Political Science

The most contentious subject that surrounds terrorism is how the government responds to it. This argument stems from the nature of terrorism, which is dual that is, it contains both military and criminal aspects. The government, in order to fight terrorism, ought to deal with criminals who may possess the ability, organization and sophistication for aggression of an armed (military) force. Counter-terrorism that is effective should therefore be of both military operations and law-enforcement techniques that are traditional. Military involvement is often applied as an approach to fight terrorism. This particular strategy is being discussed a lot about its effectiveness, or the lack thereof, scrupulous analysis on the impact of military involvement on terrorism has been uncommon. This paper is going to asses if direct military action is the best way to deal with terrorism problem.

Theoretically, the impact of military involvement has two components the spill-over military-intervention impact stirred by other causes of terrorism and military-intervention impact that targets terrorism per se. Some military interventions are applied to get revenge on terrorism. Others involve various reasons excluding or including counter-terrorism. To this effect, a combined impact of military involvement on terrorism is modelled and analysed in most nations. This analysis has implications for both practices in counter terrorism and terrorism research.

Terrorism
Measures to fight against terrorism should be envisioned as effective ways as they are not in themselves a reflection of terrorism that is imposed by the nation in the name of war-against-terrorism. If the policies that are being developed by a nation are shot in violence, their citizens need to get protection against terrorist attacks in future by maximizing internal security. The violence that is exercised against the poor and the worlds weaker individuals is surprising because it is getting to a significant proportion in the spread of democracy and war against terrorism, that one can wonder about the impact of military intervention and the fight that is against terrorism can lead to destruction and death as seen to the Iraqi and Afghani citizens, that further leads to hatred and dispel desperation that can make one loose faith in a democratic action that is collaborative. For example, the killings of Palestinian citizens by a regular laser, nuclear, and technologically equipped military are being qualified as self-defence.

Terrorism has been in existence and has been nurtured by oppression and injustice and is connected to extremism that can be religious, racial, political or sexual. In our current post-modern or modern times, the most common form of significant terrorism is related to spiritual fundamentalism entrenching in various parts of the world such as the United States, Arab countries, Asia and Israel.

It is evident that Al Qaeda has unprecedented safety operations by security and military forces all over the globe. In fact, they have evolved, grown and adapted into global insurgency that is even more deadly. This insurgency does not contain a direct authority that is centralized, and it is not linked to the Al Qaeda, but includes groups that are local and are stirred by radical ideology that is usually driven by factors like occupation of Iraq and invasion by the United States and geared grievances that can either be social, economic or local political.

American Counter terrorism policy usually weighs towards a murder or arrest approach that targets bad people. This attack usually assumes that the contemporary enemies (insurgents of Iraq and Al Qaeda) of the United States have a centre of operation. Moreover, it also assumes that terrorists need to be arrested or murdered to prevent global terrorism on Iraq. Therefore, the United States intelligence community and military has to be attentive and ought to have a uniform direction towards protecting the forces of United States or capturing militant leaders.

Is military force the best way to deal with the problem of terrorism 
Military interventions and mass-massacres by coalition troops are not seen as terrorism but are described as democratizing and civilizing missions that are used to prevent the world high rates of terrorism. In order to fight terrorism for humanity, more powerful and less powerful terrorism needs to be fought to expose this violence. Military intervention of a country assists to fight against terrorism for democracy or humanity. This can help to oppose an individual terrorist such as one who blows himherself up or throws bombs to kill others. About three-thousand individuals were murdered by terrorists who were engineered by circles.
The attention of the intelligence community and United States military is uniformly directed towards protecting the United States forces and bringing down militant leaders, but not towards understanding your enemy. The United States, after September 2001 attacks, made military a top priority to deal with terrorism and other threats that can harm American citizens. This direct military action insisted on a pre-emptive and unilateral approach and it was acceptable on basis that established concepts of prevention may not work against terrorists who affirmed strategies that were unjustifiable to destruction and the innocents were targeted. Therefore, the United States implemented an approach that was described as a direct policy that insisted on Direct military action. The difficulty with this approach is that military action has never won any counter-terrorism.

The United States approach is one-dimensional and unilateral, and it insists on direct application of military-force to fight the war against terrorism. Given its economic and military power, an approach that was historical to terrorism and a sturdy pressure that was ether political or domestic might have been expected. A good example is the approach by the United States government of law enforcement while responding to the World Trade Centre bombing, on 26th February 1993, in New York City where six people were murdered and more than a thousand others were wounded. The investigation of bombing was handled by FBI agents and five assistant U.S. attorneys were to take care of the prosecution. Islamic fundamentalists groups were apprehended and then tried and sentenced for the offence. Various approaches have been used by the United States to respond to terrorist attacks. The then President Bush W. George warned that our military is powerful and prepared and it will not distinguish between those who committed these crimes and those who harbour them. Furthermore, President Bush assured implementation of broader counter-terrorism efforts which will rely much more on usage of military forces.

In contrast to bombers, terrorists that hijacked four airplanes did not escape but died along with their hostages. After the United States realized that they belonged to Al Qaeda terrorist network (a group based in Afghanistan and led by Osama bin Laden), Bush emphasized that their response to September 2001 attack will involve targeting those states that overlook terrorism, and warned that in each nation, each region can make a decision on its own and a neutral ground does not exist. A government that funds murderers and outlaws of innocents is itself a murderer and an outlaw and will participate at its own risk. Bush statements were framed a greater campaign to fight terrorism beyond destroying or capturing Al Qaeda network, and ensuring removal of support systems and stopping nations that support terrorism. This is why it will involve direct military force in order to stop criminals.

The fight against terrorism was not supported and shared by some dissenters. The concept of terrorism that was supported by a state was questioned. Terrorism does not require much of the base as well as it does not require identifiable resources of a government. It is dangerously irrelevant to search for those states that sponsor terrorism but the causes of terrorism should be fought. This means that the military can be used to deal with misery and despair in nations like Afghanistan. All available means should be strived to bring peace in the Middle-East. Declaring war on terrorism is dangerous because it involves using the US overwhelming power to destroy those organizations that espouse terrorism. This may not remove the course of terrorism from the arsenal of the distracted. The US will continue to reinforce its military as the only weapon on the war against terrorism.

Critics of the fight against terrorism have not only questioned the morality of using direct military force against those nations that fund terrorism but also its effectiveness. As Kchler puts it, the United States practice of aerial-bombardment cannot be defined from thirty-thousand feet. One cannot further guarantee absolute accuracy and civilian victims are inevitable. Even if they are justified, does it not amount to terror tactics Laqueur Walteremphasized that military actions that are in Afghanistan ought to be subscribed by political objectives that are limited and performed with a minimum number of civilian victims.

While conducting and in preparation for the Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan attack), the United States officials were conscious of the concerns of dissenters, and they insisted on how latest other-weapon technologies and complicated targeting mechanisms would assist to reduce resident casualties in Afghanistan. Moreover, the US targeted those governments that fund terrorism but not individuals living under such regimes. Terrorist and the Quest article described that their main opponent is the universal-network of terrorist-organizations and the state that is funding them. Though military can be engaged against foreign nations that fund terrorism, allies can be sought from the people that are oppressed by these governments.
During the Operation Enduring Freedom, this led to the elimination of Taliban from power (not the arrest of Bin Laden), followers and critics of the fight against terrorism debated on whether the fighting in Afghanistan was rewarded in a manner that was just. In the meantime, the international community and Americans were prepared by the United States leaders for engagements in future. The U.S Department of State in their Against an Islamophobia An analysis of global-terrorism article listed 7 nations that were thought by the United States to be funding terrorism and they included Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and North Korea. In the Against an Islamophobia article, President Bush emphasized that the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan will not end. He went on to discuss the dangers mass destruction weapons (that can either be biological, chemical or nuclear) can have while in the terrorists hands, and to select three countries as targets in the fight against terrorism. We ought to prevent those regimes that support terror from frightening our friends or America with mass destruction weapons. These weapons are pursued aggressively in Iran. Iran usually displays its hostility to the Americans for their support of terror. These states comprise an affiliation of evil, thus frightening the peace of the world. These nations create a great danger by seeking mass destruction weapons. The US will not allow regimes that are considered dangerous to frighten us with weapons that are most destructive in the world.

Though most of the public continues to support the fight against terrorism, the view of an everlasting military involvement continues to get criticisms from human-rights activists and pacifists, as well as from those who undermined President Bush efforts by having in mind that he was going beyond his presidential authority limits. As per the Revolutionary sorting from terrorist, editors railed Bush sees himself as an imaginative Constitution or the Congress to remunerate his world-wide war on terrorisms and nations that support terrorists. President Bush declared Our nation is at war, but he never inquired or got an official pronouncement of war from the Congress.  After he was given authorization (by the Congress) to apply force, that force was limited to nations, groups or individuals that are connected to the terrorism attacks of 11th September 2001. Nevertheless, he was not permitted by the Congress a carte blanche to remunerate the fight against all and any terrorists anywhere, or against nations that seek nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. It is important to apply this strategy (military force) if the fight against terrorism is usually political we should focus on the objectives that are political. The war on terrorism does only contain mounting body counts of militants or military victories that are captured or exterminated. One has to not only measure success basing on decline on attacks, terrorists morale being collapsed, and increase in safety amongst ordinary citizens but also in the improvement that is significant in the general reputation and political standing of the United States in the eyes of communities. It is authenticity that the Muslim world and the United States need to marginalize the ideologues that are radical.

The dispute whether the United States should apply direct military action against these countries became predominantly intense when President Bush insisted on the need to pre-emptively hit at terrorist intimidation. He emphasized that they will have to wait for too long if they wait for intimidations to emerge. They ought to take the fight to the enemy, interfere with his strategies, and deal with the worst intimidations before they materialize. On the other hand, the comments of President Bush echoed the accord in the counter-terrorism society because it is not possible to guard against every probable terrorist attack, a policy that is more effective is used to neutralize and identify terrorists intimidations before they are performed. The United States has given itself the right to-go-to war the moment it sees danger from unfriendly nations.  What will be the outcome in circumstances where other regimes follow the United States lead, and integrate into their planned thoughts (for example, in a case where armed India decides to attack Pakistans nuclear armed, terrorists camps) This will result in global anarchy. A debate over the Bush doctrine rejuvenated established foreign policy controversies over whether the US should multilaterally be in an agreement with the United Nations or should act unilaterally to guard the interests of the United States.

The ineffectiveness of using direct military action can be seen in counter-terrorism early stages in the Northern Ireland that had long-term terrorism as a result of heavy handed responses. The Northern Ireland only achieved its success through long-term diplomatic and political initiatives. Initial heavy handedness of direct military action in Malaya in the 1950s was ineffective, until the implementation that included attempts that were serious in addressing social, political or economic grievances that underpinned insurgency.
Military attack is a form of self-defence and a right that is recognized by both the national and international law, that is, right to defend home, means of substance, water and life. Under such circumstances there is no difference between a terrorist who is hopeless, hungry and humiliated, who blows oneself up so as to murder those whom one believes is the course of misery and a soldier who hunts, destroys, harasses and shoots at every instant so as to grab what is not his.

Direct military action can sometimes help to fight the war against terrorism for humanity because of its determination and its ability to mobilize individuals for justice and peace. To do this, the military assist individuals to look at the cultural, economical, social and political impacts of strategies of ruling a minority who are only able to maintain their power through war, aggression and materialization. Military have nuclear weapons that act as a means of protection, against terrorist attacks that are probable, specifically preventive strikes that were sanctioned by the Bush administration.  

Military action against Iraq            
The debate that followed the remarks of President Bush at West Point was because of rumours circulating in the media that the Bush government planned to attack Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein from power. The idea was accepted by some foreign policy who argued that Iraq harboured an armoury of chemical and biological weapons and funded international terrorism though the evidence was not enough to support these charges. The United States will be violating international law if it attacked Iraq without the approval of the United Nations

President Bushs case against Iraq was made in 2002 before the United Nations General Assembly, to the point of the human-rights violation of the Iraq government against its own citizens, and its history of non-cooperation with the United Nation inspection of weapons that was forced on Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in Iraq. The administration of Bush debated all through the winter that mass destruction weapons were being harboured in Iraq in defiance of the resolutions of United Nations and the want for change in administration. The United States proposals to forcibly overthrow Saddam were opposed by key United Nation Members such as Russia, Germany and France. President Bush declared that Iraq would be invaded by the United States despite the fact that it is getting opposition from the United Nations. No country can possibly allege that Iraq is not armed, and will not disarm itself as long as Saddam Hussein is still in power. Some individuals in the Security Council have declared publicly that they will prohibit any decree that compels the disarmament of Iraq. Our assessment of danger can be shared by these governments. The dangers of inaction are far greater. Iraqs power to impose harm on every free nation would increase as many times as possible.

The conflict between Iraq and America is one characteristic of a broader subject of what duty should be played by military force in countering terrorism that has been funded by a state. The next phase of the fight against terrorism will be military action against Iraq. President Bush commented on the first-anniversary of September 11 terrorist attacks American has entered a great struggle that tests our strength, and even more our resolve.  These views explain whether military actions are justified to fight against terrorism. The fight against terrorism is based in Iraq or Afghanistan, that is, within the worldwide Muslim community hearts and minds. Political issues should be addressed so as to minimize socioeconomic disparities, to build institutions and implement systems of governance.  

Comprehensive and multilateral approach can be implemented to control terrorism through winning the minds and hearts of the Muslim world where most terrorists are placed. Uni-dimensional and unilateral approach, that is used by the United States needs to be abandoned because it has been unsuccessful in both Iraq and the US fight against terrorism. War has an exact definition in international law and does not involve itself with terrorism. Moreover, war is problematic as it puts emphasis on military action and an end-state of triumph, though this is defined. Al Qaeda is being transformed from a global threat that is general to a global mutiny that facilitates a re-conceptualisation of a plan. It is of our own good for global war to be re-conceptualised not as war but as an operation that is Global-Counter-Insurgency.

If it is to be successful, the new policy has to be bilateral in nature, that is, the need to rely on institutions that are international, norms and laws, together with implementation of a consensus that is international on countering universal terrorism so as to get a universal co-operation that is against it. For instance, the United States has to learn to work with its friends (especially those from Muslim World) and abandon its unilateral trade if a policy that is effective is to contain the new threats of global terrorism.

Moreover, deep domestic roots of alienation and Muslim rage must be fixed in Muslim nations. The causes of alienation and Muslim rage must be recognized whether they lie in social, political, or economic conflicts and issues, whether in Mindano, Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya or in Western Europe. Muslim agenda that is radical is being fuelled by this alienation. A counter-terrorism policy must be a strategy that is comprehensive and developed to isolate and contain extremists, in which it is necessary to apply military measures though it is not a sufficient means.

When workers feel they are not getting a fair deal from the company they are working for, instead of all of them seeking an audience with the management, it is normal and expected for them to send their union officials to present their grievances (Yates, 111-139).  In most cases, for companies that appreciate the role trade unions play, there is always an amicable solution to issues.

However, there are companies that view trade unions as the devil incarnate.  They do not give the unions the opportunity to operate within the organizations.  Actually, they try to include clauses in employees contracts that deny them the right to union representation.  This, it should be known is going against employee rights which give them the right to union representation (Beachler 265-277). History is riddled with example of instances where unions have played a significant part in shaping the future of worker rights and instances when they have been a total failure and a waste of resource organization.

This paper will look at the goings on in 1995 during a debate held at AWI union hall.  The protagonists in this debate are the UPIU Local 7-837 President Dave Watts and his Vice president Glen Goss.  The president is trying to galvanize support for the ongoing strike action by arguing that the unions strategy is on track and that they are not just reacting to issues and events.  The Vice President on his part, is trying to convince the participants present that three years into the strike action, and with all of them locked out and with their jobs been performed by temporary workers the union strategy has failed.  He is for backing down and accepting the terms being offered by Staley Corporation unconditionally.

Debate
WATTS Good evening fellow comrades in arms.  It is wonderful to see all of you out here after the happenings of June 25.  I hope you have had a chance to recover from all that pepper spray (Eyck, 2009).  It is also wonderful to see all these young ones among us.  You know these are the future of what we are doing.  If they do not see and understand why we are striking, it will be very hard to have them understand why we have no steak in the house.  And why the food rations have reduced.  Before we start todays debate, I would like to invite our Vice president Glen Goss to give his opening remarks.

GOSS  Good evening to you all.  It is wonderful to see you all and hope this is the last time we have to meet under these circumstances. I am very sorry to all those who had to endure the paper spray ordeal on June 25th.  As I have said countless times, if it was up to me, we would not be seating here discussing pointless strategies.  Instead we would be at home with our families, having a nice time on full stomachs.  In fact I propose this meeting be ended immediately and a vote be conducted with the sole purpose of accepting Staleys terms and conditions and we return to work tomorrow.  God knows we need the money badly.
WATTS  Relax Goss.  You know very well votes do not just happen.  After all you need to convince them (pointing to those present) to buy into your proposal. Any how back to the agenda at hand.

It is now three years since we voted to reject the new contract offered to us by Staley.  We have come this far because we have all stood together as one family.  We have been very successful in our basic action. To bring to the nations attention, the injustice of Staley Corporation has continued to meet out on us its loyal long time workers.  In line with this I am happy to report that the through our mobilization campaigns we continue to add into our ranks many more sympathizers.  They have identified with our cause.  Let me remind everyone who feels we are not headed in the right direction what happened to the workers of the Pittson Coal Company.  When they could take no more of the reducing remunerations, they resulted to withdrawing their services.  When the company decided to call the strike a bluff, they actively sought support form outside state and country wide.  For their efforts they got 46,000 miners joining them in solidarity by having sympathy strikes across 10 states.  They also got another group of 30,000 nation-wide who had nothing to do with the mining industry join them (Brecher 5-7).  Not only that, through publicity, they got international delegations of workers unions officials join them at the picket lines.  We have certainly done better than them.  Our network of sympathizers is country wide and keeps growing by the day (Zinn  Arnove, 524-533).

GOSS  The one thing that has been truly consistent with Watts is his unwavering belief in this strike action.  This it seems has clouded his vision of things and view of the truth on the ground.  In this room today I see people who have been surviving on two meals a day.  I see people who pray that they do not fall sick since their health insurance has lapsed.  There are among us who are facing foreclosures on our homes because we have fallen so behind on our mortgage payment, they would need a telescope just to locate us in the system.  When we started it was okay because we all believed it was going to last a short time and Staley was going to come around.  Its now three years, Staley is still running and the management is not wavering in their resolve to keep us out.  I believe it is time we accepted that we have truly been outmaneuvered and return to work unconditionally.  Otherwise if we keep this up, we might find we never have our jobs ever again.  Our brother Jim Shinall, chairman of the bargaining committee, has left us and gotten himself gainfully employed elsewhere.  Denton Larrimore is another one who saw no future in our strike and left (Ashby  Hawking, 237-246).  Surely if Jim could see no future, who are we not to take the cue from him

WATTS  In as much I respectfully agree with Goss on the fact that when we voted strike we all truly believed it was not going to be such a long protracted out battle. Having worked closely with Jim, I personally felt let down by his action.  But then, you can not fault a man for making up his mind on an issue, you can only fault his decision. However, it would be unfair on all who have sacrificed their own comforts to join us and yet when we get our jobs back they will not be working with us.  In line with that, the union has already put into gear Operation Pepsi.  From our initial investigation, we can believe we can convince Pepsi not to renew their contract with Staley come December.  We have already started seeing the results if this strategy.  The Macon County Court ruling regarding the seven on the dock the other day.  Since Pepsi values community involvement programs, it is from here we will be starting our agitation from. We already have, from our research, a list of all the events Pepsi is sponsoring between now and December.  We will make sure in all this activities, we will bring out the message that Pepsi must as a matter of principle let go of Staley as one of its suppliers.

GOSS  There goes out President again.   Opening another war front when we do not have enough troops to fight in the fronts we already have.  Some times I think Watts is blind and cannot see.  Looking at the floor, the numbers present are less than a quarter of what we used to have when we started.  Our assistance fund is already depleted.  We can not afford even to give the remaining any assistance.  They continue to languish in poverty in the name of strike action.  This is a shame act.  Personally I do not want to be identified with it.
WATTS  Come on now Goss let us not get ahead of ourselves.  It never helped to advance a populist view and it is so unlike you my brother (Beachler, 311-325).  Let us not try to score propaganda points.  You keep forgetting that even though you won the first round in April by having the membership vote for presentation on a proposal contract, this does not mean it has been ratified.  The truth of the matter concerning the agreed family assistance program is that, even though our finance situation has been dire, we have managed to pay each member the agreed 60 per week picket fee without fail.  Though not a lot and definitely not enough to take care of recurrent expenditures within the households, it does go along way in reducing the burden on the membership.  It also ensures the members do not sleep hungry.  All our members have been adopted and are getting 600 per month checks from our supporters country wide.
I for one do believe we have implemented a winning strategy.  After this meeting, in conjunction with the Road warriors and the Solidarity campaign team, we are going to be upping the publicity campaign.  Remember, we are fighting for the future of this community, and nation.  The continued presence of our young ones is ensuring they understand where the fight is coming from.  Do you remember the first days, when we did not know what precedents had been set  Remember after each meeting when we had been schooled in the history of strikes and walkouts how we felt invigorated and fired up ready to take on the whole world  I am still fired up.  With the cooperation of religious groups, we will continue to use churches to take out our message, and to ask for assistance.  We are also increasing the cooperating with young activists and university students (Babson, 155-178).  They energy and vigor greatly compensates for their lack of knowledge in some of our finer points of contention.  We are however, not giving up on our pickets outside Staley.  Contributions to our kitty also continue to be received.  It is not a lot but it is assisting us to keep the momentum.  We will make sure this is used prudently and not misused.

It my sincere belief that we are about to achieve what we set out to get.  I propose we carry on with the strike action, moving on the next phase of targeting Pepsi among other issues (Garin  Molyneux, 113-126).
The proposal was put to vote and passed.  225 voted to continue with the strike action against 152 who wanted it suspended.  The meeting ended at 8.30 P.M.

Three existing non-government organizations have proven to be highly efficient and effective in sustaining growth in their endeavor to help the neediest people in their communities by means of undertaking strategic planning to achieve their organizational goals and objectives. They are the Triangle Community Foundation, the Harlem Childrens Zone, and the City Year.  These organizations have formulated strategies towards accumulating more funds to sustain their social services programs.  Each necessitated upholding new strategy for continuous improvements in response to the existing internal and external conditions that affect each of them.

The Triangle Community Foundation whose mission is to expand private philanthropy in the communities of the greater Triangle area took organizational development as a strategy towards building wider partnership. In particular, the foundation utilized the donor services organization model which provides larger opportunities for donors to engage in grant making decisions, contrary to previous scheme in which most of decision-makings were done by the board and the staff of the foundation.  The result is TCF had doubled its assets to over 20 million compared to the 10 million increase in asset which it gained in seven years (Triangle Community Foundation, p.3, 2001).

The Harlem Childrens Zone, on the other hand, took measurement and evaluation as the organizations strategy in pursuing excellence. As a social service organization helping poor families and children in the community of Harlem, the organization conceptualized an integrated program model which required major restructuring in terms of management, measurement systems, and program goals. To realize this, the organization hired Bridgespan, a leading for-profit strategy-consulting firm, to assist in the overall organizational planning (Grossman  Curran, p. 4, 2004). At first, it took a hard time for each team to collaborate with each other in order to maintain one focus and one direction. In the end, after careful integration of various elements, it formulated a business plan built around evaluation and measurement scheme or metrics to make sure that goals and objectives are attained (ibid, p. 6).

The City Year Enterprise has the most smooth-sailing growth since its establishment in 1981 as evident in its success that attracted national attention which included the federal government that pledged to fund its local service programs (City Year Enterprise, p. 1, 1996).  In 1992, it was confirmed therefore that City Year was already a major provider of national service opportunities and high impact service (City Year Enterprise, p. 1, 1996), which only signified that more initiatives must be done to meet the demands for growth to help more people. Given the fact that it had been continuously expanding, as at that time they already catered services to places beyond Boston, it needed more funding to support its 650 corps in many cities across the United States. As a response, as an innovative move, City Year piloted in 1995 an initiative to diversify its revenue to generate more income.  This time, it resorted to business related partnership with Timberlake to start advocating enterprise. The expansion therefore made this nonprofit organization into a leading participant in the national service movement through the initiatives made to increase its revenue. It started its fundraising efforts with private sectors followed by corporate or team sponsorships wherein the sponsors had direct link with the activities as well as with the decision making in City Year, especially in finding sources for the organization.

Comparison and Contrast
To compare, the Triangle Community Foundation and the City Year Enterprise have some similarity in terms of strategy and program plan. Specifically, the Triangle Community Foundation and the City Year took the concept of camaraderie with their donors or sponsors by giving them opportunity to involve in planning and decision-making. TCF called this partnership entrepreneurs partnership while CYE called this partnership corporate or team sponsorship. TCF instituted the Entrepreneurs Partnership, a membership association composed of major donors that are required to commit cash or asset to the foundation with expected benefits to receive from the foundation.  CYE, on the other hand, maintained good relationship with their team sponsors through conducting various activities together such as planning, graduation ceremonies, and many others. Both of them were already tracking towards increasing their funds and sphere of influence because of successive achievements.

Likewise, not all of them were able to design new strategies and approaches as smooth as the other because of underlying factors that required time and careful scrutiny such as in the case of Harlem where it needed to gather and merge together its various departments before setting new plan because, in the first place, its organizer did not take initiative to do management plan ahead of time. Reorganization was conceptualized in order to unify the efforts of the different departments in the organization and the result of which was an ambitious plan to completely design metrics for evaluation purposes.  This is contrary to Triangle Community Foundation and the City Year Enterprise when both had already established culture and values from the time they started their operation. That commitment to hold on to these values and culture remained strong despite temptation to be influenced by others.  Harlem was at this point in need of a true realization of one objective and one focus to amalgamate efforts through establishing one mission or corporate goals and objectives.
In addition, Triangle Community Foundations approach is different from City Year Enterprises approach in keeping their sponsors.  TCF encourages possible donors to join in their group through the organizations option called Entrepreneurs Philanthropic Venture Fund a fundraising activity that engages new entrepreneurs to participate in philanthropy before they had actually achieved liquidity (Triangle Community Foundation, p. 5, 2001).  Donors then donate money that form the stock and half of it will go to loan pool which can be used by the members when they need it. City Years approach is different it decided to apply the principle of teamwork among its sponsors through which sponsors feel total involvement and responsibility about the success and failure of the organization. CYE in turn provides all the communication needed to make the sponsors informed all the time, such as invitation to meetings or special gatherings.

Among these three organizations, in my perception, the City Year Enterprise has the most effective management strategy because primarily of the achievements it has accumulated in the past years since it started operating. It was able to encourage individual sponsors, followed by government funding, team sponsorship and finally corporate investment which are proven successful up to this time. I think it is because of the undying commitment of its organizers to maintain the principles and the spirit of accountability over its achievements. Then, as a national organization, it also has challenged many larger business institutions to take part in donating, among them are McDonald, Timberland Company and Digital Equipment Corporation. It was able to bring people closer to the organization in form of cash and donations through other strategies such as shirt and logo display and many others. Finally, from its name, City Year is already an enterprise that generates income through various projects such as Ripples and a joint venture with Timberland. Its strategy and approaches are important things to consider when starting or managing nonprofit organization.

While most scholars agree in the present day scenario are of the opinion that democracy is the best form of government, there have been long running debates about the conditions in which democracy should ideally evolve. While the universalists believe that democracy ordinarily emerges from a particular set of conditions and experiences. On the other hand, the pre-conditionists are of the view that it can come about in all sorts of ways and settings. As Sheri Berman points out, earlier the preconditionists were the more dominant ones in this debate. Zakaria is explicit in his support for authoritarian regimes in many situations because he believes that they are more likely than weak democratic ones to create the prerequisites for successful democratization later.

Zakaria draws the distinction between illiberal and liberal democracy. He states that the word democracy is automatically viewed as liberal democracy by the west as they feel it should always be in conjugation with the rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties like freedom of speech, religion and property.

History has shown a marked trend of constitutionalism frequently being imposed, be it by direct interference, or indirectly, by incentivizing the inclusion of certain norms in a states constitutional framework. The dynamics of contemporary imposed constitutionalism, Feldman argues, reflect that the constitutional drafting process is a negotiation among local political elites of a state, the imposing state, and international organizations capable of exerting pressure. It is relevant in the first place to see how and why an imposition of constitutionalism is justified. Feldman proposes the argument that in nations being built (or in todays day and age, rebuilt), there is no government of elected representatives in place, and political power is concentrated in the hands of the local elite, whose interests are very unlikely to coincide with those of the public at large. While this might be a genuinely sincere motivation, it is an interesting assumption that while the local elite will act on pure self-interest, a foreign state will make the needs of the local public its focus. This brings us to the next leg of the act of imposition what ideals are being imposed and why.

The primary motivation for imposing a specific brand of constitutionalism on any state is arguably to ensure that its framework and functions are suited to popular international taste. Liberal democratic constitutionalism is the forerunner in the system sought to be imposed. The tenet of equality and the need to have an egalitarian society form the very fabric of western liberal democracy, and hence, cannot be emphasized enough. In this context, Feldman draws from the examples of the recent drafting of the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the unequal status of women prescribed by the Sharia was heavily criticized, and the clear assumption that the principles of egalitarianism must be automatically adopted if a state adopts democracy. In justifying why a liberal democratic framework must necessarily be adopted, the most common argument is that it minimizes illiberal regimes and failure of the rule of law, and additionally, inculcates a greater sense of respect for human rights. The latter is why there is commonly interference by the third party in imposed constitutionalism, international human rights organizations and non-government organizations, which, when they have leverage, influence the framing of the constitution of a state being built.

Apart from these unquestionable altruistic motives, it is often argued that homogeneity in terms of political order is desirable to provide for a larger market suited to the needs of producers in Western liberal democratic states, since the political order which is sought to be imposed allows for a liberalized economy and predictability of the legal framework, both of which are important for free trade. It is noteworthy, in this context, that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund often prescribe guidelines which must be followed, which require a country to create a favorable environment for foreign trade, before they are given financial aid. In bilateral trade agreements also, the state which wields greater power often influences the economic policies of the other as a precondition to enter into the agreement. Hence, to the end of imposing constitutionalism, leverage and pressure is applied by the imposing states in various forms and degrees from over-the-table persuasion and discussion with the local political forces in a state, to imposing trade barriers and other economic sanctions like in the case of Iraq or South Africa, when the tenets of liberal democracy are not observed.

This brings me to the second aspect of my paper. While, empirically, such pressure tactics have, to use a controversial term, necessary (like in the case of South Africa where they were used to force the government to bring an end to its shockingly racist policies), what is worthy of discussion is whether the exercise of coercing states to turn liberal democratic is in itself not a compromise on the ideals of liberal democracy, in that it is depriving peoples of a state of the right to self-determination, and the state itself of its autonomy. The most obvious argument against imposed constitutionalism is that it is a clear case of compromising a states autonomy. Feldman identifies this to be a conflict between egalitarianism and autonomy, which forms the crux of the problem of modern forms of imposed constitutionalism. While advocates of the liberal democratic framework think it desirable to have an unflinching doctrine of equality to be in place in a state, such a case of extreme equality may be undesirable by a majority of the people of the concerned state. This, Feldman suggests, is the case of states like Iraq, which are predominantly Muslim states, where the religious ideals itself make a case against inclusion of women, and are hence inherently supportive of an unequal regime.

In connection with this, it is also argued that the imposing state often fails to take note of local needs and customs in prescribing a standard formula of liberal democracy, which is supposed to be successful with all countries, no matter how diverse, alike. It is interesting to note Diamonds argument in this regard, which emphasizes that regardless of economic and political background, and the literacy of its citizens, all states are suited for democracy. It is, however, difficult to reconcile his argument with the empirical evidence provided by countries like Pakistan, where despite an attempt to enforce democracy, the political environment made it possible to have a far-from-democratic military regime, or even countries like India, which though touted to be the largest democracy in the world, has frequent incidents of poll-capturing and rigged elections. Feldman makes an important point in this regard about how it is impossible to practically enforce any imposed ideals without cooperation of the elite locals anyway. In this context, he gives the example of the United States, where even after the Southerners adopted the constitutional norm prescribing equal rights to African-Americans, the political reality did not reflect racial equality, for the people had not accepted this norm which would be necessary to make it a custom.

Zakaria argues that democracy without liberalism is dangerous. He says the biggest problem is that is gains legitimacy by virtue of being democratic. Hence, not only does it pose a danger to the citizens of the country were it is imposed, but also might discredit democracy and democratic process completely. His argument is that every wave of democracy has had to suffer setback which directly points of the fact that there were institutional and systemic inadequacies which led to the failure of democracy. Hence, he argues for a more authoritarian regime prior to the advent of democracy wherein these institutional problems are taken care of.

Having said this, I do not doubt that the liberal democratic framework is the most stable and pro-people framework that we have in place as far as political regimes go. Also, as stated before, there are usually very good reasons for one state to interfere in the policy-making and nation building of another, not least because the latter is too unstable to do this on its own. However, nation building has come to mean the attempt to apply the standard formula of western liberal democracies to nations across the board to yield a state which is civilized and acceptable as per the norms of the international community. While it might be necessary to ensure protection of human rights and the rule of law across nations, the imposing state must bear in mind that pressurizing a state to adopt liberal democratic policy not only compromises the very tenets of liberal democracy itself, but also leads to a situation where while the norms may be embodied in the constitutional text, they will have no real effect since the people of the state will not give them the importance attached to laws which are reconciled with their beliefs and practices. Hence, imposing constitutional and nation building ought to be done cautiously and in as limited a manner as possible.

Klares interview on global resource wars talk about the declining global energy supplies to satisfies global requirements. His premise in his argument was that the world has moved from a point in which energy was sufficient to meet the world need to a point in which, the supplies of energy is insufficient to satisfy the global demand. Klare goes on to discuss the serious problem not only relating to the declining oil supply but also about the consequence on the increasing energy consumption which is the global warming. He calls for a different way of using energy suggesting that this issue should not just be an international problem but should also be an international affair.

Klares major theoretical underpinnings for this discussion can be summed in two factors. First is the worlds growing consumption of energy. Klare noted that oil has been the source of energy and since the world war two the worlds consumption of energy has increased from 10 million barrels per day to 85 million barrel per day today, and is projected to increase by 117 million barrels per day in 2030. This increasing use of energy not only creates with meeting the demand but it also increase global warming at fast pace. Second, most of the worlds oil reservoirs are on the verge of serious decline as many of them had already reached their maximum output. The problem is that the rate of new discoveries of new field each year is fewer than those that are in decline and those that are newly discovered are in areas that presents operational or political problems making it difficult for oil companies to operate.

With this problem, Klare pointed out that a new world order is emerging which he calls A new world energy order wherein the privileged country or those with energy surplus for sale to other countries are gaining both power and wealth through their investment abroad using petrodollars. He cited these investments will soon be used by these countries for their advantage, citing the case of Russia which cut the supply of natural gas to Ukraine in 2006.

The global resources war which Klare was referring obviously not only refers to the potential squabble of energy deficit countries on available energy but also the challenge posed by China as the new hypothetical threat driving U.S. military spending on the United States as it established relations in many of the oil rich country. In view of all this, he suggested to hasten the developments of energy alternatives and to re-examine the American way of life being the model for many countries in the world.

Examine the statements about contemporary religion put forth by James Carroll. He appears to believe that, under the proper conditions, religion can be a positive force in international affairs. Would you agree or disagree with this notion

James Caroll (2003) argues that religion and the social order of the contemporary world cannot be separated. He suggests that the fate of the world depends on religious reform that includes a healthy critique of long-held absolute truth claims of each religion. While acknowledging religions role in past as well as contemporary global violence such as the September 11th attacks, the American War on Terror, the fight over territory in the West Bank and even the seemingly secular nuclear recklessness of North Korea, Carroll also argues that all the major religions of the world simultaneously possess the capacity for peace and harmony. Inherently, most religions promote compassion, social justice, charity, and love. However, most are also prone to triumphalism, which is the notion that one particular dogma of a religion is superior to, and victorious over, all others. The conditions Carroll argue for to achieve positivity in international affairs includes an introspective project on the part of religious adherents to reinvestigate their basic tenets in light of the existence of other religions and the fact of religious violence. Believers of all faiths must reexamine their truth claims and seek to maintain their beliefs that do not simultaneously denigrate the different tenets of faith held by others (Carroll, 2003, pg. 11). Is this nave thinking Can such deep religious introspection really occur and subsequently result in increased world peace

While Carroll cites examples of hope in this regard, including new efforts on the part of the Catholic Church, Islam, as well as Jews, I find it difficult to agree that such efforts are going to produce a new pool of believers who maintain their religious beliefs alongside a genuine respect for other religions that will ultimately result in religious harmony. A few efforts on the part of some believers to review their religion represent a weak case for religions role as a positive feature of international relations. Much of this response has occurred in the aftermath of an embarrassing expose for these religions, which reduces their opportunities to gain converts. So in my opinion, this religious introspection is happening because of religious self-interest, not based on a true desire to coexist peacefully in a religiously plural world. I understand that Carroll might suggest that even if this is not the explicit intention of these believers, it may result in world peace, but I argue that if the goal of these believers is not world peace through mutual religious tolerance of other beliefs systems, then religion will continue to play a negative role in internal affairs, even if it also continues to provide comfort, explanations, and humility for its individual believers.

In its history, America has been involved in several wars. The United States involvement in wars has been promoted by different factors. The country has also been called upon by various countries to help end war and its intervention has had various effects on the country and on others as well. However, the American Civil War remains one of the greatest wars that were fought in US homeland.  This war did not attract other countries since it was an ideological war between different states in the country.  This article will address the cause as well as the results of the Civil War in America.

The American Civil War was a conflict between different states.  Between 1861 and 1865, there was war between the southern states and the Union. The southern states were comprised of eleven states which had declared secession from the main Union and henceforth formed the Confederate States. The Union was mainly composed of Northern States which wanted to have a strong United States of America that lived to its ideals.  Therefore the Union was referred to as the North and in normal description, American Civil War was said to be a war between North and South (Golden 2009).   The main cause of American Civil War was abolishment of slaves as had been proposed by the Union.  In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election and henceforth announced the need for abolishment of slavery and freeing of all slaves in the United States. In his campaign Lincoln had expressed the need to have a free America where everybody, including the slaves, lived as free people.  He argued that there was no need for expansion of slavery and those states which had not abolished slavery had to do so.  When Republicans led by Lincoln won the elections, seven Southern states seceded from the Union before Lincoln was sworn in to the office.

Consequently, secession by states was considered a rebellion against the spirit of togetherness and the errant states had to be forcefully brought back to the Union. The reason behind the Civil War may not be articulated only to slavery debate but to other issues such as oppression by the federal government. There were issues of high taxation and the citizens had grudges against the government for a long period of time.
The first hostility was manifested in April, 12, 1861. The US military fort was attacked by the Confederate forces in South Carolina.  After this incident, the President called upon volunteer military from every state. This meant hostility against Confederate and was followed by secession by other four states in the South making the rebels states eleven.  There were two sides in rebellion, the eleven states against the United States. Both the northern and the southern states were guided by the ideas of Jefferson who emphasized that all people were equally created thus slavery was unjustified and all slaves had to be freed. The president declared that slavery was a very important issue to be handled more seriously because it was bringing divisions in both territories, especially on who was supposed to have control over them. The confederate government wanted to sign a peace treaty with Abraham Lincolns government but he declared that he did not recognize the Confederate as a legitimate government.

The first military attack was sectioned by the Confederate government led by Jefferson Davis. This led to capture of Fort Pickens.  After this aggression, President Abraham Lincoln asked his troops to go and recapture the Fort as well as preserve the Union. However, there were states which refused to send their troops, including Tennessee and North Carolina.  US general commander, who then was Winfield Scott, came up with an Anaconda plan which he purposed to win the war without blood shed. The plan was intended to weaken the Confederate economy thus giving them an easy way of capturing Mississippi River and thus splitting the southern region (Golden 2009).

This plan was enacted by the President through the formation of Union blockade in 1862. The blockade managed to stop most of the local port-to-port travels. This resulted in food shortage among other necessities in the region.  The Confederate Navy then waged war against the Union army but the battle ended up at a draw and the Union was satisfied because the blockade was still maintained. This failure forced the Confederate to seek help from the British army. There were several wars that followed after this first war and many people lost their lives (Golden 2009).

Results
This was the worst war in the history of the United States, since it resulted in death of 620, 000 soldiers and many citizens casualties. After the Union triumphed in the war, slavery was abolished in the whole country and southern states had to be admitted back to the Union depending on their record on abolishment of slavery.  Slaves were freed through the emancipation proclamation which declared them as equal citizens of the United States.  These were slaves in the confederate regions. Those in the border and the Union were also declared free by action in 1865.  The contentious postwar was the main idea behind the reconstruction era. In addition, the black slaves that were freed amounted approximately 4 million (Golden, 2009).   The 1860 census portrayed that there were a total of 8 of the entire male population aged between 13 and 43 that had died in the course of the war.  Most of this group was from the North while a few came from the southern part. The main reason of the high number of deaths came about because of the Napoleonic tactics used in the war.

It was a devastating experience to the American community and, as it has been shown, the results were both positive and negative. Loss of lives was the most devastating experience, yet on the positive side, it was a great relieve to the slaves. War came about due to a number of reasons but mostly it occurred as a result of misunderstanding and misbelieves that peoples needs may be achieved only through fighting.