The U.S. initiated the war in Afghanistan after the terrorist attack of 2001. The key purpose of Afghanistan War was an eliminating the al-Qaeda terrorist group from Afghanistan base. In addition, Taliban regime was to be removed from power in order to establish a viable democratic state. However, in the Zweig film, the film analyzes the costs of continuing with the war. The chief argument of the film is that America should pull out of the Afghanistan War due to the various costs of the war. Figures and facts regarding the war has been provided by the film, which shows the resulting loss of resources for infrastructure, domestic jobs, and public services. All this emanating from the costs of the war. Therefore, the film shows a different perspective from the initiation of the Afghanistan War. In its main theme, the film seeks to find out reasons as to why America should not end the war in Afghanistan. The earlier conflicts, in which the U.S. has been involved, are seen to be similar since the United States act against democratic governments. This is seen in Chile, Vietnam and other countries. According to the Zweig film, a victory in the Afghanistan War is not likely to be realized emanating from the cost framework and acting against a democratic society. However, minor victory may emerge in eliminating the al-Qaeda from Afghanistan due to the elimination of the leader’s group. On the other hand, removing Taliban from power will be remarkably difficult. Hence, there is a likelihood of obtaining a meager success in the Afghanistan War.
In the Soldiers of Conscience, the film depicts that soldiers decide not to involve in killings as people expect. The film shows the moral dilemma surrounding the U.S. soldiers while serving in the Iraq War. The scenes of the war are well projected in the film, which gives every account of the soldiers. The film shows compelling testimonies of American soldiers that became conscientious objectors, and soldiers that opposed the choice (Coyote, 2008). The film initiates a challenge to the audience to find their own conscience. Robin J. Crews uses the phrase “images of truth”; the phrase means that people should find their own conscience based on the scenes that they see bringing hidden things to the right. For instance, take the scenes from the film; conscience of truth, are true scenes that tend to shed light to people regarding how soldiers behave in wars. The scenes can be seen as images of truth since they make people search for their own conscience. In peace studies, a peace is the one, chief, and fundamental value. Peace studies seek an environment, in which, people coexist peacefully. Therefore, peace should be a core principle in the peace studies. Another fundamental value in peace studies is nonviolence. This value refers to a holistic belief of abstaining from acts that are violent. Nonviolence value has to include non-violent actions in order to enhance peace. In addition, pacifism is another fundamental value in peace studies. Pacifism is a doctrine, which rejects war at all means as a means of resolving conflict. Pacifism reflects a perspective that considers settling conflicts through peaceful means, thus a vital value in peace studies.
According to Russet, democracies are likely to be less prone to war compared to other systems of government. The political rights and civil liberties of a democratic system maintain and enhance an exchange society. It is a social field, with a medium composed of people’s values, meanings, and norms. The social forces of democracy flow in one way or another establishing various equilibriums, which people desire and try to get. It is also through conflict cooperation and peace within democracies that make them less likely prone to war. According to Russet, democracy system of government comprises people with various freedoms, which bind them towards achieving a common goal. It is less likely that the bond existing among the democratic individuals will break since the bond becomes remarkably strong, as they cooperate in achieving a similar goal. The bond makes people maintain peace; therefore, making them less prone to conflicts. This is the chief reason why democracies are less prone to wars that other social regimes. In realist viewpoint, the likelihood of democracies being prone to war is relative. Democracies do not necessarily imply that the individuals in the government promote peaceful coexistence; some democracies have limited freedom while others have total freedom. In those democracies, which have total freedom, there is a likelihood of maintenance of peace making the system not prone to wars. On the other hand, democracies that have limited freedoms will not likely maintain peaceful coexistence among individuals since there will be divergence of goals, which may lead to conflicts. Therefore, in a realist viewpoint, democracies may or may not be prone to wars. This depends with whether the goals are divergent or convergent.
National interest is a matter of concern, which has been there in the world’s history. Each country has its primary and secondary national interest. National interest became established with the surfacing of the nation state system, following the Second World War. The United States has both primary and secondary national interest (Genest, 2004). The primary national interest of the United States entails the preservation of the physical boundary, cultural identity, and political system. The United States need to preserve its boundaries in order to prevent conflicts, which may be brought by border problems. It is also under the interest of the United States to maintain its cultural identity in order to pass it to the next generation. Without the preservation of a nation’s culture, it will be remarkably cumbersome to trace and understand some of the culture identities of a society such as language. In addition, the United States has a primary national interest of preserving the political system of the nation. The political system is essential since it determines the way government is organized and ran in order to meet a certain political goal. Therefore, the United States has to preserve its political system in order to pass the systems to the subsequent generation. In addition, the United States has a secondary national interest of protecting its citizens in other countries. The United States makes sure that it protects its citizens through maintaining strong diplomatic ties with other nations. In performing all these functions, the United States looks forward at ensuring that it adheres to its primary and secondary national interest.
Liberalism provides the least compelling critique of transnationalism while realism provides the most compelling critique. This is based on the focus on self-interest, power of coercion, and security. Realism actively critiques the principles of transnationalism while liberalism offers a successful option to the realist thought through emphasizing on the international cooperation and world interdependence. This political stream of thought has gained credence around the globe due to the dominance of globalization. Liberalism has come to embrace globalization and international cooperation, which is a mystery to the realism thought. Emanating from transnationalism, different nations have devised various ways of cooperation on the basis of economy, trade, politics and security. This has made globalization and international cooperation the order of the day. However, realism thought does not value such cooperation, which makes realism the most compelling critique of transnationalism. Realism usually focuses on the anarchic nature of the role of conflict power, the international system, and global stability via coercion. On the other hand, liberalism enhances either multilateralism or working together of states, which encourages international interdependence. This focus helps liberalism foster globalization, which helps the achievement of a common goal expressed through transnationalism. Therefore, liberalism will allow international cooperation in the political, social and economic realms leading to globalization in various aspects. Because of this notion, liberalism can be regarded as the least compelling critique of transnationalism, unlike realism. Liberalism helps in accounting for the spread of capitalism in the globe, modern democracies around the world, and modern multicultural organizations. These are vast achievements, which concentrate on international cooperation and are less compelling to the critiques of transnationalism as compared to actions of realism.
One of the most compelling issues regarding globalism is the economic effect of globalism to a state. The state has a chief task of ensuring that it promotes economic activities, in local and global markets. This ensures that the economic activities are located within the competitive locations. This, therefore, ensures that the state’s economic activities are located in locations, which have competition state. However, emanating from globalism, states are transforming into market based and market oriented organization in searching for competitiveness in the increasingly, interpenetrated economic world. The economic effects emanating from globalism are, therefore, immense. Although globalism affects economic aspect of a state, it does not make the state redundant. Despite the globalization of economic structures, the state retains immense social, psychological and political significance to its citizens. In addition, the citizens also have some economic and political significance at international and domestic levels.
Conversely, the issue of globalization lacking a human face is a critique of the globalism, which is less compelling. This critique has been argued out that; although globalism is seen as lacking human face, it has assisted in addressing questions seeking to affect women’s rights, child labor, equality, democracy, environment and poverty (Genest, 2004). All these issues are related to human and have been addressed through globalization. Therefore, although globalism has been criticized as not having human face, the issue is less compelling. In addition, globalism has sought institutional design that seeks advancement in the social agendas. This aspect adds extra glow to humans, which is an indication of the human face in globalism. Hence, the issue of the human face is less compelling.
|Democratizing Globalization||American Government|