2001 A Space Oddessy

The guiding principles of the US National Space Policy are very militaristic. It begins with a fairly peaceful and scientific outlining of ideals- such as using space to increase the speed of information through enhanced technologies. But it quickly asserts itself to take a very defensive position over the right of the U.S. and any other nation to the exploration of space. And it outlines that we will defend our sovereignty of space if any nation attempts to impede our progress or be hostile to our national interest. I found it ironic if anything that we talk about 'responding to interference'. The principles make it out to seem that our missions in space are for the spreading of freedom. But there is clearly US military/air force owned equipment in space, covered vaguely in the principles.

Overall, I think the exploration of- and possible attempt at conquest of- space may be similar to the colonizational practices of Europe in the Americas. The guidelines could easily be expanded to start to cover the territory of the moon and other planets and already starts to provide the U.S. with the ability to command and control areas of space where our equipment is placed- under the umbrella of "defense of national interest."

Will the real SOFA please stand up?

So it struck me while reading the articles about the SOFA being discussed for US-Iraq that no one seems to know exactly what it should say, what the current talks have been about, or whether or not it was even a SOFA treaty. The confusion over just what is going on is far from comforting in a time when our role in shaping Iraq can take two very different paths.

First off, the article seems to make it clear to me (although admits self doubt) that the U.S. was going to lose its legal basis for maintaining a presence in Iraq after Dec. 31st of this year. Therefore, I see the SOFA as being a very important treaty to be made- one which should have been more heavily discussed before the last moment.

The prospect of leaving Iraq in the next few years, with ZERO military presence in the country afterward is a bit startling to me. I have always been against the war and want the majority of our troops out, but our actions there have produced as much damage as it has good. I know the Iraqi people want us out, but we put ourselves into an impossible situation. If we leave, there is a possibility that terrorist organizations will begin to form once more. The dysfunctional mess that is the Iraqi government is not able to organize their forces properly to prevent this from happening.

Most surprising has been the turn the actual SOFA took from the tone in which the article was laying out the U.S. government's wishes. Before the new draft was released, Bruno's article gave me the distinct feeling that Bush would not back down from the theme in which his administration has run things in the past.

I also must agree that it is wrong to compare Iraq and South Korea. The situations are completely different, and the success of a country like South Korea can not just be blindly attributed to the SOFA and basing that went on after the war there. Iraq must be looked at on its own, and recognized for its uniqueness.