources are wide-ranging, though he fails to include many foreign sources that might lead to a more complete understanding. He complements the text by providing excerpts from documents in between chapters, typically treaties and important speeches. In the end, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict is an excellent introduction to the history of the current unrest in Palestine, a useful text for students who will not read additional works or those who want to understand the history without reading the full historiography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
