torulaghareportsdotcom

By Priye S. Torulagha

priyet@hotmail.com

torulaghareports@wordpress.com

 

As the primary elections of the two major political parties in the U.S gradually wind down and the nation begins to prepare for the upcoming presidential general election in November 2016, it is necessary to reflect on the manner in which two major presidential candidates have been treated regarding their qualification to run for the Office of the President of the United States.  When Sen. Barack Obama declared his candidacy for the presidency in 2007, he was treated very harshly by his opponents, especially, those in the Republican Party who alleged that he was not a “natural born” American citizen, therefore, was not qualified to seek the high office of the country.  On the other hand, when Sen. Ted Cruz, a Canadian-born American citizen declared his candidacy in 2015, the issue of whether he was a “natural born” American citizen was barely raised by the Americans who were so concerned about President Obama not being a “natural born” American citizen.

The contradiction in behavior raises fundamental questions about American political values.  How is it possible for some U.S. citizens to read the American Constitution in such a manner that they ended up with very contradictory interpretations of the qualification for the presidency?  In other words, what prompted the Americans who were so concerned about President Obama’s nationality to turn around and completely ignore the nationality of Mr. Ted Cruz? Why was the need to meet the “natural born” qualification so critical in President Obama’s case and not so in Sen. Cruz’s case, even though it is a known fact that Sen. Cruz was born in Canada?  Perhaps, it might be necessary to quote the section of the U.S. Constitution that stipulates the requirements necessary to run and occupy the Office of the President of the United States.

The United States Constitution clearly stipulates the basic qualifications or prerequisites or requirements that are necessary for any American to run for the Office of the Presidency.  The Constitution states in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of The Executive Article that “No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

This means that any American citizen who wishes to run for the Presidency must have been born in the United States or any territory that is considered to be part or extension of the U.S.  The individual must be at least thirty five years in age and must have lived continuously in the United States as a resident for fourteen years.  Any individual who fails to meet any one of the three conditions cannot run for the great office.  Due to this requirement, many naturalized Americans who want to run for the presidency cannot do so.  A particularly notable individual who wanted to run for the office but could not do so was the former governor of California, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He could not seek the presidency because he was born in Austria before moving to the U.S. to become a naturalized citizen.

 

When Sen. Barack Obama declared his candidacy for the presidency, the constitutional requirement for the office became a very hot issue.  Many Americans, particularly those associated with the conservative wing of the Republican Party argued that President Obama could not run for the office because he was not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.  Some said that he was born in Kenya and not in the U.S.

The debate got so heated up to the point that Mr. Donald Trump, the current front runner in the Republican presidential primaries became the lightening rod in arousing opposition to Obama’s presidential candidacy.  It got to a point in which Mr. Trump and others requested that Mr. Obama should release his birth certificate publicly for American people to see.  The argument continued throughout his first term in office as the President of the United State.  It was reignited during his reelection bid as Mr. Trump hammered the point repeatedly.  Even after the State of Hawaii released information about Mr. Obama’s birthplace, many doubters still did not believe that he was born in the country.

The U.S. media too joined the fray by constantly covering the news about Mr. Obama’s birth place.  Certain individuals were invited to speak about the matter and inflamed passions about Mr. Obama.  The issue only died down after his birth certificate was publicly displayed and he won a second term.  The economic growth that immediately followed the disastrous recession of 2008-2009 also helped to divert public attention from the “natural birth” issue.

Like President Obama who decided to run for the presidency while serving as a senator from the State of Illinois, Mr. Ted Cruz too decided to contest the presidential election while serving as a senator from Texas.    Of the sixteen or eighteen candidates who initially vied for the Republican presidential ticket, Mr. Cruz is in second place as a major party contender.  Actually, he is second to the front-runner, Mr. Trump and hopes to tactically clinch the Republican nomination if establishment Republicans support him against Mr. Trump.

The most interesting thing about Mr. Cruz presidential bid is that he was born in Canada and not in the United States.  Like President Obama who has a “natural born” American mother and a Kenyan father, Mr. Cruz has an American “natural born” mother and a Cuban father.  However, unlike President Obama who was born in the United States, it is an obvious fact that Sen. Cruz was born in Canada.  There is no dispute about his birthplace.  Thus, he is a naturalized American citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.

However, the wonderment about Mr. Cruz presidential candidacy is that the same Americans who insisted upon the “natural born” constitutional prerequisite for Mr. Obama are not raising the issue against him, despite the fact that he is a naturalized citizen.   Furthermore, the Republican Party which spearheaded the issue against Mr. Obama even allowed Mr. Cruz to declare and actually participate in the Republican primaries without even hinting of the possibility that he might not qualify for the president’s office. Some influential Republicans actually prefer him to be the Republican presidential candidate rather than Mr. Trump who is the front-runner among the Republican candidates.

The quietness over the “natural born” issue in the case of Sen. Cruz puzzles many people in the world.  Does it mean that the “natural born” requirement of the U.S. Constitution is no longer important or could be easily waved to make it possible for some individuals to run for the U.S. presidency?  If that is the case, what is the criteria for determining when the constitutional requirement can be waved or downplayed?  Since Sen. Cruz has been allowed by the Republican Party to run for the presidency, in the future, will the party allow other Americans naturalized Americans to run for the position based upon their parents  “natural born” status?  In other words, it could be said that the Republicans have set a precedent for waving the constitutional qualification.  So, when other naturalized Americans in the future decide to run for the high office, the “natural born” requirement might have to be waved to ensure their equal political right to join the race for the presidential position.

 

Another puzzling byproduct of the great silence over Sen. Cruz’ status is that Mr. Trump who spearheaded the campaign to stop Mr. Obama over his “natural born” status is not using the issue to campaign against Mr. Cruz in a vigorous manner.  Although, once in a while, he raises the issue to inform the public but he is not acting the way he did while he was condemning Mr. Obama for not being a ‘Natural born” citizen.  One would have expected Mr. Trump to attack Sen. Cruz candidacy by repeatedly saying that Mr. Cruz should drop out of the primary race because he is not an American “natural born” Citizen.

Similarly, the American media too are not interested in focusing on Mr. Cruz qualification for the presidency as they did when Mr. Obama was running for the office.  So, is the American media informing the world that some people are excusable from the requirement of “natural born” status while others are not excusable? What criteria are they using in determining who meets the requirement and who does not?

Even the Democratic Party which stands to gain the most in causing disarray in the Republican Party does not say anything about the matter.  The party allowed the Republican Party to assault the citizenship of Mr. Obama but remained very quiet about Mr. Cruz’s status.  Are the Democrats remaining quiet over the matter as a strategic tactic to actually encourage the Republicans to nominate Mr. Cruz as their presidential candidate come November 2016?

Lastly, American constitutional scholars, like most American journalists, have pretty much avoided analyzing the Constitution and rendering their views on the “natural born” matter in the case of Sen. Cruz.  Again, why did so many of them appear on television to interpret and explain the Constitution when Mr. Obama was running for the presidency and have remained very quiet over Mr. Cruz’s status? Perhaps, the most logical reason that would have qualified Mr. Cruz to run for the presidency of the United States of America is if his mother was working for the United States government when he was born.

Could it be said that in the United States, there is a different standard for different people.  This means that constitutional requirements can be turned on and turned off, depending on the status of the individuals seeking the presidential office. Otherwise, it boggles the mind that President Obama spent almost four years trying to demonstrate his ‘natural born” status while a candidate that was actually born outside the United States is able to run for the Office of the President without American citizens loudly raising the constitutional issue.

Indeed, the differential treatment given to President Obama and Sen. Cruz over the “natural born” requirement says so much about U.S. political culture. The world is astounded about the contradictory political behavior and needs explanation.

The Effect of Groupthink on the War against International Terrorism

By Priye S. Torulagha

Torulaghareport@wordpress.com

priyet@hotmail.com

 

In carefully examining the manner in which the war against international terrorism is being fought, it could be said that the pace of victory is hindered by the prevalence of groupthink in the policy making process of the global antiterrorism community.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon or a practice or habit that compels people in a group to think and make decisions alike in a manner that discourages alternative perspectives or points of views.  It discourages creativity and innovation in thought.  It beclouds the ability to think rationally and come up with alternative means of dealing with a complex situation. It forces the so called security experts to ignore other important elements that could enhance the war.  Groupthink contributes to the prolongation of agony among the civilian population as the countries repeatedly adopt the same tactics to fight the antiterrorist war.

As can be seen, it appears that whenever a terrorist incident takes place somewhere in the world, especially in a Western country, certain experts, consultants, specialists and professionals are called upon to analyze the situation, develop strategies and make recommendations on how to deal with international terrorism.  Generally, the experts, consultants, specialists, and professionals tend to come from certain occupational backgrounds.  Most commonly, they are associated with the intelligence, military, police and national security services.  These services or fields can be collectively described as the security/military community.

The fact that most of the terrorism experts came from occupational fields that deal with security, in one form or another, tend to make them think alike, express similar views and make similar decisions.  They have proclivity toward reducing complex political, social, economic, religious, and military situations into simplistic security matters or issues.  Most of them tend to believe strongly that terrorism can be wiped out through tactical deployment of intelligence gathering machinery, targeted assassinations of important terrorists and robust military offensive against terrorist organizations.  Due to the security orientation of their perspective on terrorism, governments have been compelled to deal with the complex issue of terrorism in a very simplistic manner.  This contributes to the slow pace of victory since the terrorists are able to change tactics, disperse and regroup and strike back to create fear among citizens.

Quite often, most of the experts come from Western societies.  Even those who originate from non-Western societies are compelled through groupthink to think like their Western counterparts and focus most of their energies in devising security measures to deal with terrorism in their countries.  This is understandable since most of them probably received their intelligence, military and police training in Western countries before going back to their countries to serve.  This is why many Third World countries that have joined the antiterrorism war, follow the Western model for dealing with the issue by focusing excessively on the maintenance of security and paying less attention to important other variables that contribute to the growth of international terrorism.

The global media exacerbate groupthink on the antiterrorist war by always inviting the same experts to come and offer their professional opinions on what should be done whenever a terrorist incident takes place.  In fact, going back to September 11, 2001 and ending up with the terrorist incident in Brussel, Belgium in March 2016, it could be inferred that most of the terrorist experts that have been called upon to analyze terrorism on television by CNN, Fox, BBC and other major television networks, have been the same individuals. It does not matter whether the incident took place in Afghanistan or India or Libya or Mali or Nigeria or Somalia or Kenya or France or Pakistan or Spain.  They always argue in favor of intelligence gathering, targeted killings, security crackdowns and heavy-handed military operations. Rarely do they focus their discussions on the causative factors.

Apparently, it is hypothesized here that the undue concentration in the use of intelligence, targeted assassinations, security crackdowns and heavy-handed military operations hinder the ability to win the antiterrorism war.  It is further hypothesized here that those strategies and tactics actually assist in boosting terrorism, instead of degrading it, due to their undue focus on security and less consideration on the social, political, economic and religious factors that contribute to the problem.

It is believed here that the war would be more successful if political leaders, policy makers and national security specialists also seriously look at the causative factors that contribute to the growth of terrorism in various parts of the world.  The reason is that the security/military approach only seems to deal with the symptoms and not the causative factors.  For instance, it is critical to examine the reason why so many French and Belgian young men from the Islamic community in those countries decide to join Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  It is necessary to find out why so many young men in Northern Nigeria joined Boko Haram. It is necessary for governments and higher educational institutions to find out why restlessness in the Islamic world is fueling undue militancy and the excessive use of violence by some young men and women.

Apart from making effort to identify the causative factors, it is also necessary to develop a countermeasure that would be able to reduce the belief or ideology that is the wellspring for fueling the need for someone to join a terrorist organization.  This is even more difficult to achieve than the security/military measures that most conventional experts in terrorism seem to support.  The reason is that it is very difficult to eliminate a belief system after it has been successfully planted in the minds of people.  It is not possible to win the war if a system or a program is not developed to neutralize the belief or ideology that is driving so many young men and women to join terrorist organizations.  For example, having fair governance, creating educational and cultural environment that enhances social and economic mobility, and appreciation for cultural diversity would go a long way in reducing terrorism. Merely targeting, bombing and killing would not eradicate the belief that has been planted like a seed to grow and flourish.

It is also important to develop a global criteria for defining what constitutes a terrorist organization and who is a terrorist.  The reason is that while there is a general agreement on what constitutes terrorism, there is no general agreement on who is a terrorist.  Countries pick and choose who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter based on their short-term strategic interests.  As a result, while some countries may refer to a particular organization as a terrorist entity, other countries may view the same organization as a liberation army.   Due to the confusion, while some countries might be trying to destroy a particular organization, other countries may be supporting the same organization with arms and funds.  The lack of clarity in defining which organization constitutes a terrorist group makes the war unwinnable.  The ongoing conflict in Syria clearly shows the difficulty of determining which armed group is a terrorist organization and which is not as various countries sponsor, train, equip and finance various groups to extend their geopolitical influence in Syria and the Middle East generally.

To find out the causative factors as well as neutralize the belief or ideology, it is necessary for governments, terrorism experts, and scholars to carry out serious studies involving sociological and political analysis of various issues that promote terrorism.  Therefore, merely focusing on the security measures will not result in any remarkable victory against international terrorism.

Consequently, to win the antiterrorism war, it is essential to reduce groupthink by expanding the scope of those who are considered as terrorism experts by including sociologists, political scientists, policy analysts, psychologists, and former diplomats.  These experts should be able to reflect and deliberate on the cultural, political and religious beliefs of various groups in order to minimize groupthink. This will allow the subject matter to be discussed in ways that allow for the consideration of alternative strategies, tactics, policies and points of views without boxing everyone in, to assume that only security measures are necessary to win the war.

It should be noted that terrorism is an unconventional warfare and it cannot be won in a manner that is similar to a conventional war.  For instance, it is very tricky to determine when a terrorist war has been won.  The reason is that terrorists can fight one day, then melt away a second day to create the impression that they have been defeated and only to reappear later to continue the war.  A very excellent example is ISIS.   It started as part of the Sunni resistance from the Iraqi military against the U.S. intervention in 2003, then changed into Al Qaeda in Iraq and has now changed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Similarly, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, and so on and so forth, have been able to adapt and recreate themselves to fight another day.    So, a combination of strategies and tactics is critical.  Likewise, countering the belief or ideology is a must to reduce the attraction that compels young people to join terrorist organizations.

In conclusion, it could be inferred that, perhaps, President Barack Obama of the United States, is uncomfortable with the security/military orientation of the war because of the realization that it suffers from groupthink. Indeed, groupthink is an impediment to achieving victory in the antiterrorist war.  Consequently, to win the war, a combination of different strategies, including identifying and ameliorating the causative factors, having a cultural understanding of the different points of views among different groups and deploying security/military measures are necessary.