“In a democracy, patriots protest when government goes wrong,” a sign declared last night in Federal Plaza where fired-up citizens did just that.

About 200 people gathered to President Obama’s announcement last night that he will deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, a plan that is being criticized by both Democrats and Republicans across the country.

The crowd gathered around 4:30 pm before hearing speakers and eventually marching down Michigan Avenue to Oak Street.

Among the crowd were parents of fallen soldiers and representatives from dozens of Chicago peace organizations.

“I think a lot of us had faith in Obama to try a more peaceful way. I think that another thing that’s upsetting is the amount of money being spent on war rather than human needs both in Afghanistan and here at home,” Mary Zerkel, American Friends Service Committee, told ABC-7 News.

Mosaic’s Cassie Gonzalez captured the event in film. Stay tuned for coverage on in Mosaic magazine and online. For a sneak peak, check out Gonzalez’s personal blog.

When President Obama was first elected into office, many anti-war groups haled his victory as the beginning of the end of the Middle Eastern Wars. In fact, a Mosaic reporter, Adam DeRose, will be exploring the issue further in a story once the magazine goes to print.

However, as well all know, in a much publicized White House announcement, President Obama has decided to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. This moves raises obvious questions concerning how American troops will be affected but, as New York Times journalist Dexter Filkins reports, we also must taking into consideration: what will the Afghan people do?

In Filkins’ article, “With Troop Pledge, New Demands on Afghans” Filkins points out that “the heart of the problem [is]: in laying down the gauntlet for the Afghans, Mr. Obama is setting criteria for success that he and his field commanders may be able to influence, but that ultimately they will not be able to control.”

The last presidential election Afghanistan had, held last month, was rife with fraud– according to “independent election observers.” Current Afghan President Hamid Karzai is considered mostly to blame for this. As Filkins writes,

“Mr. Karzai, now in his eighth year as president, has consistently resisted previous American demands that he clean up his government.”

President Obama has set a tentative timetable of 18 months before troop withdrawal will begin. But, “[i]n the end, training Afghan soldiers and pressuring Afghan officials will succeed only if the American-led war has the support of ordinary Afghans themselves. And it’s among them — in the streets — that the war will ultimately be lost or won.”

If I’ve learned anything from the reporting that I’ve done this semester, is that this war, the war to win over the citizens of Afghanistan, may be the hardest battle to overcome.

I love the New York Times online. Whenever a multimedia feature pops on the side of my browser I have to click it.
When I was navigating around the site today one of these features appeared.

I followed the link without even thinking.

It brought me to a list of “Key Players in the Afghanistan Decision”

The page includes a list of the most important people involved, their title, their stance on sending more troops to Afghanistan, and a quote or personal bit.

With Obama addressing the nation on tomorrow on the decision that these players helped to make, it’s important for all of us to recognize them. They are the ones shaping our future. We all hear their names but most of the time, that’s the only reason we are familiar with them.

Pew Research released the results of a  ‘news survey’ last month. The results are unexpected. The quiz showed that 42% of people knew that Iraq and Iran do not share a border and only 28% knew how many troops are currently in Afghanistan.

Whether you are for or against more troops going into the country, it is important to know what goes in to making the decision and who the key players are. You might recognize a few names, some their picture too. What’s most important is to understand where they each stand on the war and what their position in the process is.

With the decision to be fully addressed tomorrow, take some time to brush up on the people that are changing our world.

During the height of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each had over 30,000 nuclear weapons.

Those frightening numbers have been significantly decreasing for about 20 years now, but there are still enough nukes around to destroy the world four times over.

According to President Obama’s campaign website, he promised to “lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons materials at vulnerable sites within four years – the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb.”

Unfortunately, he now has the chance to act upon his promise and try to do something to not allow what most would consider a threatening country to build nukes.

Earlier today, Iran announced that its government has approved 10 new uranium enrichment plants – which would ultimately enhance its nuclear capabilities.

This came only two days after China and Russia joined the United States, Britain, France and Germany in backing an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution that ordered Iran to stop the use of one of its secret plants.

President Ahmadinejad said the uranium enrichment would only reach levels for medical research but not for nuclear weapons.

A TimesOnline article reported what Robert Gibbs had to say about Iran’s decision.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspecting the Natanz nuclear plant in central Iran Photograph: EPA

Iran’s plan would be “yet another serious violation of Iran’s clear obligations under multiple UN security council resolutions, and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself . . . Time is running out for Iran to address the international community’s growing concerns,” Gibbs said.

It would seem logical for western powers to increase economic sanctions if Iran continues to ignore the UN’s mandates.

The problem is that sanctions are not usually effective because they end up hurting the citizens of Iran and not the government.

This situation must not be shoved to the back burner in light of the anticipation of the unveiling of Obama’s plan for Afghanistan on Tuesday.

It is interesting how western nations like the US desperately do not want nukes to fall in the hands of undemocratic states like Iran when we are the only state in history to have actually used nukes.

Nevertheless, the world is showing that it can be agreed that no one wants to take a chance with Iran.

U.S. soldiers in Iraq celebrate Thanksgiving. Photo Credit: Petros Giannakouris/AP

By Grace Pekar

With turkey and stuffing filling our stomachs as well as our refridgerators, many of us are thankful for our families and well-being this Thanksgiving.  For troops serving overseas, many are thankful they’re alive.

Sgt. Donal A. Grahl prepares the Thanksgiving turkey for troops in Iraq. Photo Credit: Petros Giannakouris/AP

President Obama wished the military a very happy Thanksgiving and praised them for protecting our lives.   Some servicemen and women even had the opportunity to come home and celebrate with their families in the Chicago area.

For those who could not, however, celebrate a little differently.  Some families make their Thanksgiving dinner any time they’re at home, like in October, before they’re deployed.  Troops overseas still partake in the food festivities and have no problem stuffing themselves.  According to an article by CNN‘s Dan Lothian, Mohammed Jamjoom and Elaine Quijano:

Providing Thanksgiving feasts required huge quantities of food, including 63,000 pounds of potatoes, 8,700 cans of cranberry sauce, 61,000 pounds of stuffing and more than 465,000 pounds of turkey…for dessert, there will be 67,000 pies and cakes.

And Black Friday?  The country’s most busiest (and sometimes worst, depending on who you talk to) retail day of the year?  The military doesn’t forget that one too.  The Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) advertises their Thanksgiving weekend specials of up to 40 percent off selected items.  Military members overseas may also visit their BX/PX base stores and buy whatever necessities they need and even little extras for their family members.

Americans back home make sure they don’t forget the troops, and create organizations to coordinate support for military members over seas.  Special campagins, such as “Operation: Christmas Tree,” organize  efforts to send Christmas present to troops who will not be with their families this year.  Some individuals act on their own or with their schools, thus strengthening the holiday spirit.

So the question of the day is:  What holiday is impossible to celebrate over seas in the Military?

As families across America gather today to celebrate Thanksgiving, many are giving thanks for loved ones that have made it back safely from tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan while others remember loved ones lost.

Yet, families of military personnel that have died via suicide, are fighting to gain the same condolences and recognition for their loved ones as those who have lost family in combat.

Since at least the days Abraham Lincoln inhabited the Oval Office, presidents have sent letters of condolence to families who have lost someone in combat, but in an unwritten policy, practiced at least since Bill Clinton held office, families of troops who take their own lives while deployed do not receive the letter, according to the New  York Times.

Speculations point to different reasons, suicide being a dishonorable way to die being one of the most prominent.

The article states that the irony to such a policy is that the government is currently trying to de-stigmatize mental health illnesses and suicide in an attempt to combat the growing rate of military suicides.

“These families already feel such shame and so alienated from the military and the country, a letter from the president might give them some comfort, some sense that people recognize their sacrifice,” said Kim Ruocco, director for suicide support for Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, or TAPS, a military support group. “What better way to eliminate stigma?”

The New York Times reports that at least 184  soldiers have commited suicide in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

In an attempt to combat the growing suicide rates, the Army is working with the National Institute of Mental Health to study the issue and has also implemented suicide prevention programs.

Just seven months after being appointed close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Phillip Carter has resigned his post as deputy assistance secretary of defense for detainee policy. The New York Times reports that Carter resigned for “personal reasons.”

Phillip Carter/ Photo c/o Defense Department

Carter, a critic of detention policy under President George W. Bush, filed friend-of-the-court briefs in Supreme Court cases challenging his administration’s policies, including the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, in which the court struck down that administration’s system of military commissions for trying Guantanamo detainees.

This announcement comes a week after the Obama administration has said it will not be able to meet the Jan. 22 deadline for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

President Obama made this deadline shortly after taking office 11 months ago.

Carter’s resignation marks the second shortly after Gregory Craig, former White House counsel in charge of detainee policy, announced his departure earlier this month.

There are at present 215 detainees being held at Gitmo.

There has been some speculation that both resignations may suggest issues between the Pentagon and the Obama appointees on detainee policy. However, there has been very little evidence provided.

Thomson Correctional Center/ Photo Tribune file photo Feb. 2002

The Obama administration is considering transferring detainees to the maximum security prison in Thomson, Ill. as a possible alternative. The White House has estimated there could be as many as 3,000 jobs created if the detainees are transferred to the Thomson Correctional Center, which is currently costing the state of Illinois $1 million in upkeep every year.

By Emily Jurlina

When it comes down to it, is serving your country more important than staying in school?

It’s a question many of would have trouble deciding but for Suyapa Lopez Padilla, an army reservist set to finish her degree in international business at San Diego State University, the choice was simple.

“I knew I should go back to school, but my heart wasn’t in it,” Lopez said in an article published by the Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago.

Lopez recently became a U. S. citizen. Born in Nicaragua, Lopez moved around Europe with her mother, a member of the diplomatic corps. Lopez first came to the U. S. in 2001 and joined the Army Reserve last year.

Reporter Tony Perry writes,

“She could have avoided the deployment and remained at San Diego State to finish her degree in international business. She had the opportunity to join the ROTC and become an officer, possibly delaying any deployment until missions to Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer commonplace…. [but] Staying in the United States while the battalion went to Iraq was not an emotional option for Lopez.”

Lopez says she would “feel guilty” letting her battalion go to Iraq without her. An amazing story and another reason to give thanks for not just the troops serving us in Iraq right now, but the individual soldiers as well.

“I feel I have a duty to my country — it’s my country now,” [Lopez] said.

By Christina Hill

A poll done by CBS News stated only 38 percent of Americans support how President Obama’s is handling the Afghanistan war.

He’s stated many times that he wants to take the time in order be sure the right decisions are made in the right way.

Tonight, NPR has confirmed that Obama will give a speech entailing his decisions next Tuesday.

We can assume that Obama’s plan will not include the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. This is not something that should shock anyone. While we don’t know how large the surge will be, we can be certain that there will be one. The Pentagon’s already preparing for this by creating new bases in Afghanistan and revamping the ones already there.

Tom Engelhardt noted these items in a piece he wrote. The article was featured on CBS today and Engelhardt wrote his own version of the speech Obama should give.

Engelhardt’s speech ultimately states that Obama will not send troops to Afghanistan. He believes that Obama clarify that he has brought troops back from Iraq and will do so in Afghanistan.
While this situation is ideal, it is unlikely. Engelhardt has seven points that he believes are the reason that Obama should pull out troops in Afghanistan. They have been shortened and listed below, the full list can be found in his article.

“1. We have no partner in Afghanistan…
2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption…
3. Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously understrength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace…
4. The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent…
5. Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan…
6. Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail…
7. Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “

Engelhardt makes seven valid points. However, we still have another week of finger tapping and hypothesizing before we find out Obama’s decision.

With all the heated political debate regarding the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, America may be overlooking a different enemy there that is even more difficult to fight.

This issue that is also hard to measure is corruption.

The Associated Press recently reported that Afghanistan is listed only behind Somalia as the second most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Between the U.S. and European countries, about $50 billion have been sent to aid humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan since 2001.  But has this money done the job it was meant to do?

In a wealthy neighborhood near Kabul, there are many large fancy homes that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Most of these homeowners are government officials whose salaries are supposed to be a few hundred dollars a month.

In an article by Alexandra Davis of the Los Angeles Times, she described the impact of the dangerous mix of corruption and government.

(United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

“Cronyism, graft and the flourishing drug trade have destroyed public confidence in the government of President Hamid Karzai and contributed to the resurgence of the Taliban by driving disaffected Afghans to side with insurgents and protecting an important source of their funding.”

This is obviously a problem of the Afghan people, but the international community is also responsible for not effectively attempting to rid the nation of methods of making money like bribery and embezzlement.

If countries like the U.S. are going to donate money, they must follow up to make sure it is implemented correctly.

At the same time, money needs to be backed by troops and it is not easy to legitimize a war in a nation that is so heavily influenced by corruption.

“‘It’s like a sickness,’ merchant Hakimullah Zada said. ‘Everyone is doing it,’” Davis also reported.

Do you think a corrupt state is worth fighting for?