As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s tweets get him in trouble all the time. But his recent tweets about banning trans individuals from serving in the military have now led to a lawsuit in federal court. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of five active trans service members in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause. According to the lawsuit, the five servicemembers have all  “followed protocol in informing their chain of command that they are transgender. They did so in reliance on the United States’ express promises that it would permit them to continue to serve their country openly. These servicemembers, like many others, have built their lives around their military service.”

Trump’s tweets were muddled, and sudden. The three tweet chain didn’t provide any information for how exactly a ban would be implemented, or what it would mean for trans individuals already serving.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

The announcement blindsided the Pentagon and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that tweet storm, none of those questions appear to have been answered. The Department of Defense says it is still waiting for formal guidance. But the fear and panic that trans military members felt was real, and the lawsuit argues that the tweet-based directive “already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Military Members Sue Trump Over Ban appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender people will no longer be allowed “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” would become a burden and distract armed services from “decisive and overwhelming victory.”

The announcement will reverse the Pentagon’s 2016 decision to lift the long-standing ban that had prevented transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. It also falls in line with other measures and decisions the administration has made concerning the transgender community, including removing the LGBT rights page from the White House’s official site, rescinding a rule that allowed transgender students to use their preferred bathroom in public schools, and dropping the federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s “bathroom bill.”

Given that track record, it makes sense that Trump decided to discuss the decision with unnamed “Generals and military experts,” rather than with the Pentagon–which has commissioned studies that identify almost no downside to lifting the transgender ban. In fact, the Department of Defense was so out of the loop in the recent decision that reporters who asked Pentagon officials about Trump’s tweets were told to call the White House instead.

This is an obvious leap backward for the rights of transgender people in the United States. The ban will only enhance the existing problems that this country has when dealing with gender identity and the military.

A Financially Dubious Decision

In 2016, the Rand Corporation published a report titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly,” which the Department of Defense commissioned. The report concluded that annual active-component health care costs would increase by anywhere from $2.4 million to $8.4 million–yielding a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in health care expenditures. In total, those costs would amount to about a thousandth of a percent of the military’s annual budget. Some have said that their biggest concern is the use of taxpayer funding for expensive gender reassignment surgeries, which may not allow transgender soldiers to fight on the front lines. But according to the Rand report, “less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.” The report’s authors recommended developing an explicit written policy on for the gender transition process to avoid any disruptions to service member and unit readiness.

Even if you choose to ignore the percent increase in costs and only focus on the total cost of military health care, it’s worth noting that U.S. military spending is high relative to the rest of the world. The United States spends more money on its military than the following eight countries with the highest defense spending combined–an approximate $611 billion–and the House recently passed a bill that would increase military spending by nearly $30 billion next year. The military spends about $50 billion on health care, which includes a few interesting expenses. For example, a Washington Post analysis found the military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care. But some in the House were still looking to remove gender reassignment surgery coverage from the military budget nonetheless, although that effort failed. In a way, proponents of such a change got what they were looking for and continued their crusade against denying health care to Americans.

Significant Consequences

Prior to the Pentagon’s 2016 decision, military service members who revealed their transgender identity could be kicked out or denied reenlistment solely on that basis. This meant they would be denied the benefits previously provided for them by the military, including health care and severance pay, due to being considered “unfit to serve.” Trump’s announcement leaves much to the imagination as to what will happen to anywhere from 1,300 to over 15,000 transgender service members currently enlisted, but a return to the old discharge format seems likely.

Current statistics show that 16 percent of transgender and gender nonconforming people have lost their jobs due to their gender identity–according to a 2015 survey of over 27,000 transgender people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). But Trump still wants to strip the military of its status as the largest employer of transgender workers in the United States for “cost effectiveness.” It is also worth noting that this would cut necessary income and health care from a group that faces significant challenges. According to the same NCTE survey, transgender and gender nonconforming people have an unemployment rate that is three times that of the national average, report having experienced psychological distress in the last month at a rate that is 34 percentage points higher than the U.S. population, and one-third say they have been homeless at some point in their life.

America’s Relationship With its Military

There are two prongs to this topic. The first looks at the general issue of trans-erasure. The cynic will argue that it’s a good thing that transgender people no longer have to participate in a “murderous imperial institution.” But that’s not the only way to look at this issue. The act of excluding a group of people from public institutions–particularly those that are (excessively) associated with social responsibility like the military–devalues that group of people in society because of that lack of exposure and erases their importance. Eventually, the perception will grow that the transgender community is full of people who don’t serve their country, and only take from it instead of giving back. This, of course, would be a stark contrast to our wonderful president–who dodged the draft a total of five times, once arguing he couldn’t serve in the U.S. military because of bone spurs in his heels.

Regardless, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed their concerns with Trump’s decision because many understand that–at its core–the ban is more focused on discriminating against transgender people than cutting costs. A bipartisan stand against discrimination is hard to have a problem with, but I’m going to try anyway. Unfortunately, this bipartisan position comes from the country’s obsession with the military and all of the glory that comes with it, and that’s the second prong.

Whether politicians want to admit it or not, there are transgender people who live in their states and districts. There is a responsibility to show that the lives their constituents–especially those in underrepresented groups–matter to them.

But, unfortunately, they don’t in this country. Trans women face a 4.3 times higher risk of being murdered compared to cis women in the U.S., and at least 87 percent of the trans people murdered between 2013 to 2015 were people of color, according to a study done by the Human Rights Campaign. According to the NCTE, 40 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide at one point in their life. So for a brief moment on Wednesday, it was a nice change of pace to see Democrats and Republicans come forward against the ban and in support of the lives of transgender people. So what changed?

It’s simple. It took challenging transgender Americans’ ability to serve in the military for many politicians to finally stand up for their rights. For many members of Congress, this is the first time they made that kind of statement, which meant that trans rights only began to matter when trans people could no longer die for their country. The transgender community deserves better than that.

The lives of underrepresented, and outright oppressed, citizens should not depend on whether or not they are willing to fight for their country, especially when that country does nothing to fight for them. The optimist will hope that this opens the door for more trans support from politicians, but unless it can score them political points, that probably won’t happen.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problems with Trump’s Trans Military Announcement appeared first on Law Street.

The House passed a defense bill on Friday that included a description of global warming as “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” The bill, which sets the Pentagon’s budget and priorities for Fiscal Year 2018, easily passed by a 344-81 vote.

In addition to its acknowledgement of climate change as a potential security threat, the National Defense Authorization Act includes a number of amendments that directly contradict Trump Administration policy.

For instance, the bill declines President Donald Trump’s request to shutter a number of military bases around the country in 2021. Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Armed Services Committee in a hearing last month that closing the bases would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama Administration failed to garner congressional support with the same request.

An additional rebuff to Trump’s stated policies is the bill’s directive that the Pentagon create a so-called “Space Corps.” The proposed unit, opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House, would fall under the Air Force’s auspices, and would provide a front line of defense against future space-related threats. The Senate will negotiate the proposal when it takes up the defense bill.

But the bill’s most surprising feature is its nod to the myriad threats posed by climate change. In addition to calling climate change a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, it also directs the Pentagon to issue a report to Congress on the effects climate change might have on military bases.

Republicans in Congress have long been reluctant to address climate change as a real threat, and Friday’s vote by the Republican-controlled House might mark a change in posture.

Trump has made clear his own views on climate change–he recently withdrew the U.S. from the 194-nation Paris Climate Accord–but the Pentagon’s highest-ranking official, Mattis, has hinted that he recognizes the security threat posed by rising temperatures.

“‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation,” Mattis said in his confirmation hearing testimony earlier this year.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) expressly supported the bill, specifically for its 2.4 percent pay increase for military troops. “[The bill] includes support for military families, and honestly, a really well-deserved pay raise for our troops,” Ryan said earlier this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Passes Defense Bill that Calls Climate Change “Direct Threat” to U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

The House Armed Services Committee drafted bipartisan legislation on Tuesday to create a “Space Corps” within the Air Force by January 1, 2019.

The strategic forces subcommittee–which is in charge of space military matters–added the legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Space Corps would act “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force,” according to a joint statement from the subcommittee’s top legislators Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN).

The Space Corps would have its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The position would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force, according to the legislation.

If you were excited about the prospect of Congress growing the military to be more prepared for space battles against invading aliens, then get ready to be disappointed. Lawmakers believe this legislation would be a proactive measure against the country’s current inability to defend from a space attack from our international enemies.

“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”

As space infrastructure from countries around the world begin to populate the planet’s immediate orbit, U.S. leaders worry that an adversary–like China or Russia–could gain a strategic edge over the U.S. By establishing military capability in space first, U.S. adversaries could cripple satellites that help with communications and surveillance systems the military depends on.

It wouldn’t be a military space bill without some underlying fear of the Russians.

A surprising critic of this bill has been the current Air Force leadership. Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May and said that the bill would distract from the current goals of the service.

“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialogue open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”

The introduction of the Space Corps provision is only the beginning. The entire House Armed Services Committee will need to vote on the bill before it can be debated on the House floor, which is not expected to vote on the NDAA until after July 4. The Senate is working on its own version of a similar bill. If the Space Corps legislation in the NDAA garners enough votes from the House and Senate, then it will finally be sent to the White House to be signed into law.

Regardless of what happens to this legislation, government and military officials will continue to discuss the best way to provide for defense in orbit and beyond. It’s the way of the future that might eventually lead to the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Committee Wants to Include a Space Corps in New Defense Bill appeared first on Law Street.

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

The report showed that 62 percent of all service members who were discharged for misconduct between 2011 and 2015 had been diagnosed with PTSD, a traumatic brain injury (TBI), or other conditions that can cause similar behavior. That totals over 57,000 soldiers. Out of the 57,000, 16 percent had PTSD or TBI.

The majority of the rest had adjustment and alcohol-related disorders. Those include depression, anxiety, personality disorders, different kinds of substance addictions, or bipolar disorder. Twenty-three percent of the soldiers discharged got an “other than honorable” discharge. This means they are, in most cases, not eligible for any military health care, disability pensions, or other benefits.

GAO Reports that 62% of Soldiers Separated for Misconduct Have PTSD or Other Disorders https://t.co/nwaqKoHH1A pic.twitter.com/5jFIvizWw5

— The Alt Standard (@TheAlt_Media) May 17, 2017

The military has long been criticized for not doing enough to help its veterans. Now experts are also criticizing President Donald Trump’s new health care bill; it passed the House earlier this month. The new bill categorizes PTSD as a pre-existing condition, which could make health insurance inaccessible to millions of veterans.

Given that Trump campaigned on the promise to do more for veterans, a lot of people slammed the new bill. Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth lost her legs while serving in the Iraq war. She called the health care bill “stunning” for making it harder for veterans to get access to health care.

We need to reduce barriers to mental health care for service members & vets – not make PTSD a pre-existing condition #VeteransResist #NoAHCA

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) May 13, 2017

After speculations first broke that soldiers suffering from PTSD or TBI were frequently discharged, the military introduced regulations, screening soldiers to detect any such diseases before punishing them. But the GAO report showed that this rarely happened. And no one monitored the new regulations to check for compliance.

“Before, we were speculating. Now we have hard numbers to prove there are this vast numbers of combat veterans affected,” said Representative Mike Coffman, a Republican from Colorado and an Iraq War veteran. He said he believes that people want to do something about the problem, but that there has been a lack of understanding. Hopefully, this new information will lead to some change.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders appeared first on Law Street.

In 1948, H. Edward Spires was discharged as “undesirable” from the military because he was gay. On Friday, his discharge was finally updated to “honorable,” after almost 70 years. “My first thought was, ‘it’s about time,” Spires said on Monday. “I can lift my head again.” One of the law students who worked on the case, Erin Baldwin, doesn’t know why the Air Force changed its mind, since Spires has requested the change several times. “I’m not sure we can say with certainty but it was helpful that he had support from a lot of different places,” she said.

When the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which banned openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military, was repealed in 2011, Spires became qualified to ask to upgrade his discharge. But the Air Force claimed that a 1973 fire had destroyed his military records, and denied his application. In November, a group of law students from the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic helped Spires and his husband David Rosenberg, who is also a veteran, file a federal lawsuit. Spires is currently recovering from pneumonia, which made the issue even more pressing.

Finally, the military granted his request. In a letter signed last Thursday, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records acknowledges Spires’ request and writes, “Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.”

Gay Air Force veteran honorably discharged 68 years later https://t.co/0EWoeTjF5K pic.twitter.com/KxriaCM5rX

— Hartford Courant (@hartfordcourant) January 9, 2017

Spires enlisted in the military when he was 20 years old, in 1946. He was assigned the role of a chaplain’s assistant at the Air Force Base in San Antonio and was soon promoted to the rank of sergeant. He told NBC in November that he lived a closeted life whenever he was at the base. Spires loved San Antonio and was part of a small community of other closeted gay men. But all of that changed when he went to a Halloween party dressed as the soap Oxydol, which was advertised at the time as very sparkly. So Spires dressed “very sparkly and that was taken as being in drag,” he said. “Someone at the party recognized me and said, ‘Ah-ha! He must be gay.’”

After that, the military treated him differently; officers interrogated him for weeks, asked personal questions about his life, and sent him to meet a board of inquiry every day for a week. Spires was too ashamed to tell his mother what was going on, even though she came to visit him at the same time as the trial. He said:

I had to be my own attorney. They did not furnish me an attorney because I was thought of as nothing. They were already convinced I was gay and that I was guilty. […] I can’t tell you how terrible it was. I couldn’t tell her, I can’t spend days with you because I’m on trial.

He collapsed under the pressure, and was discharged because of “undesirable habits and traits of character,” in June of 1948. He never came out to his parents, but met his husband in 1956 and married him in 2009. Rosenberg said that there was a big difference in how the military treated the two men; his husband was honorably discharged despite being gay. “It is an injustice that the military has treated Ed and me so differently, despite our equal honorable service,” he said at a press conference in November.

But finally, Spires’ will has been granted and he can relax. The couple said that they will celebrate in Florida next month. Spires said, “I’m still recovering from pneumonia but every day seems a little brighter. This is one thing less on my mind…I can smile again.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yale Law Students Help Gay Veteran Gain New Recognition appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government allegedly paid a British PR firm half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 to produce fake al-Qaeda videos as part of a propaganda program, the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed on Monday.

A British PR firm called Bell Pottinger reported frequently to the CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council. The staff produced videos made to look like amateur footage shot by rebels, and Arabic news programs.

One of the video editors, Martin Wells, called the operation “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing,” and provided comments to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. When he applied for the job in London in May of 2006 he only knew it involved a project in the Middle East. When he went for an interview it surprised him to find guards watching the room where it took place. When he asked when he would find out if he got the job, they said: “You’ve already got it. We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq: https://t.co/QzBAPV0HSn #comms pic.twitter.com/ALM9asdimZ

— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) October 4, 2016

Wells then had 48 hours to prepare for a flight to Baghdad, where he spent his time producing fake news segments and low-quality, violent commercials for al-Qaeda. He and the other staff sent out the videos to local TV stations and the military dropped digital copies off in different raids. Since the video files contained embed codes they were able to trace where and how the footage was being watched—and also trace the people who were watching them–a powerful counter-terrorism tool.

This was not a small operation—it cost over $100 million a year. Sometimes approval came straight from the White House and at one point almost 300 staff members from Britain and Iraq were involved. Wells stayed for two years. The whole operation ended in 2011, when American troops withdrew from Iraq. It was not the first time the government has used the media to spread its views and policies.

In 2005 the government hired a Washington-based firm called the Lincoln Group to pay Iraqi newspapers thousands of dollars to publish pro-American articles, written by the U.S. military. In 2009 it was revealed that the Pentagon hired controversial PR firm Rendon to monitor journalists embedded within the U.S. military to see whether they were covering their missions in a positive way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda? appeared first on Law Street.

Tensions between residents of Okinawa Prefecture in Japan and stationed American soldiers have reached a new boiling point. Last week court officials in the prefectural capital of Naha rejected incumbent Governor Takeshi Onaga’s bid to close down the disputed Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan. The resolution signified the first official judicial ruling over the complex reclamation project that was ignited in 1996 after three American soldiers were convicted of abducting and murdering a 12-year-old girl. Long-time opponents were once again outraged over the recent slaying of 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro by former U.S. Marine and current military contractor, Kenneth Franklin Shinzato.

Onaga’s administration teamed up with locals to urge the national government to scrap the foreign airbase altogether, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe followed through on his resolution to relocate the contested encampment into a less populated region of Japan’s southernmost province. Keep reading to learn more about how the Okinawa is struggling to achieve self-autonomy after decades of American military intervention.

History

A historical perspective is necessary to fully grasp such a political conundrum. During World War II Okinawa (formerly known as the sovereign Kingdom of Ryukyu) experienced some of the bloodiest fighting and conflict against the Allied Powers, particularly due to its strategic location between the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. Some accounts say that up to 70,000 Japanese soldiers and 150,000 civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa, which wasn’t as widely documented as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the United States defeated Japan, Washington controlled Okinawa for 27 years until it became reincorporated on May 15, 1972.  However, the United States government managed to maintain its military installations throughout the island after signing a bilateral security treaty to end the war. Today there are over 25,000 American personnel deployed at 32 American military bases located on Okinawa, which occupy approximately 20 percent of the island’s total landmass.

Before Governor Onaga was elected in December of 2014, former Governor Hirokazu Nakaima permitted the construction of a new American military base in Nago, which is where Futenma will likely be relocated. The legislation has yet to be implemented, however, due to such widespread opposition throughout Okinawa. Prime Minister Abe’s recent resolution, though, now allows operations to formerly begin.

Local Opposition

Over the years, Okinawa’s citizens haven’t been keen on such arrangements, especially in terms of the noise, congestion, and crimes stemming from American troops in the area. Resentment against the United States heightened last spring after an American serviceman confessed to raping and murdering 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro. Responding to the confession, an estimated crowd of 65,000 gathered in Naha to rally against the U.S.’s long-term military influence. A civil society group called All Okinawa Kaigi organized the event, with assistance from Okinawa’s current governor, politicians, and provincial mayors. Governor Onaga himself was elected to office based on his advocacy for limiting both the central government and the U.S.’s jurisdiction over the island.

“The government should know that the anger of the people in Okinawa is almost reaching a limit and it is not [right] to sacrifice Okinawa people for military bases anymore,” said Governor Onaga at the event. Determined to take matters into his own hands, Governor Onaga has not only requested Prime Minister Abe arrange a personal meeting with President Obama, but also presented a case to the UN Human Rights Council.

Anti-American sentiments are not uncommon in the Japanese prefecture after a series of violent crimes initiated massive protests and resistance. Prior to Shimabukuro’s murder, a 12-year-old girl was gang raped by three American personnel in 1995. This event in particular is what prompted the relocation project to begin in the first place. Even more recently in March of 2016, an American sailor raped a Japanese tourist in her 40s as she slept in her hotel.

In a report published by Women in Action Against Military and Military Bases, approximately 180 Japanese female civilians were raped between 1945 and 1997–22 of whom were less than 20-years-old. The study also examined how American soldiers are still committing war crimes against Japanese women. In addition to these sexual crimes, locals have also felt threatened by the imminent threat of catastrophe. For example, a military jet lost control in 1959 and ended up crashing into an elementary school where 17 people were killed and 121 were injured. Moreover, local activists are concerned about the possible environmental damage the relocated Futenma base could have on Nago’s ecosystem. Reports say that Nago Mayor, Susumu Inamine, has began mobilizing residents to resist the upcoming construction project.

Why are Some Japanese Supportive of American Military Bases?

Unlike Governor Onaga, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has condoned American military presence in Okinawa at one time or another. A prominent blog on Japanese culture, Tofugu, explains how the arrangements benefits Japan in terms of increased geopolitical stability. Japan is surrounded by some of the world’s most confrontational superpowers like China, Russia, and North Korea, and has few allies throughout the region after the damage it inflicted upon other countries in World War II.  It’s plausible that the Japanese government feels more secure with American soldiers stationed in such close proximity due to China’s increasingly assertive presence in the South China Sea. Yet the question sill persists–is Okinawa bearing the brunt of Japan’s national security concerns?

The United States has been rewarded by the provisions, which allow Washington to yield authority in East Asia if prompted and keep close tabs on perceived adversaries in the vicinity. The Heritage Foundation also contends that American military presence assists Washington in pursuing its diplomatic interest and deterring would-be aggressors from attacking the region.

Although Prime Minister Abe is trying to preserve cooperation with the Obama Administration, he did not veer away from expressing disapproval toward the American president during a recent joint-news conference.

“This is an unforgivable crime, and I have expressed our anger,” said Abe during a press conference with President Obama ahead of the Group of Seven Summit. “It has shocked not just the Okinawa people but also all the people of Japan.” Abe also vowed to work to prevent future violence, such as Shimabukuro’s murder, saying, “I have asked the president to carry out effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such crimes.”

Conclusion

President Obama expressed his condolences in a historic visit to Hiroshima over Memorial Day Weekend. Some analysts worried that the newest island scandal would threaten the post-World War II alliance between the U.S. and Japan, but both countries seem steadfast in resolving such matters.

“We will be fully cooperating with the Japanese legal system in prosecuting this individual and making sure that justice is served,” said President Obama in response to Shimabukuro’s murder. “We want to see a crime like this prosecuted here in the same way that we would feel horrified and want to provide a sense of justice to a victim’s family back in the United States.”

Washington has responded to these controversies by imposing certain restrictions on its constituents, such as prohibiting off-base alcohol consumption. The policy change came after an American sailor injured two Japanese civilians while driving intoxicated last September. Along those lines, part of Prime Minister Abe’s rationalization for relocating the contentious Futenma marine airbase to the island’s rural south is that deployed Americans will be farther away from crowded residential areas. Considering that locals are still averse to the resolution, Governor Onaga’s rivalry with Prime Minster Abe (and the Washington establishment) is likely to continue until Okinawa can truly disassociate itself from American troops.

Resources

Heritage Foundation: Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Marines on Okinawa Are Essential to Peace and Security in the Pacific 

TNI: The Human Rights of Children and Women Under the US Military Administration: Raped Lives

Tofugu: Japan’s Sacrificial Lamb–The Okinawa Military Base Controversy

Al Jazeera: Japan Court Clears Way for US Okinawa Base Relocation

Al Jazeera: Ex-US Marine Charged with Rape, Murder of Okinawa Woman

Al Jazeera: Voices of Okinawa: Standing Against a US Military Base

Al Jazeera: Japan Protests Alleged Rape by US Sailor

CNN: Japan: Okinawa Murder Provokes Protests Against U.S. Bases in Okinawa

International Business Times: Japan to Halt US Okinawa Base Relocation Work But Government Says Plan Intact

Japan Times: What awaits Okinawa 40 Years After Reversion?

Japan Times: Okinawa Suspect Allegedly Admits to Rape of Women Before Killing Her

Japan Times: Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga Asks Abe to Set up Meeting With Obama

Japan Times: Anger Over Okinawa Murder Grows Despite Obama’s ‘Deep Regret’ Over the Incident

Sputnik News: Japan’s Okinawa Requests to Shut Down US Marine Base Construction

USA Today: Tens of Thousands Protest on Okinawa to Close Key U.S. Bases in Japan

The Washington Post: Okinawa Murder Dominates Talks Between Obama and Abe

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post A Complicated History: Japanese Court Blocks Bid to Close Down American Military Base in Okinawa appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Marines now have more flexibility with the tattoos they can sport in uniform, thanks to the updated tattoo policy that was overhauled last week. However, the Marines continue to have one of the strictest tattoo policies in the military.

Marines still aren’t allowed to have full sleeves, but now they can get as many tattoos as they would like–as long as their physical training uniforms, which consist of green T-shirts and shorts, fully cover them.

The new restrictions also prohibit soldiers from having tattoos that are located on the face, neck, wrists, knees, and mouth. The one exception to that rule is band tattoos, which are now allowed if they do not exceed three inches, or the width of the marine’s four fingers–spanning from the index to pinkie finger.

Body art policies have undergone varying changes across military services in the past year, mainly to take into consideration the rising number of young potential recruits who are getting ink.

“Society is changing its view of tattoos, and we have to change along with that,” said former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno while the policy was still being decided on. “It makes sense. Soldiers have grown up in an era when tattoos are much more acceptable and we have to change along with that.”

Lower arm and lower leg tattoos are allowed if they are smaller than the size of the Marine’s palm. There is no limit as to how many visible tattoos enlisted personnel can have if they are in compliance with size, but officials can have no more than four visible tattoos. The restriction remains the same as to the type of tattoos that can be donned–the Marine’s body art cannot be extreme, obscene, indecent, racist, or sexist.

The Marine Corps tweeted out a helpful photo illustrating the locations on the body where tattoos are authorized.

Marines, the update to the tattoo regulation is out.

Link to the update: https://t.co/bDDPB8TIq9 pic.twitter.com/cKkORcalHo

— U.S. Marines (@USMC) June 2, 2016

Former Commandant General Robert Neller said he was surprised at how often the topic of tattoos came up when speaking with Marine recruits. Neller told the Marine Corps Times that the Marine Corps isn’t a “rock and roll band.”

Neller added,

We’re Marines. We have a brand. People expect a certain thing from us and right now, if you’re in PT uniform, you can be completely tatted up under your PT uniform. That’s not enough? You can still get certain size tattoos on your arms and your legs. How much do you want?

Others have expressed their opinions via social media.

@USMC So let me get this straight, a guy can now wear a skirt if he identifies as a woman yet we are conserved with tattoos? #backassward

— Todd Peterson (@tcp1775) June 2, 2016

@USMC when your profession is killing, do you need to look professional? #whyigotout #pussification

— Brandon Collier (@Bran_Collier) June 2, 2016

@USMC let the Marines be they put their lives on the line every day why is it an issue where they put a tattoo

— Michael Wilson (@madmikerules) June 3, 2016

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald L. Green told CNN that he “wanted the policy to allow Marines freedom and flexibility to express themselves while also being clearly written and understandable for both Marines and their leadership.”

The Manpower and Reserve Affairs will handle violations of the tattoo policy, and regular spot checks are to be expected, according to the 32-paged detailed set of rules.

“Marines should understand that violating any policy has consequences and leadership will hold Marines accountable accordingly,” Green said.

If Marines have a tattoo that violates the current policy, they can go to the board and have it documented within 120 days of the policy update announcement and not be punished.

In the Navy, sailors are allowed to have neck tattoos, full sleeve tattoos, and any size or quantity of tattoos below the neck and knee. The Navy’s more relaxed tattoo policy was issued in March and aims to “ensure the Navy does not miss opportunities to bring in talented young men and women who are willing to serve,” according to a statement on its website.

Like the Navy, the Army does not restrict the size or amount of tattoos on a soldier’s arms or legs, according to its policy which was updated just last year. The Air Force’s tattoo policy is currently under review, and the new updates should be announced this fall.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Marine Corps Relaxes Tattoo Policy appeared first on Law Street.

An amendment to the House’s annual defense authorization bill could require women to register for the draft in upcoming years. If passed, the amendment would require both men and women to register for Selective Service when they reach the age of 18. The amendment to this bill comes in the wake of a change in military policy to get rid of any gender-based restrictions on front-line combat.

This amendment was proposed by Senator Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, in an attempt to start a discussion about the lifted gender restrictions on military service. Interestingly enough, he does not support women being in the front lines of duty or being drafted in the military. The only reason he raised this amendment was to get a conversation started in Congress about this policy because Hunter does not believe that the executive branch should be making decisions about American defense policy.

In order to convince members of Congress not to vote for the amendment, Hunter gave a speech that involved a lot of rhetoric about the dangers of war. This speech included phrases like “a draft is there to put bodies on the front lines to take the hill” and “the draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies’ throats out and kill them.” Hunter’s intent with this speech was to use graphic imagery as a way to dissuade people from voting for the amendment.

Unfortunately for Hunter, his plan didn’t go as well as expected. Several representatives spoke up in favor of the amendment after it was suggested. Representative Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, had a lot to say:

I actually think if we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription.

She believes that “there’s great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in a time of war.”

Even Senator John McCain spoke up in favor of including women in the draft, saying that:

As far as [he’s] concerned, if we’re going to put women into combat roles then that’s certainly logical, but [he’d] like to consult with the committee.

It’s obviously important to look at the whole picture when deciding on a policy change that could affect a lot of people across the country. To be fair, the draft hasn’t been used in over four decades since it was used to compile an army during the Vietnam War. People high up in the military claim that the likelihood of the draft being used any time soon, if at all, is pretty slim. The good news is that even the consideration of the amendment is a step forward in terms of gender equality. Women now have more rights than ever in the military, an accomplishment that should be celebrated.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Women May Be Required to Register for the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

In news that sounds like it would make for a great B-movie plot, the Russian Ministry of Defense is now in possession of some powerful new weapons: five dolphins, which it purchased this week for $26,000. But nobody seems to know for sure exactly how it plans to utilize the animals.

According to NBC News, the Russian Ministry of Defense purchased the mammals for approximately $5,200 each from Moscow’s Utrish Dolphinarium, the winning bidder for the contract. The posting on the Russian website for state tenders set pretty high standards for the selected dolphins, specifying that they must have “…all teeth intact…[and no mucus from the blowhole].”

These aren’t the first dolphins in the Russian military’s possession; Russia gained a whole stock of them in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea. The aquarium that housed Ukraine’s dolphins was part of the land that went to Russia, which became a point of contention between the two countries. According to The Guardian, “The Ukrainian military dolphin [program] was born out of a Soviet-era scheme that, like much of the Soviet army, fell into neglect in the 1990s.”

The training center is one of two such facilities in the world–the other is in San Diego and belongs to the U.S. Navy. Last year, Russian officials told news agency RIA Novosti that the center was still in operation, indicating that Ukraine’s combat dolphins were making a comeback (although Russia claims that they’re not being used for military purposes).

Surprisingly, militarized dolphins are not a new concept. They were used during the Cold War by both the Soviets and the United States for various purposes, including the detection of mines and submarines. A 2002 History Channel documentary called “Inside the Soviet Military Machine: Dolphin Soldiers” looked into the experiments done on dolphins by the USSR (and sadly, many were indeed painful and cruel). 

Russia has continued to remain silent on its plan for the dolphins, but if past experience is any indication, the military could see them as tools in beefing up its defense forces. Although considering Putin’s love for animals, it wouldn’t be completely surprising if he just wanted some new pets.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is the Russian Military’s Powerful New Weapon a Bunch of Dolphins? appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz announced this week  that he plans to get rid of inefficiency in the U.S. military’s bureaucracy by cutting out adherence to political correctness, social experiments, and, oh, that’s right… gluten-free meals.

According to Cruz, gluten-free MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) are what’s really wrong with America’s military today–they’re reducing efficiency and stressing out our commanders. I mean, how in the world are we supposed to trust the men and women serving our country if they don’t even eat bread? Bread is pretty much the most American thing I can think of, and loving it is part of our civic duty. If Ted Cruz expressing his love for gluten in his policies is wrong, then quite frankly, I don’t want to be right.

Check out the video of his address aboard the USS Yorktown in which he attempts to win the military vote. It’s golden. In the speech, Cruz announces his ideas for Reaganesque military policy, which he hopes will keep us No. 1 in military strength worldwide. He even cited Regan’s policies as a model example of how we should run our country:

I am confident that if we put in the hard work we can, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, rebuild our military so it will be so feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies that, God willing, we won’t have to use it. That is the essence of what President Reagan used to call “peace through strength.”

The best part of the video, by far, is the huge round of applause for Cruz’s announcement that he wants to fight against “plush-bottomed pentagon bureaucrats,” and the subsequent deafening silence after Cruz rails against providing gluten-free MREs.

But, isn’t celiac disease just a made up condition to rile up liberal voters, anyway? Unfortunately for Cruz–and everyone else who was under the impression that anti-bread lobby is the actual cause of America’s dilapidation–it turns out this harebrained scheme to avoid one of the world’s best nutrients (carbs!!!) is actually a real thing. According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the consumption of gluten by people with celiac disease can seriously damage their small intestine. In addition, the disease affects one in every 100 people. And people with a parent or sibling with celiac have a one-in-10 chance of developing the disease in their lifetime. What that means for Cruz’s plan is that not all people can enjoy bread the way he can (click here to see what we can only imagine Cruz does when alone with his favorite gluten-based foods), so getting rid of gluten-free options may not be his best plan.

The real question of the day is: is it really gluten-free meals that are ruining our country? Doubtful. Don’t get me wrong, I love bread as much as then next guy, but, infuriatingly slow bureaucracy and red tape aren’t going to be fixed by sprinkling some wheat on the situation. Saving a quick buck or two by producing less diverse meals for our men and women in service won’t fix the deficit. If anything, this policy announcement could alienate military voters who feel like Cruz is trying to decrease services for members of the armed forces. It has aggravated people on the internet and even got #tedlovesbread trending, which can’t be good for his campaign… or can it, if he’s going for the whole “any press is good press” strategy.

Cruz should really get his act together if he actually wants a shot at being president, but, then again, it’s not like his competition has avoided all embarrassing moments and weird policy ideas (Donald Trump’s wall, Ben Carson’s biblical tax plan, any and everything Jeb! has ever done). One thing is clear about his policies: a lot of us feel the same way about them as Cruz’s daughter feels about kissing him… just kind of “ew.”

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bread Cruz for President! appeared first on Law Street.

Since the United States first introduced the Selective Service System in 1940, only men in the U.S. have been required to register with the government agency in the case a draft needs to be implemented. However, with recent news that all combat jobs in the U.S. military are going to be opened up to women, some top U.S. military officials are now acknowledging that women should be registered for future military drafts as well.

General Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army, and General Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, both testified at a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today; they agreed that it’s time to register women for the draft. Senator Claire McCaskill, who also supports including women in the Selective Service registry sparked the conversation when she asked the two officials about it. However, other leaders, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Army Acting Secretary Patrick Murphy only said that the issue should be researched and discussed.

Currently, only men between the ages of 18-25 are required to register with Selective Service in the U.S.–although there are exceptions, such as men who are handicapped, or foreign nationals in the U.S. on student visas. There is also “conscientious objector status” which can be claimed by someone who objects to serving  in the military on moral or religious principles. According to the Selective Service website:

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don’t have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

The information maintained by the Selective Service System is to be used in the case of a draft. However, a draft hasn’t actually been implemented in the United States since 1973, during the Vietnam War.

There are obviously a lot of steps that would need to be put in place before young women would be required to sign up for the draft; even the integration of women in all combat roles is expected to take up to three years. But as that process gets started, it may be something that we hear about more and more.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Women Start Registering for the Draft? appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) has taken a new, innovative approach to dealing with the insane conspiracy theorists in his state. He appears to have joined them.

Since President Obama was elected in 2008, a number of particularly unhinged individuals have spouted theories that he’s going to enact some sort of martial law, or take over the country. It’s a fringe theory, to be sure, but one that has permeated many facets of the extreme right wing side of the internet. Go ahead, google “Obama martial law.” I’ll wait here patiently, while you get sucked into the crazy wormhole. The theories all boil down to one particular idea–Obama wants to remain President, so he’ll declare martial law and take over. This will, apparently, be the end of the United States as we know it.

One of the places where this conspiracy theory has taken hold is in deeply conservative Texas. So when the federal government announced that there will be a series of training exercises held by the United States military in a number of Southwestern states, including Texas, it raised red flags for some. Some very, very red flags.

Operation Jade Helm 15 will involve 1,200 special operations forces. It’s designed to help these special forces practice their readiness skills, and will take place in various sites across Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada and California for two months this summer.  While in some cases it will not be immediately obvious that this is a military operation, as some of the forces involved may be blending in as civilians, only public land will be used, or private land if the government has gotten permission to use it. Practice operations like this are a relatively normal practice for our military, and happen on a fairly regular basis.

However, the  people waving those very red flags seem to think that it will lead to tyranny, martial law, and takeover by the federal government.

Operation Jade Helm 15 Huge Step Closer Towards Permanent Military Presence On Main Street http://t.co/w4eKQcwXF7

— Now The End Begins (@NowTheEndBegins) April 30, 2015

Some are even purporting that the protests in Ferguson and more recently, Baltimore, are a set-up for more extended martial law in Texas and around the country. Again, not only is this completely bonkers, but it does a complete disservice to the very real issue in our country of police militarization and abuse. 

Obama is taking over Democrat-held cities via martial law like ISIS is taking over places in the M.E. via #SocializedTerrorism @CyberMommie — Kickin’ It Crews (@imcrews) April 28, 2015

The riot in Baltimore is exactly what operation jade helm 15 was about to prepare for martial law where we the people are the enemy

— Kevin Lancour (@kevinlancour30) April 28, 2015

In light of this totally irrational paranoia and terror, Governor Greg Abbott decided to get on board and stoke his citizens’ fears by ordering the Texas Militia to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15. Abbott elaborated in a letter to Major General Gerald “Jake” Betty his reasoning for the monitoring, stating:

During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.

In response to Abbott’s horribly misguided call, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest spoke for many of us when he bluntly stated: “I have no idea what he’s thinking.”

Abbott stating that he will be monitoring Operation Jade Helm 15 so that Texans know that their rights will remain in tact can mean one of two things. The first that he could be acting like a dad who will check in the closet for monsters so his child will go to sleep, even though the father knows that there are no monsters in the closet. That’s an unflattering picture to paint of a chief executive of a state–that he thinks his citizens are so idiotic and immature that they can’t simply be told that there is no monster in the closet.

Or, by ordering the forces to keep an eye on the operation, Abbott is telling his citizens that their worries are warranted and that there’s a chance that their rights won’t remain protected. By doing so, Abbott is legitimizing the conspiracy theorists who are freaking the fuck out about a relatively normal military practice operation. That’s not so great either, because that tells me that the head of our second biggest state thinks there’s a chance, however infinitesimal, that the federal government could be coming to take over his state.

I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, I think we’re all a little too old for conspiracy theories and monsters in the closet. Too bad Governor Abbott doesn’t agree.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Governor Greg Abbott is Pandering to Conspiracy Theorists appeared first on Law Street.

Nigeria recently elected a new president, Muhammadu Buhari, in a prolonged fight for victory against current President Goodluck Jonathan. The election was postponed six weeks due to the instability caused by terrorist group Boko Haram.

Read More: Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change

To assist with stabilizing the region and achieving safety for civilians, Nigeria employed hundreds of South African and former Soviet Union mercenaries to fight Boko Haram. Initially, this was only rumored after pictures and allegations surfaced on social media.

President Jonathan was quoted as saying that two companies provided “trainers and technicians” to help Nigerian forces fight Boko Haram, though he was not specific in names, sources, or firms.

Eeben Barlow, the head of one of the private military companies working in Nigeria, confirmed that South African Defence Forces have aided in the training, equipment, and strategy for Nigerian forces against Boko Haram, as well as camping out in Northern Nigeria to forcibly take back territories.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Barlow’s South African private military firm, Executive Outcomes, has been influential in conflicts in Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Namibia, Lesotho, and South Africa.

Unfortunately there may be an issue here: this is illegal. The 1998 South African Act of Military Assistance Abroad bans its citizens from directly participating in wars in other countries for private gain. They must act in an official capacity under the authority of the government in Pretoria.

The Act is explicit: “Regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident within the Republic, and foreign citizens rendering such assistance from within the borders of the Republic…”

South Africa is not alone. Georgia, which is a also a source of the mercenaries, has laws criminalizing participation in foreign military activities. South African Defense Minister Mapisa-Nqakula has even said that the country should charge the men under the regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act.

Laws, policies, and guidelines are drafted and implemented in the name of justice; so would it really be bad if some foreign nationals were paid to fight terrorists? The lack of action or fuss from the international community proves that we’re willing to look the other way in the name of combating terrorism. For now, no action has been taken by or against the foreign mercenaries.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South African Mercenaries Fight Boko Haram in Nigeria appeared first on Law Street.

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

I’m an avid backpacker. While shopping for a new, sturdy backpack to travel across Southeast Asia, I asked my military friend for an old duffel bag or something similar to use. He responded, “No, it’s too dangerous. Wearing military gear through airports, or anywhere abroad can make you a target. Anyone with anti-American ideologies could rob you, heckle you, or kill you. So, no. Besides, we’re not supposed to.”

My friend is referencing the physical presence, but what about on social media? We might avoid posting our political views in fear of them affecting job prospects sure, but have you ever considered your online affiliations affecting your safety–your life?

This may be something the U.S. Government and Military personnel will have to consider in the digital age, especially since terrorist organizations all have social media pages.

A group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division posted the names, photos, and addresses of about 100 U.S. troops online, calling for attacks against them. Those most likely to respond will be lone wolves. A term given to individual terrorists who carry out attacks alone in the name of a greater cause…whatever that may be.

Investigations are underway to understand the validity of the post, the methodology the group used to attain the names, and the credibility of the group itself.

In theory, ISIS or any terrorist group could see a military car decal, a Facebook profile picture, an online entry to a military spouse support group, or even see you open your wallet with a military I.D. After that they could find you, stalk you…and then what?

That’s an extreme. Let’s say no attack is ever carried out. At the very least, these terrorists are inciting fear in our military families, pressuring them to limit their online presence–the pride they have in their careers and country–and effectively go into hiding. That’s an issue in itself.

One such Twitter account posted, “We won’t stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!” The account has since been deleted. Twitter has been pretty adamant about suspending and deleting ISIS content. As a result, the group has sought refuge in Diaspora, a social site that consists of a group of independently owned pods, which makes it difficult for administrators to remove content.

It’s unfortunate we have to be vigilant against what’s exposed on social networks in the name of terrorism. We must continue to report graphic and hateful messages, and protect the honor of those like Steven Sotloff, James Foley, Kayla Jean Mueller–the list goes on.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Uses Twitter to Publish Hit List of U.S. Military Personnel appeared first on Law Street.

Push a button, kill people thousands of miles away: who is surprised that PTSD is a result? United States pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are not immune to the devastation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), despite their relative physical distance from carnage.

Often framed as the ruggedly masculine problem of a “drone warrior,” the PTSD of drone pilots has a history of being valorized by journalists: GQ’s introduction to a piece on Airman First Class Brandon Bryant’s drone-induced PTSD describes him as having “hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar.” Writing about “terrorists” (many civilians are killed by drone attacks) like they are not human (“hunting”?!), much of the journalism surrounding drone pilots’ PTSD valorizes the suffering of white, straight men as being “for the sake of their country.”

There are exceptions, of course: some journalists slam drone attacks as murder (see video above). However, regarding drone pilots and PTSD, the glorification of American masculinity generally rules the day. Bryant, for instance, tugged at the sympathy of readers when his PTSD was framed by various news sources as being a burden on his sex and love life, turning women away from him and isolating him from potential peers. Even pieces covering PTSD that do sometimes challenge U.S. policy as opposed to glorifying the grit of traumatized male soldiers still leaves readers with the impression that, even if the public is not entitled to know all the details that make drone attacks “necessary,” drone pilots “probably know” (implying, of course, that there are, in fact, justifications for these strikes).

Now don’t get me wrong: PTSD is PTSD, and I would never, ever wish its horrific and suffocating grip on anyone, no matter what they’ve done.

And yet. And yet. Not all PTSD is created equal.

In the context of the U.S. engaging in another war in Iraq (to the tune of depressingly little [or little covered] organized public outrage), the coverage of PSTD in drone pilots is again—and again, and again–on the rise.

What purpose does this serve?

Focusing on U.S. drone pilots having PTSD is important: it is itself horrific and demands attention, and it also may help draw the attention of those who may otherwise find drone attacks unqualified successes. But focusing on the PTSD of U.S. pilots detracts focus from where it really needs to be: the traumas and horrendous death and psychological tolls that drone attacks inflict in countries of color. When “precise” drone strikes target 41 people but end 1,147 human lives, certainly the discussion should be broader than the (undeniably horrendous) pain of the (in media coverage) white American men who pulled the triggers. We must use this coverage of PTSD to expand the conversation to discuss the myriad ways that U.S.-inflicted terrorism in countries of color privileges the terrible traumas of U.S. soldiers at the expense of confronting the mass traumas and mass murders that the U.S. is inflicting through drone attacks.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drone Pilot PTSD is Awful, But Also Beside the Point appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorism is a global problem and has been an especially challenging issue for the Philippines. A nation with a long and complicated history with the United States, the Philippines plays an important role on the global stage. Read on to learn about the history of the Philippines, its relationship with the U.S., and the struggles it faces today.

History of the Philippines

The settlement of the island nation began as early as 30,000 years ago. It continued with waves of Malay immigrants and Chinese merchants. Islam was brought to the area in 1500, and as Islam spread, Christianity was also introduced.

Christianity was brought to the Philippines by the Spanish, who then spent the next two centuries conquering the nation and establishing colonial rule. This was ultimately challenged and the Spanish were temporarily defeated by the British in the late 1700s. While the Philippines was eventually returned to the Spanish, the mindset had changed and rebellions against colonial rule became more prevalent, especially among the ostracized Muslim communities. As a result, Spain slowly allowed the nation greater freedom, eventually allowing free trade and a form of quasi independence.

Despite increased freedom, resistance and nationalism continued to grow, led by native Filipino members of the clergy. This led to a series of revolts that Spain was able to put down until it entered war with the United States in 1898. The Spanish were defeated by the U.S. and subsequently relinquished control of the Philippines to the United States. The video below explores the history of the nation.

Relationship With the United States

Philippines: An American Colony

While some in the Philippines saw the Americans as liberators and fought alongside them against the Spanish, this viewpoint quickly changed. Although the Filipinos quickly attempted to assert their own independence and even elected a president, the Americans snuffed out any efforts toward immediate independence. This led to years of fighting between the two countries.

Americans eventually became the de facto new colonizers of the Philippines, with Filipinos supposedly being brought along the path toward independent self-government. The final path toward independence did begin in 1934 with the creation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Soon after, the Philippines saw the election of its first president, Manuel Quezon, and the approval of its constitution. This time these actions were also sanctioned by the United States. The American plan was to allow for a ten-year transition period before proclaiming the Philippines an independent nation; however, this was all quickly undone when the Japanese captured the Philippines during WWII. The nation was eventually freed from Japanese rule in 1945 and during the following year, 1946, finally gained its independence.

Philippines: After Independence

Although technically independent, the Philippines was still highly dependent on the U.S. for trade, and there were still numerous American military bases on the islands. These bases and other forms of American intervention would occasionally crop up as major issues for Filipinos for the rest of the century. There were also concerns over American support for President Marcos, a strongman who effectively ruled the country as a dictator for over 20 years.

A particular low point in the relationship came in 1991, when the U.S. was forced to abandon its military bases in the Philippines after the government refused to renew the leases. However, the threat of a rising China and the events of 9/11 caused the Philippines to again seek a closer partnership with the U.S.

In 1999, the two sides signed a Visiting Forces Agreement under which the two countries could engage in joint military exercises as long as no American bases were established and the U.S. maintained a non-combatant role.

Following 9/11, a rotating Joint-Operations Task Force was also created in the Philippines numbering approximately 600 soldiers. Its purpose was to help the country fight against Islamist extremist groups. While several of these groups were created worldwide to fight terrorism following 9/11, the Philippines, as a long-standing American ally, was an area of grave concern. Not only was there already an established Islamic insurgency in the south, but there were concerns over two terrorist groups, Abu Sayyef and Jemaah Islamiyah, that operate in the Philippines and have ties to other international terror organizations, including al-Qaeda.

Yet another agreement was signed in 2002, which permitted the U.S. to use the Philippines as a resupply center. The Philippines is a useful ally for the U.S. to have, especially when it comes to a sometimes contentious American relationship with China.

In addition, the U.S. and the Philippines have signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which allowed greater access by U.S. personnel to Filipino military bases, the construction of new U.S. facilities, and positioning of defensive equipment. In 2014, while military cooperation was still ongoing, it was announced that the Joint-Operations Task Force would be dissolved as progress had been made. The video below documents U.S. efforts in the Philippines.

What issues are the Philippines facing now?

While many of the recent collaborative agreements between the U.S. and Filipino movements have been part of the United States’ overall involvement in Asia, the relationship between the two sides truly regained strength after 9/11. As terrorism became a main foreign policy concern for the U.S. it looked abroad to combat a wide variety of terrorist organizations, leading to its efforts in the Philippines.

In addition, the Philippines struggles with militant groups that make it difficult to successfully run the country. The current President of the Philippines is Benigno Aquino III; he was elected in 2010. He’s had to deal with many issues, including the Filipino-American relations, and the push against the terrorist and militant groups in the nation.

Terrorism

There are three prominent terrorist groups in the Philippines according to the U.S. State Department. These three are the Abu Sayyaf Group, the New People’s Army, and Jemaah Islamiyah. The Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiyah are both Islamist groups.

Abu Sayyaf Group

Abu Sayyaf Group, or ASG, is a splinter group of the Moro National Liberation Front. While smaller than the others, it has been the most aggressive. Its list of transgressions is long but includes such nefarious acts as murder, kidnapping, extortion, and robbery. It is mostly funded through those robberies. It operates primarily out of the southern islands of the Philippines, which have the largest chunk of the Muslim minority population.

Jemaah Islamiyah

The other Islamic extremist group is Jemaah Islamiyah. Unlike the ASG, Jemaah Islamiyah is based out of Indonesia but operates in the Philippines. The group engages in many of the same criminal enterprises as ASG, particularly in bomb-making. Both groups also have ties to Al-Qaeda which has provided logistical support for both, particularly Jemaah Islamiyah.

New People’s Army 

The third group is a bit of a throwback to an earlier era. The New People’s Army, or NPA, is the Communist party of the Philippines, founded with the goal of overthrowing the Filipino government. Unsurprisingly, the group was founded in 1969 during the height of the Cold War. This group mainly targets public officials and U.S. personnel, as it is highly critical of the U.S. presence on the islands. The NPA receives most of its funding locally or from ex-patriots in other countries. While the group’s main aims might be different however, its members still often train alongside Islamist groups.

Other Actors

Along with these groups are the Alex Boncayao Brigade and the Pentagon Gang which were other organizations that were formerly listed on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. However, their capacity has been reduced to the point where they are no longer considered terror groups.  The following video gives a detailed explanation of terrorism in the Philippines.

Militant Groups

Moro National Liberation Front 

Along with the terrorist groups that operate in the Philippines are two militant groups that are also very prominent. First is the Moro National Liberation Front or MNLF–“Moro” is the Spanish name for  Muslims in the Philippines. It comes from the word “Moor.” Founded in the 1970s, this group has waged a guerrilla campaign against the Filipino government, which it believes has marginalized Muslims in the southern area of Mindanao. In 1996 the two sides reached an agreement with Mindanao achieving semi-autonomy from the government in Manila. Following the agreement and a failed uprising the MNLF’s status has declined.

Moro Islamic National Front 

The second group is the similarly named Moro Islamic National Front, or MILF. Besides sounding similar, the overlap extends further, as the MILF is actually a splinter group formed from the MNLF. Also founded in the 1970s, this organization employs many of the same tactics as the MNLF. The MILF reached its own peace agreement with the government in 2001; however, whereas the MNLF declined following its treaty with the government, the MILF–which is the larger of the two–has continued fighting in hopes of creating an independent Islamic nation in the south.

As fighting continued for the next decade, both sides were also working to reach some kind of a peace agreement, which they finally did in 2014.

Current Outlook

With peace made between the main insurgent threat and the Filipino government, it is fair to ask whether the efforts by both the Filipino government and the U.S. have succeeded. While the terror groups have not completely abated and probably never will, their capabilities have been greatly reduced to the point that the U.S. feels comfortable enough to dissolve its anti-terrorism unit there. Thus, while it may not be the best-case scenario, it does provide a type of closure in the war on terror that is better for both sides than more fighting. This type of agreement might also prove to be the standard going forward in the war against terrorism globally for other afflicted nations.

There are of course many other issues that the Filipinos will have to address in the coming years. As the continued U.S. presence suggests, the Philippines may be a central point of action if relations between China and the U.S. deteriorate to the point of no return. Although this seems far from certain, potential flash point disagreements still exist between China and her neighbors, many of whom are U.S. allies, including the Philippines.

Other issues also exist, such as extreme poverty. The gravity of this problem was on display following the devastation from Typhoon Haiyan, which killed over eight thousand people. The storm also destroyed large swaths of desperately needed farmland. This forced as many as four million people to be displaced and seek help from outside sources. Already many people there were living on around a dollar a day and scavenging just to get adequate food supplies.

Domestic violence has also been on the rise in the nation. While more cases were naturally expected to be reported following the passage of the Violence against Women and their Children Act in 2004, the results are unsettling. According to one report by the Women and Children’s Protective Center, the rate of violence rose over 150 percent from 2004 to 2011. While these numbers are unnerving, it is still suspected that incidents are underreported as abuse is seen as a private matter.

These are only some examples of existing issues and while they are certainly not exclusively Filipino problems, they do point to areas of future concern. Also, while an agreement is in place, something more concrete will likely need to be worked out between the ruling government in Manila and its autonomous regions. Whether this is full independence or greater inclusion of the Muslim minority, the status quo does not appear likely to hold out forever, as evidenced by history.

Resources

Primary

Council of Foreign Relations: Terrorism Havens: Philippines

Additional

Anti-Defamation League: The Philippines and Terrorism

Nations Online: History of the Philippines

Foreign Policy: Old Frenemies

War on the Rocks: End of An Era in the Philippines

Global Security: Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Huffington Post: Is This What Terror War Success Looks Like?

Reuters: Typhoon Haiyan

IRIN: Philippines Steep Rise in Gender Based Violence

International Business Times: China-Philippines Territorial Dispute

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Philippines: A U.S. Ally Grapples with Terrorism appeared first on Law Street.

For the majority of my life, war has been the norm in the United States. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. War is the new normal–and between 2004-2011 war was, as expected, mostly the leading cause of death for troops in the U.S. military. But for the last two years, that trend did not hold true. Suicide has surpassed war as the number one killer of American troops.

Suicide is also incredibly prevalent among veterans. According to a report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 veterans take their own lives every day. Given the way the VA collects that information it’s speculated that that number could be even higher. To put this in context, roughly 20 percent of suicides in the United States are committed by veterans, even though they make up just 10 percent of the population. That’s a startling and terrifying figure; as News21 put it:

Suicide rates within the veteran population often were double and sometimes triple the civilian suicide rate in several states. Arizona’s 2011 veteran suicide rate was 43.9 per 100,000 people, nearly tripling the civilian suicide rate of 14.4, according to the latest numbers from the state health department.

Now, the civilian suicide rate has also been rising. According to the New Yorker:

In the United States, suicide rates have risen, particularly among middle-aged people: between 1999 and 2010, the number of Americans between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four who took their own lives rose by almost thirty percent.

Suicide is a gigantic issue among both our troops and our veterans. The ways in which we understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the effects of war continue to evolve, but clearly we haven’t done enough. See the infographic below for just some of the ways in which veterans’ and active service peoples’ duties can affect them.

Courtesy of Blackwater Law.

PTSD is tricky because it can show up suddenly or gradually, sometimes a long time after the traumatic event. In addition, medical care for veterans hasn’t always been as top notch as it could be–we all remember the VA hospital scandals earlier this year. PTSD can fuel depression, alcoholism, and various other problems. There are other reasons that veterans and service members are at particular risk. For some, reacclimating to civilian life can be very difficult. While there’s no dispositive list of risk factors, it’s clear from statistics alone that this is a significant problem.

The argument that the suicide rate will go down once we’re fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq seems like it should make sense, but it’s not that simple. Even while those wars have been slowly de-escalated, suicide rates have remained pretty constant. That ties back to the fact that PTSD can develop over time along with those struggles that veterans face when they return. A troubling portion of our nation’s veterans become homeless, which makes getting them access to health care and help even more difficult. After all, since 2010, there has been a thirty-three percent increase in homeless veterans.

The fact is that anyone who is a member of our military forces–or former member–deserves the utmost respect, help, and care. But that simply isn’t happening–and until I started looking up these statistics today I didn’t quite realize how much we are failing them. Something has to change–and it starts with awareness.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities? appeared first on Law Street.

At the recent Zhuhai Air Show, China unveiled a new stealth fighter jet that one day has the potential to rival the United States’ own F-35. This came just days before President Obama was to travel to China to meet with its leaders as part of the larger APEC summit. While the significance of the timing of this display is debatable, it unquestionably shows China is determined to steadily improve and modernize its military arsenal. The question that remains is why? Is China’s path aimed at some future point at which it will surpass the United States as the world’s pre-eminent world power, both economically and militarily? If the answer to this question is yes–or even if it is no–does this then make China a military threat to the United States?

China and the U.S.: Positions in the Global Hierarchy

It’s the Economy

To begin to answer this question it is necessary to start by looking at these countries’ economies and in particular their economic growth. There are an infinite number of economic measures available to argue which economy in the world is the strongest; however, one of the most traditional and commonly accepted is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this regard, America has enjoyed dominance for decades going all the way back to the end of World War II. Today even in a supposedly more multipolar world, the GDP of the US economy, nearly $17 trillion in 2013, dwarfs that of any other nation and almost doubles the second place country, China.

Nonetheless, while the United States enjoys the largest GDP its rate of growth is much smaller than China’s. Since 1978, when it moved from a centrally planned to a market based economy, China’s yearly GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent. The United States during this time has experienced annual growth rates of 2 to 3 percent.

This figure excludes many factors, notably the fact that as a larger economy it is harder for the U.S. to grow at a rate equal to that of China. This issue has actually started to affect China as well as its recent growth has slipped to the 7 to 8 percent range as it seeks to curb several glaring social issues. Moreover, while China’s economy is growing faster and one day may pass the U.S. economy based strictly on total GDP, the average GDP per person is much lower in China than the United States. Regardless of the metrics though, why is economic might so important in determining whether China is a military threat to the United States?

China and U.S.: Military Spending

The United States Spends More (A Lot More)

A successful economy often goes hand in hand with a powerful military. Such is the case in the United States. As has been well documented, military spending by the United States far surpasses that of any other country. In fact, the edge in military spending by the United States far outstrips its edge economically by any measure. In 2013 for example, the United States spent an estimated $619 billion on military expenditures. This is more than three times what the second-place country spent in that same time period.

That second country on the list is–you guessed it–China again. In 2013 China spent $171.4 billion itself on military expenditures. While the United States again is overwhelmingly outspending China, it is critical to look at the growth rates, not just the overall total. As China’s economy continues to grow, so does its potential military capability.

China is Spending More Lately

In 2013, the U.S. actually saw a significant decline in military spending as a result of not only the ending of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also due to the sequester. In contrast, China actually increased its budget in the same year between 7.4 and 10.7 percent. In 2014, it is reported that China will increase its budget again by an additional 12.2 percent. While this still does not make China equal to the United States, it suggests a desire by China to project its power further beyond its borders. The video below provides a more in-depth explanation.

China and U.S.: Their Relationship

Long and Intricate 

While China’s military capability is increasing this does not automatically make it a threat to the United States, instead it is also important to consider the relationship between the two nations. Historically this could be characterized best as complicated. The video below highlights the complex connection.

The United States has long had a relationship with China, almost from its inception. China was an important market following the Revolutionary War when it was shut out of many other places due to animosity emanating from England. American missionaries also flocked to China and Chinese immigrants came in waves to the United States and were instrumental in constructing the railway network, among other things. Things started going downhill, however, near the end of the nineteenth century during the rise of Imperialism worldwide. In 1882 the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was aimed at curbing Chinese immigration.

Additionally, in 1899 the U.S. provided men and weapons to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in which Chinese citizens attempted to expel foreigners who they viewed as exploitative of their country. The United States did advocate the Open Door Policy, initiated in the late nineteenth century, that prevented the literal break-up of China; however, the motive for that can be seen as greed as much as humanitarianism in that the U.S. wanted to keep China as an open market to which it had access.

The relationship improved again during the lead up to and for the duration of World War II as the United States provided supplies and men to China in its fight against Imperial Japan. Later during the conflict China also served as a launching point for American attacks against Japan. The bond the countries had hammered out during the war seemed to be set in stone when the United States worked to get China to become one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Once again however, the relationship frayed with the communist takeover of China and with Chinese soldiers actually engaging U.S. troops during the Korean War. At one point the situation was so bad that nuclear war seemed to be a possibility. Relations stayed frozen until President Nixon famously opened up dialogue between the two countries in the 1970s.

Since Nixon’s thawing the two nations have maintained a strong economic relationship. In 2014, China was the United States’ second most valuable trading partner and the United States was China’s top partner. The two sides also recently agreed for the first time to a major environmental pact that is scheduled to cap China’s emissions in 2030 and cut US emissions by 25 percent by 2025. Still though while the U.S. and China are working in concert, many issues remain between the two nations that could potentially lead to conflict, namely human rights abuses and continued Chinese attempts to steal American technological secrets.

Other Considerations

The Price of Friendship

While the complicated relationship between China and the United States may not make China a military threat, the relationship China has with its neighbors in Asia certainly has that potential. Currently China is attempting to exert its newfound power throughout the region. This has led to two separate crises in two separate seas. The one problem in both cases, with Japan in the East China Sea and several Asian countries in the South China Sea, is over control of the seas. Specifically it is over who controls the resources under those seas, particularly the large amount of oil. The video below gives a glimpse of what exactly the issue is.

The reason why all this could lead to China becoming a military threat is because the United States has defensive military treaties with both Taiwan and Japan. Thus if these two nations or others that also have military commitments from the United States were to come into direct physical conflict with China, the United States would be required to come to their aid militarily. The United States could always refuse to honor these obligations, but then that would lead to a loss of credibility.

End of the Pax Americana 

Such a loss of credibility may actually already have occurred. Specifically by failing to honor the security commitment to Ukraine and the failure to punish Syria for crossing Obama’s Red line against the use of chemical weapons, hostile countries may now have their doubts concerning American power, or at the very least its commitment.

Not only has this seemingly emboldened countries like Russia, it may also lead other countries with differing political goals such as China to determine the time is ripe for them to assert their own power as well, without the former fear of American retaliation. This may also signal the end of an unofficial era, defined as the Pax Americana or American Peace. During this period dating from the end of World War II, the United States was able to assert its global ambitions due to its military strength.

To Russia With Love

Another potential challenge to the system, crafted by the United States, comes in the form of China’s growing economic relationship with Russia, which has been both a long term and recent nemesis of the United States. While the U.S. and its European allies sanction Russia for its involvement in the unrest in Ukraine, China was agreeing to a $400 billion energy deal that could undermine the sanctions already in place.

China’s Nuclear Card

Even if China were not emboldened by a perceived American decline, it still has the potential to be a threat to the United States or any other state on this planet because of its nuclear stockpile. While China has long maintained its policy of no First Use concerning nuclear weapons, recent improvements in its arsenal may signal its intent to shrink the nuclear capability gap between the United States and itself.

Conclusion

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice…

Aside from all the spending and rhetoric, good and bad, many still believe that China cannot be a threat to the United States militarily for one major reason: China and the U.S. are each other’s most important trading partners. But this argument has been made before. In one such case it was argued that Germany and France, which prior to WWI were economically independent, would not go to war. This was proven wrong of course and the two sides soon engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Thus in time China could very possibly become a military threat to the United States with its quickly growing economy and military budget; however, the amount of dialogue and trade between the two countries could just as easily lead to a peaceful and prosperous relationship well into the future. For now only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Gross Domestic Product 2013

World Bank: China Overview

Census: Foreign Trade

Additional

Heritage Foundation: The Complicated History of US Relations with China

Trading Economics: Countries Spending the Most on the Military

CNN: Just How Good is China’s New Stealth Fighter

Council on Foreign Relations: Trends in US Military Spending

The New York Times: China Announces 12.2 % Increase in Military Budget

China Daily: Top 10 Trading Partners of the Chinese Mainland

Guardian: US and China Strike Deal on Carbon Cuts in Push For Global Climate Change Pact

World Affairs Journal: Conflicting Claims: China, Japan, Taiwan on Edge

Atlantic: The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable

National Interest: West Concerned about Russia and China Economic Ties

Diplomat: Could China’s Nuclear Strategy Evolve?

National Interest: Should America Fear China’s Nuclear Weapons

UCSD: Trading on Preconceptions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China as a Military Threat: What Does It Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week President of the United States Barack Obama made a fatal error. He drank a cup of coffee and saluted our troops…with the same hand. This incited media coverage somewhere on par with a natural disaster, or maybe an assassination attempt. In fact, some members of the media covered what has now been dubbed the “latte salute” scandal as though it actually was an assassination — namely the assassination of American patriotism.

Jon Stewart’s takedown of Fox News’ coverage of the “latte salute” was pretty epic:

Stewart is 100 percent on point. But I think we can take this one step further. You see, this near- 24/7 news coverage of our President is relatively new. For hundreds of years, we didn’t have that kind of access, ability to record actions, or quite frankly, the desire to compulsively stalk our commander-in-chief, waiting for him to do something as innocuous as juggle a cup of coffee while saluting. The fact that we cover every moment of what the President does is literally insane. No one can hold up to those standards.

So what about some of our older Presidents? Did they ever do anything that was weird, or disrespectful, or embarrassing? Well, yes. A lot. So in honor of the “latte salute” headlines, I’m going to go over some of our past presidents’ indiscretions. And for some good measure, I’ll juxtapose those facts with some real headlines about Obama. This is going to be fun guys. And by fun, I of course mean infuriatingly depressing.

Courtesy of Rembrandt Peale via WikiMedia

Who: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. He must have been the epitome of patriotism, right?

What he did: He almost sparked an international incident by not dressing up enough to greet the British Ambassador. He wore old clothes, and carpet slippers.

And a Real Fox News Headline: Obama Insults Britain Again with a shameless nomination of top donor as US Ambassador to London.

Same thing, right?

Courtesy of Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl via Wikimedia

Who: Andrew Jackson, a.k.a. Old Hickory. Military vet and arguably one of our most bad-ass Presidents.

What he did: Before becoming President, Andrew Jackson took part in a duel and killed a man named Charles Dickinson (not the author). Dickinson had accused him of cheating on a horse racing bet and insulted his wife. During this duel, he apparently acted with very little honor, shooting Dickinson in what was a violation of dueling rules. This had almost no effect on his campaign for President.

And a Real Brietbart Headline: Ayers and Obama: What the Media Hid. Because a potential relationship with a bad guy is so much worse than killing someone during a duel.

Historical Bonus Fact: Our former Vice President, Aaron Burr, actually killed someone in a duel too. The man he killed was Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers. And Burr was Vice President at the time.

Courtesy of David Hume Kenerly via Wikipedia.

Who: President Gerald Ford, Republican replacement for President Nixon.

What he did: President Ford was an avid swimmer. He used to conduct press conferences while swimming laps.

Actual Fox News Headline: Obama’s golf trip after Foley press conference seems ‘disconnected,’ says loved ones.

My point here isn’t to bash Fox News and conservative media, it really isn’t. If there were a Republican in the Oval Office right now, MSNBC and other liberal media sources would probably be doing very similar coverage. And it’s not even that all conservative media does this — Bill O’Reilly actually defended Obama’s latte-burdened salute. My point is that the Latte Salute is ridiculous. It’s a symptom of a disease in this country. That disease is our obsession with analyzing every single thing that our President does. The man has to deal with international crises in the form of ISIS, Ebola, and the Ukraine. That’s on top of our epidemic of school shootings, a useless Congress, and everything else that’s happening right here in the U.S. But we’re fixated on the fact that he held a cup of coffee over his head once while saluting. Come on people, get a damn hobby.

And for the record, I wrote most of this post holding a cup of coffee.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Latte Salute” is a Latte of Crap appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

The Blue Angels are regarded as some of the most highly talented and well-respected pilots in the Navy and the Marines.  As someone who has seen the Blue Angels fly overhead several times I can vouch for their skill–they literally take your breath away with their gracefully executed swoops and dives. But recently, their image has been tarnished as some former Angels are under investigation for sexual harassment, a hard blow to both the daredevils’ mission and public image.

The mission of the United States Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron is to showcase the pride and professionalism of the United States Navy and Marine Corps by inspiring a culture of excellence and service to country through flight demonstrations and community outreach.

Who are the Blue Angels?

The Blue Angels squadron is a team comprised of 16 volunteering officers, with six pilots who fly jets of varying capabilities. Blue Angels officers serve either two or three years (depending on their positions) with the squadron before returning to their fleets. The Blue Angels team is a unique military demonstration team and is highly respected in the military community.

The structure of the Blue Angels is what sets this unit apart. Unlike other military units, the commanding officer (CO) of the Blue Angels “is both the final authority and a wingman whose flying is critiqued by junior officers.” The Blue Angels lack an executive officer (XO), which is a typical chain-of-command arrangement. One former Angel explained that the unusual command structure in the Angels makes it difficult for the CO to act with authority while maintaining his peers as his equals. The atypical leadership structure paired with an inappropriate CO led to a toxic work environment in former CO Capt. Gregory McWherter’s second term.

The Controversy 

McWherter served as the CO for the Blue Angels from 2008 to 2010 and then again from May 2011 to November 2012. According to the Daily Mail, there were no reports of misconduct during his first term. But a service member has now filed an official complaint with the Navy about the inappropriate work environment.

The Department of the Navy made the investigation report public, and the contents were quite shocking. The most bizarre incident the report included was an unusual act of vandalism. Someone took it upon himself to draw a huge blue and gold penis “on the roof of the center point trailer at the Blue Angels’ winter training facilities in El Centro.” This inappropriate artwork was visible from space and even showed up on Google Maps for a while.

Other offenses that occurred under McWherter’s authority included members passing along pornographic images, pornographically carved pumpkins in the office, joking about their girlfriends’ nude photos, and making offensive jokes after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed. The report specifically accuses McWherter of making sexist jokes about women.

McWherter lost his job as an XO of Naval Base Coronado in California due to the allegations of sexual harassment. He also resigned as the president of The Tailhook Association amid the scandal’s publicity. But McWherter’s removal is not the only change happening in the Navy.

A New Chain-of-Command

According to the Navy Times, the squadron will now be assigned an XO; this is the first time the Blue Angels organization will be overseen in such a way. The XO will be a designated aviator who oversees the squadron, but he will not fly along with the Blue Angels. The Navy Times explained, this change in command will serve as an attempt to restore the unit from the “hostile working environment rife with pornography, lewd behavior and other sexual harassment” fostered by McWherter.

To further uphold the prestigious reputation of the Blue Angels, the head of Naval Air Forces, Vice Admiral David Buss, incorporated additional changes in the selection process. He told The Navy Times the selection criteria was rewritten so as to provide opportunities for anyone to be considered regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race. Those who are considered will be reviewed by several new authorities and while Buss expects critics, he said these changes are necessary to improve the Blue Angels’ environment. These new checks and balances to be put in place after the 2015 selection round will help prevent future abuses of authority. Buss expressed his faith that restructuring the chain-of-command in the Blue Angels will only return the squadron to its esteemed origin.

Not a First-Time Offense

The Navy has dealt with similar scandals in the past–but the matter boils down to something much simpler than a scandal. What part of being a good pilot or fighter constitutes the need for lewd behavior and pornographic pinups in the office? These conditions are unprofessional and take away from the honor associated with the military. As silly as it may sound, the blue and gold penis scandal brings attention to the issue of sexual discrimination in the military.

An environment in which women are discussed as objects for aesthetic and sexual appeal is not professionally acceptable. Though the Blue Angels do not discriminate against female pilots on paper, no female pilot has ever been initiated into the squadron. That seems a bit strange, considering the Blue Angels have been around since the 1940s. Regardless, this scandal is a blessing in disguise for the Blue Angels. Though the public knowledge of the lewd work environment behind the dazzling air-show does not bode well in means of publicity, it made way for an improved future for the Angels.

With a more stringent selection process and restructured chain-of-command, the Blue Angels are sure to perform at their finest in the upcoming years. Applicants will be considered solely based on merit, career significance, and professionalism. The new chain-of-command will give way to a whole new professionalism to the Blue Angels, which is evidently much needed.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Official U.S. Navy Page via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Blue Angels: Harassment Investigation Sparks Changes appeared first on Law Street.

Whether you’re for or against drone strikes, it should at least be accepted that regulations should be followed when using drones. The Obama Administration’s drone strike policies have most recently come into question after a wedding procession turned into a funeral. The December 2013 drone strike in Yemen violated the Administration’s own policies to prevent civilian casualties, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. A dozen people were killed and many others injured, including the bride. While the government claimed that the strike targeted and killed only militants, Human Rights Watch reported otherwise. This incident begs two questions:

1. What are the Obama Administration’s drone strike regulations?  

2. Are the regulations effective at targeting terrorists and protecting civilians?

Obama cited his administration’s drone policies in a speech last May, stating that strikes are permitted only when there is ‘near certainty’ that no civilians will be hurt. However, the phrase ‘near certainty’ was never officially defined and remains ambiguous. Additional guidelines included the following: ‘near certainty’ of the presence of the enemy; the enemy still poses a threat to the United States; and no possibility of the enemy’s being arrested or captured by different means. According to Human Rights Watch, the U.S. did not meet any of these guidelines in the December Yemeni attack.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that the terrorist was among the group in the wedding procession?

The U.S. claimed they did, and that among the members of the targeted group was Yemen’s most-wanted terrorist, Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani; however, the government has not offered any conclusive evidence or video proof that the target was, in fact, present during the attack. The government is not legally required to report the logistics of drone strikes, but this very fact points to a potential flaw in the policies. Without a record, there is no way to demand accountability. Moreover, the government’s claim contradicts statements that Human Rights Watch gathered from witnesses and members at the wedding party, none of whom affirmed the presence of the terrorist or other members of Al-Qaeda.

Was the main target and others involved in the attack a threat to U.S. security? 

Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani is claimed to be an Al-Qaeda affiliate who was involved in the shutdown of around a dozen U.S. diplomatic centers across the Middle East last year. It seems that the target did, in fact, pose a continuing threat to U.S. security. However, the study suggests it is likely that the terrorist was not among the group attacked. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch acknowledged that there was a possibility that some Al-Qaeda associates were among the dead; however, it is unknown whether these people posed imminent threats to U.S. security.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that no civilians would be hurt?

The fact that those targeted were part of a wedding makes it hard to believe that the United States was sure no civilians would be killed or injured. Moreover after the attack, Yemeni officials presented money and assault rifles, a traditional gift of apology, to the families of the dead and wounded. The Yemeni officials’ apologetic actions signify that many of those attacked were civilians and were mistakenly targeted. Finally, Human Rights Watch asserted that targeting the whole group to eliminate the terrorist would still not justify an attack by the United States since the attack would involve a disproportionate amount of civilian casualties.

According to the report, the Obama Administrations’ drone strike guidelines were not properly followed. Furthermore, the guidelines are not stringent enough to protect civilian lives, as there is no clear and established meaning of ‘near certainty.’ The phrase leaves much to the interpretation.

As more civilians are killed in the process of targeting terrorists, the United States risks endangering its relationship with countries that are working with them to stop terrorism. The U.S. risks breaching international laws of war due to the amount of civilian casualties. There have been more than 390 drone strikes during the Obama Presidency, and the consequences of these strikes include the deaths of 273 civilians. Lawyers from a British human rights organization have already filed in the ICC for the killing of civilians in a drone strike in Pakistan, which signifies the threat of a violation of international law is real. Not only do drone strikes pose a potential threat to civilian life, but they could also worsen the United States’ diplomatic relations with other countries and its own international reputation.

[Washington Post] [Human Rights Watch] [Bureau of Investigative Journalism] [Truthout] 

—

Sarah Shelden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [doctress neutopia via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military isn’t doing enough to protect the health and safety of the people who make their clothing, according to The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF). In the ILRF’s recent report, Dangerous Silence, the organization asserts that the U.S. Military has not properly looked into the sources of the clothing sold in their over 1,100 base stores, much of which comes from outsourced factories in Bangladesh.

According to the ILRF, the military doesn’t gather  sufficient information about the safety conditions and treatment of workers in these factories, and in many cases, relies on audits by companies such as Walmart and Sears that have failed to properly protect workers in their own factories. In some cases the military exchanges were aware of safety violations but did not alert Bangladeshi authorities; for instance, the Army and Air Force Exchange failed to act when they learned that Green Fair Textiles workers were being submitted to 80-hour work weeks.

Considering the fact that it is legal for the military to use overseas suppliers, some believe that they do not need to protect the factory workers. Army and Air Force Exchange Service spokesman Judd Anstey stated that the agency abides by guidelines issued by the Department of Defense which necessitates that all local laws are followed and merchandise is not made by forced labor or children. But what about overworking those in factories that is illegal by American standards, if not locally?

The military exchanges’ failure to report and solve the problems with their clothing suppliers is all the more surprising in the wake of last years’ tragedies in Bangladesh. The Tazreen Fashions factory, which manufactured Marine Corps logo clothing, experienced a fire in which 112 workers died. In April 2013 at Rana Plaza an eight-story clothing factory collapsed, killing more than 1,134 people and leaving 200 people missing as of last December.

The U.S. military fights for freedom across the world and defends liberty at home, yet the message strikes some as hypocritical when their uniforms are made in places that condone human rights violations. Although the U.S. has no legal responsibility for the conditions in factories in other countries, government entities should not turn a blind eye to the safety and labor violations in the factories they patronize.

An interesting comparison is the nearly nonexistent criticism directed toward military exchanges with the public’s reaction to the 2012 U.S. Olympic uniform controversy; the difference is striking. Ralph Lauren received a significant amount of negative press during the London Olympics because the U.S. delegation’s uniforms were made in China rather than domestically. Perhaps the backlash to this outsourcing was due to the fact that the Olympics is a spectacle that attracts international attention, while the military exchanges lack public prominence. Nevertheless, the Ralph Lauren controversy shows how public outcry can stimulate change: in reaction to the negative press over their uniforms, Ralph Lauren made a point to use American sources and labor for the 2014 Sochi uniforms. If the military exchanges garnered the same level of attention, perhaps they would be compelled to act, too.

United States officials should take a stance against this abuse of workers and safety in outsourced factories in order to set an example for other retailers to follow when it comes to factory conditions. The ILRF’s report provides several suggestions as to how the United States military can help protect Bangladeshi workers, including requiring suppliers to comply with international labor standards, issuing mandatory repairs and inspections to ensure safety, organizing worker unions and committees, and publicly disclosing audit results. The Marine Corps appears to be taking the lead. The branch’s Trademark and Licensing Office issued a new policy mandating its retail suppliers be signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety.
—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The U.S. Military & Bangladeshi Factories: Who’s Responsible for Safety? appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

More than 20 percent of women in the armed forces have experienced sexual misconduct in the military. Due to fear of backlash, this statistic is significantly under reported. In the last year, however, reported sexual assaults in the military increased an unprecedented 46%.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have truly made bi-partisan efforts to shed light on this national travesty. Sen. Gillibrand recently predicted that the current Military Sexual Assault Bill, which would remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command, will receive the necessary votes to pass.

The efforts of Sen. Gillibrand and others fighting for reform, particularly to take military oversight of sexual assault cases out of military hands, is increasingly gaining attention and steam. The Invisible War, a groundbreaking documentary directed by Kirby Dick, helped make waves on the road to reform, expanding awareness of the critical issue. Two of the women featured in the film, attorney Susan L. Burke and former Airman First Class Jessica Nicole Hinves, joined the Forum on Law, Culture and Society at Fordham Law School for the Forum Film Festival to discuss the issues raised by the film and the steps needed for reform and to pass the Military Sexual Assault Bill. Moderator Thane Rosenbaum, film executive producer Maria Cuomo-Cole, and Rear Admiral Susan J. Blumenthal rounded out the panel.

(All statistics in the film are from U.S. Government Studies)

The Invisible War addresses the rampant under-reporting of sexual harassment in the military. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed in action. In addition, women who have been raped in the military have a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men who have been in combat.

In fact, about 80% of sexually assaulted men and women do not report. Yes, I said men and women, as male victims comprise approximately one percent, or 20 thousand cases, of all military sexual trauma.

A study by the United States Navy included in the film asserts that 18 percent of incoming recruits have attempted or committed rape before entering the military. An alarming statistic considering that we hold our military to such high standards and expect a certain degree of oversight. Twenty-five percent of women do not report rape because their commanding officers are the rapists. Due to the chain of command disciplinary system, prosecution of these attacks is entirely at the discretion of the military and the commanding officers are in charge. Although Congress has the power to exercise congressional oversight over these military sexual misconduct situations, few members have chosen to become involved until recently.

Susan Burke suggested that the military justice system is flawed and must be modernized. “Put the adjudicatory power in the hands of the prosecutors – not the commanders,” she stated.

The problems with sexual misconduct in the military is not new. As the film points out, in 1991, the Navy dealt with sexual misconduct issues with regard to the Tailhook Convention in which approximately 200 Navy and Marine airmen participated in “The Gauntlet”. This involved men roaming the halls in search of women to assault. “The Gauntlet” ending with the sexual assaults of hundreds of women.

The embarrassing events that took place at the Tailhook Convention in 1991 are absolutely unacceptable; however, such conduct did not end there. In 1996, the Army dealt with sexual misconduct at the Aberdeen Proving Ground involving the rape and sexual harassment of 30 women. In 2003, the Air Force dealt with sexual misconduct within their Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Most recently, there was a scandal involving the rape of a Marine stationed at the Marine Barracks in D.C., a very reputable place to be stationed due to its proximity to the U.S. Capitol building.

Many of the resulting lawsuits and prosecutions in these sexual misconduct cases often end in a form of insignificant justice. In Jessica Nicole Hinves’ case, the man who was under investigation actually received a promotion. Many of these lawsuits end poorly, partially due to the Feres Doctrine which states that the U.S. government is not liable for injuries sustained during service (including rape, apparently).

Additionally, a December 2011 lawsuit was dismissed because the court claimed that sexual harassment is “an occupational hazard of military service.” This seems outlandish, outrageous and absolutely upside-down. Since when is rape and sexual misconduct part of the job description when enlisting in the military to serve our nation and protect our freedom? What’s next, barcodes on every American citizen’s neck as a residential hazard of living in the United States?

Even with bills such as the STOP Act aimed at rectifying the many injustices our service people endure when it comes to sexual assault, many still wonder if it will be enough. According to, Jessica Nicole Hinves, this type of moral erosion is a national security issue, as military feminism is looked down upon by higher ranking commanders.

Holding servicemen accountable for the sexual misconduct they perpetrate is essential in order to maintain the respectable and cohesive nature of our military. Resistance to oversight legislation aimed at removing military sexual assault cases from the chain of command is at odds with the military’s insistence that in order to maintain good order and discipline, commanders need to maintain leadership, control and power.

The panel suggested that military justice can and must be effected through civilian control, encouraging audience members to tell their Congressional representatives that commanders must be held accountable and that higher ranks do not put people in a position to make legal determinations about sexual assault. Countries such as England, Australia and Israel have taken the oversight out of military hands. Therefore, perhaps it is time the United States follows suit.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Army IMCOM via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forum Film Festival Series: Part 2 – The Invisible War appeared first on Law Street.

So, this Monday was Veterans Day. For those of you who don’t really know what that means—other than a day off from school or work—Veterans Day is a day set aside to honor all of the brave men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces.

So, that grandfather you have who served in World War II? Your uncle who fought in Vietnam? Give them a hug today.

But you know who else deserves some extra appreciation today? Your aunt who did two tours in Afghanistan.

These days, the face of Veterans Day is seriously changing—and for the better. With the ban on women in combat positions lifted last January, more and more women are getting the recognition they deserve for their military service.

Because guess what, lovelies? Women were serving in combat positions long before the ban was lifted almost a year ago.

Captain Vernice Armour is a perfect example. In August of 2004, she was flying an AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopter for the 11^th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq. One of the missiles she fired saved an entire squad of Marines, one of whom she met by coincidence later. He thanked her for saving his life.

The first black woman to serve as a combat pilot. Such a bad ass! Courtesy of GS Kansas Heartland via Flickr.

Captain Armour is just one of thousands of women who have served in military combat positions. But while their participation was technically banned, they didn’t have access to the same honors and benefits as their male counterparts.

The approximately 200,000 positions officially deemed as “combat” offer higher pay and more opportunities for promotion. With women categorically shut out of those roles, the chances of rising up through the ranks of power—or the pay grade—were slim to none. But since that ban has been lifted, more opportunities are opening up for women soldiers.

And that’s fantastic for a whole bunch of reasons! Let’s get into those, shall we?

Alright! First of all, giving women official access to combat positions means that they’ll receive credit for the dangerous work they’re doing. Under the ban, while women were shut out of these jobs on paper, there were still plenty of them doing the work in real life.

But, since it was technically illegal, many of them were doing it without recognition. That’s just not OK, am I right? If you’re running the same risk of getting blown up as the guy next to you, you deserve to be honored on the same level when you get home.

But credit is just the beginning. Letting women into combat has the potential to change military culture as we know it, and that’s a huge deal.

Currently, the rate of sexual assault in the military is outrageous. The documentary The Invisible War points out that women soldiers are more likely to be raped by one of their comrades than they are to be killed by enemy fire.

So, women in the military are statistically safer with the enemy than they are with their own fellow soldiers. That is totally unacceptable. And we haven’t even looked at incidents of male-on-male rape within the military.

Sadly, male soldiers—of all nationalities—are often encouraged to engage in sexual warfare, creating an oppressive rape culture. It’s a strategy that doesn’t stop at killing the enemy. It goes on to violate it, emasculate it, and destroy its very soul. It’s a depressingly effective way to win wars, when used in conjunction with the technology of combat.

Don’t believe me? Read Grace Cho’s Haunting the Korean Diaspora: Shame, Secrecy, and the Forgotten War. In it, she tells the story of the mass rapes that occurred in Korea at the hands of multiple invading armies, the U.S. being just one of them. These massacres gave rise to the booming prostitution economy that surrounds any foreign military base—where war ravaged women turn to support themselves and their children. Cho’s mother was one of those women. Her father was, likely, a kindly client.

But why is this rape culture so prevalent among military men? With women largely excluded for many generations, the armed forces have had the room to grow into a hypermasculine, old boys’ club.

The military has made itself into a place where men can gather to be their most savagely masculine—to revel in the knowledge that they have the brawn, they have the power, and they will stop at nothing to prove their superiority.

Allowing women to enter this space has the potential to change all that.

YAY!

As more women gain access to the pathways that lead to military promotion, the more women will ultimately occupy high-ranking leadership roles. With women increasingly ruling the roost, the gendered power dynamics of the whole organization can start to transform.

Perhaps more GI rape victims will report their attacks, feeling more comfortable confiding in a female superior. Maybe those superiors will be less inclined to sweep sexual assaults between soldiers under the rug. And maybe with the threat of real consequences, rates of sexual assault will ultimately decline.

Maybe female generals will discourage soldiers from engaging in sexual warfare. Maybe they won’t be as keen to turn a blind eye when it does occur.

But most importantly, maybe having some women in charge will change this sexist idea that men have the power. That men are the protectors. That men call the shots.

Because, as more male soldiers report to female commanders, their views about women will have to start changing.

The old boys mentality that women are frail, hysterical baby-makers, whose uteruses must be protected at all cost, will start to crack. The presence of female military officials will force male soldiers to view women in a new light—less as passive, walking wombs, and more as intelligent, powerful individuals, with skills and smarts capable of outpacing their own.

So this Veterans Day—the first one we’ll celebrate without the ban on women in combat—give some extra love to all the women soldiers out there. They’re an underappreciated lot.

—

Featured image courtesy of [US Air Force via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Veterans Day Reminder: Women Are Fighters, Not Fetus Factories appeared first on Law Street.