More Bloodshed in the News: The Kenyan Crisis

Over the weekend, Kenya suffered one of its most devastating Terrorist attacks in the nations history. On a normal Saturday afternoon, an estimated twenty Al-Shabab insurgents entered the "WestGate Mall." Everything after that went to hell. The terrorists started shooting everywhere, "spraying random bullets and aimlessly hurling grenades at shoppers." Shoppers from all ages were gunned down in the merciless attack. Men, women, and children from a select group of ethnicities seemed to be "targeted." After a long siege effort by armed forces, the standoff finally ended early Tuesday morning.

Interestingly, any Muslim who was caught between the gunfire was allowed to leave so that they promised to uphold "Jihad." A remarkable story also was released where a young british boy directly went up to a female shooter and told her she was "a bad person." Surprisingly, this shooter gave the boy and his bewildered sister candy bars and said that "We are here only to kill Kenyans and Americans, not Britons...we are not bad people."

This barbarous attack by Al-Shabab obviously had a clear intention-retaliation against the Kenyans for fighting Al-Shabab in Somalia. Recently, the African Union, with Kenya as a prominent leader, has taken the initiative to rid Somalia of terrorist groups such as Al-Shabab in an attempt to finally stabilize the region. The AU has been successive in driving Al-Shabab out of key fighting zones such as Mogadishu and Kismayo (feats the US could not accomplish during the failed Clinton Operation). But Al-Shabab still thrives outside these major urban zones, and the AU does not have the resources or capability to go after insurgents out in rural areas.

So with this attack, a new question has to be raised...what will Kenya do? Will they retaliate like the US did in its war on terror. Or will they grieve and reform, like the Indians did after the 11/26 attack of Bombay? Time will only tell, but my hunch is that Kenya will increase its operation capabilities within Somalia, and could possibly deploy its armed forces into the region.

But is this the right thing to do? Kenya definitely has the resources to engage in such a conflict as it is one of the booming economies in Africa. But the issue I have with Kenya going into a revenge-like war is the aftermath. Obviously Al-Shabab cannot stand up to a full forced army, but it can definitely use insurgent tactics to harass Kenyan soldiers (much like that of Iraqi insurgents against NATO forces). The real goal of any sort of military operation should be to restabilize Somalia so that when forces eventually withdraw, there will be no room for further breeding grounds for such organizations to spring back up. If Kenya can come up with some post-war restabilization plan then maybe retaliation can be justified; however, the country will need the support of the AU and international community.

What are your thoughts on this complex issue?

A Practical Outlook on the Syrian Crisis

So lets get this straight, Syria is a mess. This isn't some easily fixable mess that you usually have your mom (or maid if you're that pretentious) clean up. This is more like calling in the HazMat team to decontaminate a biohazard explosion. And frankly...that may not be enough. Most of America, and for that matter the Western World, has a pretty provincial outlook on the situation. People are polarized between two camps: those for intervention, and vice versa. Those for intervention continuously bring up the "crimes against humanity" and the need for justice (where was this before the West had an inkling about the sarin gas attacks?). On the other side, there are those who vehemently oppose any sort of intervention whatsoever, asking the U.S. and her allies to stay out of other countries internal issues. These people cite the chaos that ensued in Libya after the Gadhafi regime was toppled as one of their main arguments against any sort of intervention. Others cite the lack of capital to fund such an endeavor.

But let me address those two points before I move on. First, with the issue in Libya, there was not an effective post-operation plan set in place. We trusted the local militias too much that in doing so we gave them power, which in turn has caused struggles and violence throughout the country. If we, however, look at Egypt, a country whose issues we decided to stay far away from, the same amount of chaos and violence ensued after. Riots occur on a day-to-day basis, and now, there is even more bloodshed then there was during the revolution (and this was without any sort of intervention at all). When discussing monetary issues regarding a potential intervention, I will refer to an article NY Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a few days ago. Kristof states that “A missile strike on Syrian military targets would result in no supplemental budget, so money would come from the existing military pot. In any case, the cost of 100 missiles would be about $70 million — far less than the $1 billion annual rate that we’re now spending on humanitarian aid for Syrians displaced by worsening war and by gas attacks. If a $70 million strike deters further gas attacks and reduces the ability of President Bashar al-Assad to bomb civilians, that might actually save us money in humanitarian spending. All this is uncertain, but the bottom line is that the financial cost of a strike isn’t a reason to acquiesce in mass murder in Syria.” Practically, intervening already makes sense.

But lets look at the bigger picture. What is really going on in Syria? Most of the world thinks of the conflict as one in which brutal and barbaric government troops are fighting and torturing a revolutionary rebel movement. But in reality, the situation is so much more complex. In fact, the rebel’s who we allegorize as “revolutionaries” and fighters against “tyranny” are in fact a split and very dangerous force. There are three main factions within the rebellion: Pro-Western rebels (Free-Syrian army), Kurdish independency fighters, and Al-Queda backed Jihadis (Al-Nusra Front). Surprisingly, it is an essential free for all between each of these groups. On any given day we could see fighting between the Free-Syrian Army and the Al-Nusra Front in towns such as Aleppo, or we could see Kurds battling it out against government forces in northwest Syria in an effort to create their own autonomous state. The real issue in this uprising has been the development and essential rise of the Al-Nusra front. The organization, now blacklisted by the West as a terrorist movement, is one that is well funded and well led. Arabs from across the peninsula who have always looked down upon the Assad Regime have been whole heartily supplying the Jihadi’s with weapons, ammunition, and vehicles. The organization has gained so much grown in the civil war that it currently looks like the favorites to come out victorious. Other organizations, such as the Free-Syrian Army (who have just now been given funding by the west) have struggled to muster the same amount of might as Al-Nusra or the Kurds, and have been manhandled by government and rebel forces. To add to all the chaos, it is now believed that Iranian forces are inside the country working with the Syrian army to target and track down rebel forces. With each passing day, the Pro-Western force has dwindled in size and more importantly, confidence.

With such a complicated scenario in place, I personally think that it’s too late decided on not intervening. With or without UN endorsement, the West needs to get more involved. If the Jihadi movement picks up in Syria, we could be forced to deal with another terrorist breeding ground situation such as those in Mali, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Egypt. Rather than appeasing all sides at conflict, the US and her allies should focus on supporting Pro-Western forces to not only defeat the capable Syrian army, but to also eliminate the pro-fundamentalist groups that are plowing towards Damascus. The Syrian conflict has now been a multi-year civil war, and with each passing month, the situation continues to deteriorate. Although the international community (primarily Russia, China, and Iran) has been applying pressure to the U.S. to stay out of the conflict, getting involved would provide a much more practical outcome in the long run.

While I do have much more to say about this very complicated topic, I do want to hear some of your opinions. Do you think that there are any other ways of going about the crisis? Should we intervene diplomatically, or will full force? Comment and I would love to continue this discussion.  

Kurdish Independence Fighters

Syrian Forces

Members of the Al-Nusra Front

Free Syrian Army Soldiers

The truth behind cancer care: A First Hand Experience

Cancer is the disease of our generation. From the ever ubiquitous fundraisers, to the thousands of non-profits, the amount of support Cancer patients receive is tremendous. Our health oriented society has placed much emphasis on debunking the mysteries that surround cancer. So practically,with the amount of capital we as a nation spend each year on this disease, shouldn't the level of care, prognosis, and treatment be at all time levels? Unfortunately, in a new study by the Institute of Medicine, the level of care as well as coordination done by doctors for cancer patients is "at an all time low." The study found that the palliative care in the cancer community is shockingly below average. Much of these concerns are highlighted by the fact that there is a "growing demand for cancer care," but  there is a "shrinking oncology workforce." Aside from this logistical problem, one of the more outraging points made by the study is that doctors are usually the culprits behind such poor palliative care. Doctors lack coordination and since treatments have gotten so complex, doctor's are struggling to provide basic information or prognoses on the type of treatment available. In many instances, cancer patients, many of whom have a limited background in the hard sciences, have to do their own research, and contact specific treatment agencies/and more specialized doctors to get the needed treatment for their specific form of cancer. This issue is actually much more widespread than you would think, and I have a second hand experience to such a disaster within our health community. My cousin, a twentry three year old recent grad from the University of William and Mary, was diagnosed with stage two Intraocular Lymphoma two years ago. The form of cancer was so rare that it took more than six months to officially diagnose the disease with a basic from of treatment. Aside from that diagnosis, my cousin, and our distraught family, were left alone. We had to personally look into the disease, and find any sort of treatment that could save his life. By the time a clinical study was found, my cousin had already advanced to the terminal stage of that form of cancer, thus making him ineligible for proto-drugs that were being researched. This ordeal was a very angering experience as it clearly exposed the lack of efficiency that currently plagues the field of oncology. This in essence seems like a very fixable issue. Ideally, it would be ideal to better educate doctors and other members of the health community about the different forms of cancer and how they could diagnose/treat it. Practically, it should be even clearer that the physician himself/herself should be the solution. Rather than making half-assed prognoses and moving onto the next patient, a true physician should do their jobs and work towards actually helping/alleviating their patients. They took the Hippocratic Oath for a reason...