Why the U.S. Should Ratify CEDAW By Mx. Colin Blevins

Human rights have become a controversial, yet crucial, topic in 21st-century America. Aggressive foreign policy in the wake of the 9/11 attacks has led to questioning the constitutionality of the Iraq war and the legality of U.S. drone strikes. Meanwhile, domestic policies regarding the right to privacy have recently been deemed unconstitutional, extreme police brutality is beginning to be addressed, and evidence of violence in the ever-growing prison-industrial system is being examined. Perhaps the most important aspect in the recent discussion is that the United States can no longer claim to be a human rights champion.

When it comes to human rights on the global level, international law has become increasingly important in the conversation. As globalization continues to change how countries operate both domestically and internationally, the various treaties that form international law attempt to address human rights violations in hopes of honoring the dignity of all human beings. The International Criminal Court, various committees, and specific campaigns have all been designed to enforce these human rights norms that emerged after WWII. These various instruments have been created due to the emphasis on the right to sovereignty in every nation, and the resulting contention between international and domestic law.

However, regardless of contending views about international law, the United States government is already subject to the treaties it has ratified and has a clear legal obligation to uphold them.

The United States has a checkered past when it comes to human rights violations. Acknowledging the need for greater enforcement of treaties that the United States has already ratified is important, but the government must go one step further by ratifying conventions to give more protections to its citizens. While there are a number of eligible treaties for the United States to ratify, there is one that would affect over 50% of the population – the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

What is CEDAW?

CEDAW, written in 1979, is part of a body of treaties that comprises international human rights law. In order to be enforced, a country must accede or ratify the convention, thereby agreeing to uphold the articles therein, with the exception of any reservations outlined at the time of accepting the treaty.

When a country ratifies CEDAW, it agrees to:

• uphold the civil and political rights of women, from discrimination and sex role stereotyping to representation and involvement in public and political life;
• uphold the economic, social and cultural rights of women, from education and employment rights to marriage and family life;
• and to set in place mechanisms to enforce the articles in the convention

While many recent scholars have discussed the prospects for CEDAW across the globe, one prominent scholar, Sally Engle Merry, has been fair in analyzing the convention. In her book, Human Rights and Gender Violence, Merry notes that “the committee charged with monitoring compliance with CEDAW, like those monitoring the other major UN treaties, has limited power to compel states to comply.” However, she continues her analysis by concluding that “a close examination of the way the CEDAW process operates suggests that although it does not have the power to punish, it does important cultural work” by fostering “new cultural understandings of gender and violence.”

Why Should the U.S. Ratify CEDAW?

The United States signed CEDAW on July 17, 1980, making a commitment to the treaty, even though it has not been ratified. According to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, when a country signs a treaty it “is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.” While it can be argued that the United States already has legal protections for women, the ratification of this treaty could only serve to further goals for equality in the country.

According to Amnesty International, the United States is one of three countries that has not ratified CEDAW – the other two being Iran and Sudan. It also “has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the Western Hemisphere and the only industrialized democracy that has not ratified this treaty.”

There are a number of ways that gender discrimination is active in American society, and CEDAW is an important step toward reaching gender equality. Some of the gender discriminations faced by women are:

1. Rape Culture
2. Workplace Discrimination
3. Underrepresentation in Politics
4. Lack of Maternity Leave (in which the U.S. is the only “Developed Econom[y]” that “does not pay maternity benefits”)

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/24/489973/paid-maternity-leave-us/

While there are arguments against the ratification of CEDAW, they largely hinge on the fact that the treaty would be detrimental to women’s rights. While this is a complex argument with a variety of examples, it stems from an ideology that wishes to restrict all women’s rights on the basis of one traditional set of beliefs about women.

CEDAW is a comprehensive treaty that would further the ability for women to be in control of their own lives and make decisions regardless of conflicting beliefs. In fact, there is even a provision in CEDAW that states that “nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions that are more conducive to the achievement of equality between men and women,” whether that be in domestic law or “any other international convention, treaty or agreement in force.” Essentially, CEDAW can only serve to further goals for gender equality, and will take a back seat when another law or policy goes beyond the minimum goals set in the convention.

The United States is clearly in need of policy changes when it comes to human rights, starting with upholding and extending international law. Ratifying CEDAW would not hurt American women; rather, it would function as an important tool in the fight for gender equality. It is time to solidify America’s commitment to human rights. It is time for the United States to ratify CEDAW.

To learn more about why the United States should ratify CEDAW, or to get involved, click here.

About the Author:  Colin Blevins is an undergraduate student at the University of Colorado Denver. He is pursuing a degree in Political Science with a certificate in Democracy and Social Movements. His academic interests include political theory, social movements, and human rights. He is the co-founder and President Emeritus of the International Studies Club at the University of Colorado Denver. He has worked for LGBT military nonprofits since 2011 and currently serves in the United States Army Reserve.

From Closeted Soldier to Queer Activist: How “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Shaped My Life by Mx. Colin Blevins

As a senior in high school, I made a life-changing decision; instead of going to college, I enlisted with my older brother to join the United States Army.

I joined the military for a number of reasons, but one affected that decision more than any of the others – the idea that being in a hyper-masculine organization would make me more “masculine;” that it would “set me straight.”

Colin Blevins (center) with team members at Fort Polk, LA 2010.

This idea transformed itself: beginning as a mantra, solidifying as a natural belief that affected every important aspect of my life, and embodying the lifestyle that deprived me of my integrity.

Violent Extremism and U.S. Response: A Conversation with Senators’ Graham and McCain by Ms. Breann Garcia

Protestors outside of the event.

On a pleasant evening in downtown Denver, protestors took to the streets for an anti-war rally in response to Senators’ Lindsey Graham and John McCain’s political discussion on violent extremism. Denver police filled the area, and a strange amount tension lurked in the environment, especially given the recent criticism against local law enforcement nationwide.

That, however, is a discussion suited for a different blog post… This post explains the importance of the recent event, hosted by the Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab (CELL), and what we can learn moving forward in an increasingly unpredictable world.

During the sit-down, the two most central topics of discussion were U.S. response against ISIS, and Iran’s nuclear capability. First, as most nightly news programs have advertised since the summer of 2014, ISIS or ISIL continues to become a more prominent threat to the U.S. and other states. Both Senators’ endorsed an offensive approach to this threat, but for different reasons.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Alex Wong / Getty / Meet the Press

Senator Graham stated that ISIS is a group who is both wealthy and firmly entrenched in the region, which is why the need for U.S. deployment is necessary.

Senator McCain however, boasted a different perspective- explaining that the U.S. cannot merely count on Iraqi (or other) troops to fight ISIS due to their likeliness to join forces with the Islamic State. McCain reminded the audience, that the same troops we fought against in Iraq are now the ones we are hoping will fight off this powerful new threat.

American boots on the ground are not ideal, and most certainly are not what the Obama administration would like; but according to Senator Graham, there is no way to defend this country without sending troops.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Kasfter/AP

Regardless of one’s political perspective, McCain makes a valid point suggesting the unlikeliness of success against ISIS without some powerful military reinforcements.  American boots on the ground are not ideal, and most certainly are not what the Obama administration would like; but according to Senator Graham, there is no way to defend this country without sending troops.

Love America and Love It so Much to Guide It with Wisdom in the Future – Learning from General James Mattis by Mr. Richard Hancock and Mr. Zachary McArthur

General Mattis in front of the CU Denver Veteran Services department.

On February 17^th, former commander of the U.S. Central Command General James Mattis came to CU Denver on behalf of the History and Political Science departments. General Mattis had a 41 year military career as a General in the Marine Corps. The General came to CU Denver for addressing a variety of topics to the school’s veteran student population. This is part of a series of blogs that critically analyze the General’s discussion. Our blog will focus on the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region.

General Mattis consistently stressed the importance of using history to guide strategic thinking in U.S. foreign policy. In 2011 a female intelligence analyst informed the General that in the summer of 2014 a new Muslim extremist group would emerge as an evolution of the Al-Qaeda model. This analyst predicted this group would redefine Muslim extremism.

General Mattis consistently stressed the importance of using history to guide strategic thinking in U.S. foreign policy.

General Mattis with author Richard Hancock

While this analyst’s forecast proved to be true, the U.S. government has struggled to adopt an effective strategy to combat the Islamic State ideology. General Mattis advocated the need to define the ideology before moving forward. After this, the government must clarify its political end state. While defining the ideology and political end state the U.S. must include other Arab countries who share common interests. Effectively working with other MENA countries will allow the U.S. to weaken IS’ funding through its black market networks. A crucial ally to combatting the ideology is utilizing Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, who is well known for his expertise in counter-terrorism. Effective Muslim leadership must also be utilized to attack the IS ideology from a grassroots level. The General also emphasized cracking down on IS social media presence.

With that being said, a strong and effective military presence is required from the U.S. General Mattis specifically mentioned a more nuanced use of special operation forces. One example is striking sensitive IS targets that are unapproachable by conventional boots on the ground. Also, moving a battalion of the 82^nd airborne off the coast of Syria would send a clear message to IS that the U.S. is serious.

It is important for our generation to avoid the pitfalls of cynicism; and instead, use this energy to guide America with wisdom in the future.

General Mattis with author, Zachary McArthur

General Mattis briefly switched gears to discussing Egypt. Egypt is a crucial ally for combating extremism across the MENA region; however, this country must improve its human rights record. The General acknowledged that Egypt’s public impeachment of the Muslim Brotherhood clearly violates human rights.

Mattis aimed his discussion to the student body and the millennial generation as a whole. He encouraged our generation to provide fresh perspectives to guide strategic thinking in the U.S. government. Mattis stated, “foreign policy requires passion and human connection.” It is important for our generation to avoid the pitfalls of cynicism; and instead, use this energy to guide America with wisdom in the future.

About the Authors:

Mr. Richard Hancock.

Richard Hancock: Richard is a recent graduate from CU Denver’s International Studies Program with a focus on the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region and Arabic. He has helped found CU’s Arabic program where he has served as the Teaching Assistant for 1 ½ years. Previously Richard lived and studied at Yarmouk University in Irbid, Jordan, a city that is struggling to handle Syrian refugee flows because it is less than twenty miles from Syria. After briefly living in Egypt, Richard was employed by the Department of Defense as a Contract Administrative Assistant in the MENA region. Currently he is working on freelance journalism and job opportunities primarily within the MENA region. Richard is excited to start a career in Political Risk Consulting.

Zach McArthur: Following a stint in the Army, Zach moved back to Colorado where he enrolled in college courses, majoring in Political Science with minors in Chinese Studies and Economics at University of Colorado Denver. He helped pioneer a program at CU Denver combining students studying as part of the ICB program from China with Americans in an effort to increase cultural awareness and help integrate students into American culture. Following graduation he hopes to continue his studies of the Chinese language and culture by moving to the country. His favorite aspect of life at CU Denver is the diverse student population that affords everyone the opportunity to interact with people from all walks of life.

 

 

The Relationship Between IS and Al-Qaeda: It’s Complicated by Mr. Richard Hancock

So called “experts” in Western media often claim the Islamic State (IS) and Al-Qaeda are one and the same. Such a claim fails to acknowledge the complex relationship between the two groups. The main differentiator between IS and Al-Qaeda is that IS is a highly organized bureaucratic organization that holds territory and provides social services for its constituents; whereas, Al-Qaeda “is a loose collection of small groups and factions that tend to be guided by charismatic individuals” (Gerges, Fawaz).

Al-Qaeda Flag

Breaking Down Walls by Ms. Kayla Gabehart

Breaking Down Walls

“Ich bin ein Berliner.”

(I am a Berliner)

-John F. Kennedy

Berlin, June 26^th, 1963.

In fewer than two weeks, the inaugural semester of the Sustainability in Berlin program will end, and the nine of us will part ways, board planes, and return to America. The thought of leaving our Prenzlauer Berg flats and bidding farewell to Berlin, the city that we have made home, is truly bittersweet. And it’s bittersweet, I think, because it has been eye opening in so many ways. So, as we wonder how exactly we will transport all of our souvenirs and purchases home (you only get one free checked bag), we are also in the midst of planning our Thanksgiving in Berlin, as well as reflecting on what our adventures have taught us and how they have changed us.

Striking a pose with our bikes in Copenhagen, Denmark.

A few weeks ago, we embarked on an excursion across the Baltic Sea to Copenhagen, Denmark, named the European Green Capital in 2014. While we were there, we did as the locals do, and we rode bicycles everywhere. In Copenhagen, where they are well on their way to achieving carbon neutrality by 2025, more than half the population utilizes bicycles as their mode of transportation, in rain, shine, and even in several inches of snow. With one of the most progressive cycling infrastructure systems in the world, Copenhageners find it to be the most convenient, efficient, and healthy way to get around, and many have attached trollies to their bikes in order to transport groceries, children, and elderly relatives. I have never seen so many bicycles in my life.

Riding our bicycles along “the Snake,” a bike-only route in Copenhagen, Denmark.

A Green Infrastructure project under construction in Copenhagen, Denmark. The finished product will provide communal space and divert potential flood waters.

In the past five years, Copenhagen has also been plagued by flash floods, which they refer to as “cloud bursts,” a result of climate change. In response, they have began building green areas all over the city that drain to large, underground grids of pipes and storage areas designed to transport the excess water into the harbor. Under normal circumstances, these green areas are utilized as parks and communal spaces. Copenhagen also engages in the extensive use of wind turbines and district heating fueled by excess energy from the waste disposal plant to help reach their carbon neutrality goal. Copenhagen believes very strongly in sharing their ideas and infrastructure with other cities, as they are determined to help break down political, financial, and ideological barriers regarding renewable energy.

Balloons illuminate the path where the Berlin Wall once stood

Our return journey from Copenhagen took twelve long hours due to the Deutsche Bahn strike, but we arrived home to one of the most inspiring sights I have ever witnessed. Illuminated balloons lined the site where the Berlin Wall once stood.

On November 9^th, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the fall of the Berliner Mauer, I stood with one of my feet in West Berlin and one in East Berlin, something Berliners could not do in their own city for nearly thirty years without a “shoot to kill” order being issued by Soviet soldiers.

On Nov. 9th, I stood with one foot in the East and one foot in the West. An action that seems insignificant now was impossible in Berlin just a quarter century ago

I was deeply moved in that moment, and I felt solidarity with the Berliners. For decades they sought unity, a single city rather than one divided by a wall, a physical barrier. And when it finally, happened, it happened peacefully.

We hosted our own festivities on the 25^th Anniversary, and were joined by Dr. Christoph Stefes and his family, as well as Mr. Klaus Dittmer. They told stories of the GDR and of a divided Berlin, and translated the television broadcasts of the various ceremonies throughout the city. It was truly an honor to share such a special occasion with Germans that have known both a separated and united Berlin.

It was both somber and inspiring to know that on the night of November 9^th twenty-five years ago, the first East Berliners crossed the bridge on Bornholmer Straße into West Berlin. On the night of November 9^th, just a couple of weeks ago, the nine of us watched the memorial balloons released into the air at that exact same spot.

Imagine what other walls we could break down…

A piece of the Berlin Wall in Potsdamer Platz commemorating both the Wall that once was and the peaceful protest that brought it down.

Author: Ms. Kayla Gabehart

About the Author:  Kayla Gabehart is an undergraduate student in her final semester at the University of Colorado Denver. She is double majoring in history and psychology, and minoring in political science. She will begin her MA in history at CU Denver in the spring of 2015. At her core, Kayla is a writer and hopes to somehow incorporate that into her future career.

A Luncheon with Justice Scalia by Mr. Mark Olson

I received a last minute email invitation from my constitutional law professor asking me if I wanted to see Justice Antonin Scalia speak. Constitutional law I and II have been my favorite classes at CU Denver. But I hesitated to accept, at first, because I had come to dislike many of Scalia’s decisions. But an offer to see a great mind speak, even one that I disagree with on many, but not all, issues was an opportunity that was too good to pass up.

But an offer to see a great mind speak, even one that I disagree with on many, but not all, issues was an opportunity that was to good to pass up.

Colorado Christian University put on a great event, and they were gracious hosts. Though I was a bit surprised when one of the school directors opened the luncheon by saying, “If you are here to show your support for Obamacare… you are in the wrong place!” This received a warm round of applause and laughs. This scene quickly reminded me that I was sitting in a room full of people with different perspectives than me. But that is why I love political science because it allows me to sit among people of differing interests, and learn from them.

…I love political science because it allows me to sit among people of differing interests, and learn from them.

Justice Scalia’s speech was a very fitting topic: the separation of church and state. He noted that it was the religious who seemed to struggle the most regarding this core principle. He said that this was mainly because some of the secular laws in existence are contrary to their religious beliefs (i.e., gay rights, abortion rights, etc.). However, to the non-religious person, the separation of the church and state rarely causes conflict, and is as simple as 2 plus 2 for them.

Antonin Gregory Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Now, maybe I missed it, but I never really felt like Justice Scalia ended the talk with any kind of reconciliation for the predominantly Christian crowd. He seemed to dance around the notion that Christians could still implement laws that were in line with their beliefs. He even used the example that we have “moral laws” that prohibit people from walking around naked in the public. Regardless of my personal take on his speech, Justice Scalia did impart with a salient point about the nature of the state, and the nature of the church.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” – Mark 12:17

Justice Scalia pointed out how the nature of the state has to deal with issues in society that cannot be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus, or many of the other religions. And this is why Jesus told his followers to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” However, Scalia stressed that it is not that the state is inherently evil, but that it has to deal with issues where “turning the other cheek” and “forgiveness” might not work. In other words, how well would a state function if it told a victim of violence to turn the other cheek, rather than wanting the state to have the perpetrator arrested? Thus, Justice Scalia seemed to be suggesting that the religious may need to come to grips with the fact that the state will never be able to act as a Christian should act.

All in all, I am happy that I accepted the invitation to attend this talk. It confirmed for me why it is important to listen, not just to the people that agree with you, but also with the people who don’t always agree with you. The struggle over religion and tradition, and the nature of the secular state, will continue to be a prominent theme in our world. And I don’t know if this issue will ever resolve itself. But I do know that by sitting down and listening to opposing viewpoints was an experience that helped, not hindered, my personal understanding of the issues that surround the separation of church and state.

About the Author: Mark is a student for life.  A former ski bum turned academic who enjoys writing about political issues, and such.  His dream job is to get paid to teach, research and write.  When not immersed in books, he enjoys skiing, whitewater kayaking, good conversations, beer and watching the Minnesota Vikings.

Author, Mr. Mark Olson

Living the Sustainable Alternative by Ms. Kayla Gabehart

Six weeks in Berlin have come and gone, and as time seems to go by more quickly with each passing day, the nine of us begin to think about how we will go back to our lives in America.

Six weeks in Berlin have come and gone, and as time seems to go by more quickly with each passing day, the nine of us begin to think about how we will go back to our lives in America. We live an entirely different lifestyle here by virtue of our surroundings; we separate and recycle our trash, we take reusable totes to the grocery store, we dry our clothes on racks rather than wasting energy by putting them in the dryer, and we haven’t been behind the wheel of a car in more than 60 days thanks to Berlin’s extensive and efficient public transportation system. These are small lifestyle changes that seem negligible, but when the results of which are taken collectively, they can actually make for both qualitative and quantitative change.

Inside the Umweltbundesamt, the architecture of which emphasizes natural air circulation and light, as well as incorporating nature inside the confines of the building itself.

Coming from America (unfortunately a global laggard in sustainability) we are now living the alternative. And outside of our microcosmic experience in Berlin, we have seen that sustainability is possible on the macro level. We visited the Umweltbundesamt in Dessau, essentially the German equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency. With a fraction of the employees and budget, they have a much larger influence on policy compared to the EPA.

We also toured the Bauhaus, an architectural school in Dessau that built in the postmodern style as early as the 1920s, before its activities were disrupted by the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich.

The Bauhaus in Dessau, Germany. An architectural school that built in the postmodern style as early as the 1920s.

The Bauhaus also experimented with natural air circulation, energy conservation, and simplicity in terms of furniture and interior designs serving a functional purpose.

During our time in Dessau, we also toured a biosphere along the Elbe River via bicycle. The nature preserve is a protected area dedicated to preserving biodiversity.

Bike tour in Dessau, Germany through a biosphere along the Elbe River.

In our classes and experiences, we have also felt a sense of urgency and the need for substantial change in the immediate future.

In our classes and experiences, we have also felt a sense of urgency and the need for substantial change in the immediate future. Various fellows at Ecologic Institute have impressed upon us the importance and complexity of achieving sustainability on a global scale. Katharina Umpfenbach stressed the importance of individuals’ attitudes and subsequent behaviors in terms of instating change; Doris Knoblauch explained that while think tanks have real influence, it can be severely limited by political systems; and Benjamin Görlach stressed the importance of creating a green economy, rather than greening a few sectors to achieve short-term change. Perhaps most resonating in his message was Dr. Ralph Bodle, an international lawyer who experienced the failures of the 2009 Copenhagen Conference of the Parties firsthand. He said that in an attempts to negotiate binding international climate change policy, he woke up in a hotel and sincerely did not know what country he was in. When the negotiations in Copenhagen ended without any tangible results, he returned home weighing less than his wife, as he had lost so much weight due to stress. He has dedicated his life to this, and yet he is skeptical as to whether real change is possible. To those who still believe that global warming is not real or that mitigating climate change is not a priority, he left us with this message: Consider that more than 70% of the world’s GDP is localized in port cities, and consider the implications if the sea level rises two meters.

Truly food for thought…

Dr. Christoph Stefes giving us a lesson about the history of Berlin.

The Western Conservative Summit by Mr. Jia Meeks

A month and a few short days ago, the University of Colorado Denver Political Science Department visited the fifth-annual Western Conservative Summit, an event that invites some of the nation’s most prominent conservative thinkers and, in some cases, rabid ideologues (I’m talking about you, Sarah Palin) to identify ardent threats to liberty in a conservative paradigm and communicate the civic and political value of adhering to the United States Constitution. The Western Conservative Summit purports to “uphold the spirit of 1776 and maps the way toward American renewal…”, and as the three day event progressed, it became clear many of the summit’s delegates and speakers (most notably Governor Bobby Jindal, Dr. Ben Carson, and former U.S. Representative Allen West) shared this misty-eyed assessment of the Western Conservative Summit’s potential to influence America’s political milieu. Unfortunately, as a natural cynic (particularly when contemplating anything in relation to politics), I initially found myself unable to freely empathize with this rosy viewpoint.

However, despite my innate political pessimism, the Western Conservative Summit afforded me a valuable opportunity to ascertain the personal backgrounds and electoral aspirations of nascent political contenders. Intermingled between the summit’s many speakers, the event’s sponsors welcomed a number of conservative candidates for both state and federal office. For example, shortly before a rousing opening speech from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (himself a 2016 GOP presidential prospect), Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez lambasted incumbent John Hickenlooper for his perceived absence of leadership. Beauprez identified Hickenlooper’s stance on Coloradoans’ Second Amendment rights and the state’s burgeoning oil and gas industry (particularly on fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline) as topics of serious concern, and emphasized that a Beauprez-led Colorado would fill the vacuum of leadership left by the Hickenlooper administration.

Additionally, U.S. Congressman Corey Gardner, currently representing Colorado’s 4^th congressional district, interspersed his introductory remarks on Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) with his promise to defy federal mandates like Obamacare and the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Both Republican challengers to the Democrats’ stranglehold on Colorado’s political landscape were enthusiastically received; indeed, judging from the thunderous applause echoing inside the Bellco Theatre, attendees were perhaps more excited to see Beauprez and Gardner than the summit’s scheduled invitees.

Both Republican challengers to the Democrats’ stranglehold on Colorado’s political landscape were enthusiastically received; indeed, judging from the thunderous applause echoing inside the Bellco Theatre, attendees were perhaps more excited to see Beauprez and Gardner than the summit’s scheduled invitees.

While the Western Conservative Summit undeniably concentrated conservative Coloradoans’ optimism for their electoral prospects in 2014 and beyond, that political buoyancy conflicted somewhat with my expectations for the GOP’s success on November 4^th, 2014. Following Barack Obama’s resounding victory here in 2008 (and convincing follow-up in 2012) coupled with the Democrats’ takeover of the Colorado House of Representatives in 2012, a Republican like myself had exceptionally little to be hopeful about politically in the Centennial State. A modest GOP comeback in the midterm elections of 2010 piqued my optimism, but its baffling inability to build upon that success in the following election year frustrated me significantly. In its fraught internal struggle to reinvent itself in the 21^st century (specifically between the neoconservative, Tea Party, and religious conservative factions), the Republican Party has to some extent neglected its platform of individualism, opportunity, and fiscal responsibility in favor of a credo of discord, friction, and conflict. Unsurprisingly, this incongruity has oftentimes severely compromised the GOP’s ability to strike the correct note with registered Republicans, much less the political moderates in Colorado. However, my personal experience as the Western Conservative Summit indicated at least a short-term reversal of this trend. While the event admittedly featured only microcosm of the nation’s conservative population, for three days I witnessed an energized and largely united crowd of Colorado Republicans.

…for three days I witnessed an energized and largely united crowd of Colorado Republicans.

While I doubt the growing pains the Republican Party is experiencing during its reinvention are over in our state, the obvious enthusiasm I witnessed at the Western Conservative Summit rekindled a personal (but slightly latent) enthusiasm for being in the Grand Old Party. Moving forward, I sincerely hope the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan can get it done here in Colorado.

Mr. Jia Meeks (the author) smiles with Ronald Reagan.

Colorado Remembers 9/11 with General David H. Petraeus by Mr. Richard Hancock

“I’m not a pessimist, and I’m not an optimist. I am a realist”

Colorado Remembers 9/11 with General David H. Petraeus by Richard Hancock

David Petraeus speaks with moderator Andy Alexander at the Ellie Caulkins Opera House in Denver, on Sept. 11. Petraeus said Islamic State militants do not have strong local support in Iraq and their strength should not be over-rated. (Aaron Ontiveroz / AP)

                  September 11^th, 2001 is a day that will always live in the minds of Americans. This year –  on behalf of the Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab (CELL)- General David H. Petraeus was invited for a national security discussion. The discussion was moderated by former Washington Post Editor, Andy Alexander. Fortunately the CU Denver Political Science department was able to get their hands on a few press badges in order to get us on the inside. The ensuing discussion focused mainly on the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region and Russia/Ukraine. For the sake of my background I will focus on the MENA region.

For those who aren’t familiar with the General’s background, General Petraeus served 37 years in the U.S. military, including commander of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, commander of the U.S. Central Command, as well as a 14 month stint as the Director of the CIA. The General has a freakishly sharp mind which was undoubtedly apparent in the discussion. Petraeus began by making the crowd erupt with laughter by indirectly eluding to an interest in going to a marijuana dispensary. Starting off strong, he claimed – as a result of the surge of Iraq in 2007, Iraq is better prepared for their future. This is a point he consistently reiterated, that Iraq today is in “better shape” today than it was in 2007.

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of Multi-National Force – Iraq, briefs reporters at the Pentagon April 26, 2007, on his view of the military situation in Iraq.

Most people would find this shocking given the current situation of ISIL (the Islamic State in the Levant) in Iraq and Syria. Often the threat of ISIL towards the West is grossly exaggerated. Petraeus cleared this misconception by stating ISIL’s influence will not be widespread because the majority of the group members are not from Iraq or even the Levant region, therefore the group does not have deep regional roots. Many of the members of ISIL come from the Gulf region and other countries including the West. The Kurdish Peshmerga forces had been the strongest opponents of ISIL, until the U.S. recently began airstrikes. However Petraeus did state that the biggest challenge will be what happens after ISIL. Common sense should tell us that using brutality to respond to brutality only leads to more brutality. This is a troublesome reality because the U.S. feels in part responsible to “eradicate” ISIL because we and several other actors in the MENA region funded their creation, but at the same time the U.S. and its allies do not want another Iraq war. But where will the U.S. draw the red line to ensure we do NOT engage in another war in Iraq?

At the first National Security Council meeting in Iraq under the new Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi, the main topics discussed were:

1.  to create an Iraqi national guard
2.  to urge Iraqi Sunni’s to oppose ISIL.

These two topics are in an effort to further develop the Iraqi military and their ability for self-defense without the use of Western troops. Other topics briefly discussed were the coalition of Arab states against ISIL and Iran’s role. The coalition of Arab states is crucial to addressing ISIL’s threat in the region because this move will increase self-determination for Arab states. This also greatly contrasts from the strategy of the Bush Iraq War. Iran is trying to increase its influence as threats increase along the Iraqi/Iranian border. Iran has already been funding Shia militias in an attempt to combat ISIL. Iran’s position is somewhat controversial as many have wondered why Iran didn’t act earlier on acting against the threat of ISIL.

Finally, Mr. Alexander brought up the topic of Syria. When asked whether the U.S. is creating an alliance with the Assad regime, Petraeus fired “the enemy of my enemy is more of an enemy.” Bashar’s regime will not be tolerated because it “is the magnet that attracts foreign Sunni militants.” Yes, for now the U.S. will work with the regime, however the main goals are to fight ISIL, Jabhat Al-Nusra (biggest Al-Qaida affiliate in Syria), and then afterwards Assad’s Hezbollah/Iranian funded army. Let us not forget Hezbollah is labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

Mr. Alexander asked Petraeus if he would ever run for president and whether or not the U.S. should have originally intervened in Iraq under Bush. Petraeus flatly rejected running for president because he values his family more. He then suavely stated that no one will ever know his true position on the Iraq War because it is not in his interest to make his colleagues look bad. Petraeus wrapped up the discussion by stating that he is extremely excited about the future of our country because he believes our generation is the new best generation. Despite his emphatic quote of being a realist, I left the discussion feeling quite optimistic.

From the left – Mr. Richard Hancock (author), and Mr. Matthew Walker