Mearsheimer and Gays at the Gate...

My friend Faraz, who is also an International Relations Major, pointed me to this journal article written by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Anyone who's studied international relations or global politics will recognize those names as immediately as anyone who watches reality TV will recognize the names Santino or Kelly Clarkson (I don't actually watch reality TV, but I knew enough people who do...and Claire's blog mentioned Santino quite often). Anyway, the journal article was about the "Israel Lobby" and how it has pushed the US so far off the track of genuine national interests it's endangering our state. It's an interesting read that is getting quite a few people angry, but, as Noam Chomsky said the other night,

There is a world of difference between hating a people and hating the policies of a state.

Many people view any criticism of Israel (especially talk of the "Israel Lobby") as being anti-semitic. This piece is unapologetic in where it lays the blame for poor US foreign policy:

U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than int he MIddle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration's attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.

...the overall thrust of U.S. policy in teh region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially t othe activities of the "Israel Lobby." Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

Wow...that's some damning stuff...I particularly like the last line of the first paragraph. It should make for good reading when I can sit down and really read it carefully after all my testing and projects are done.

As for the gays at the gate, a group called Soulforce is coming to West Point on Wednesday and Thursday. They've been on a bus to 18 different religious and military schools which have anti-gay policies. They were arrested at BYU, Azuza, Navy and Air Force...now they're coming here. I tried to get the academy to hold a forum or discussion for cadets and the protesters. I thought, they're here anyway, why not use it as a learning experience? I don't see what having them arrested does other than give them free press (which I'm sure they want) and the cadets learn nothing at all. If anything, I think that will ratchet up anti-gay rhetoric here. I was, however, shot down. The official response I got was

USMA will certainly not engage soulforce in dialogue nor should they. USMA does not and will not cater to any protest group or give them open time with cadets no matter what their platform...Soulforce is looking for media attention to back their cause.

You are correct that both USNA and USAFA handled the issue incorrectly – by even letting them on their installation. USNA gave them freedom to talk with mids and it went poorly.

Of course, this wasn't from the Commandant or the Superintendant, so don't anyone read this as though it's official school policy, it's just from an officer I had approached about the subject because I work for her in the Respect Program and I wanted her advice.

Anyway, they will be here, and I'm hoping cadets do get to talk to them...or vice versa. It's their last stop and, frankly, I think cadets are old enough, educated enough and informed enough to make our own decisions. Nothing can be hurt by allowing them to talk to us, but much can be gained.

On the other hand, there are "no protesting" laws about military installations, and if we allow them on, why not allow the Reverend Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" church? So, I see her point, if her point is simply that no protesters should be given a forumn here.