British Lit Essay

Higher Thought:

Divinity in Romantic Poetry

The Romantic period enforced great changes in English poetry: incorporation of layman vocabulary and linguistic structure, abandonment of past poetic ideologies and practices, and the utilization of new poetic themes and subjects past considered unimportant or insignificant. These changes of traditional poetic principles stemmed heavily, and were greatly inspired, from the American and, perhaps more notably, French Revolutions. The Norton Anthology of English Literature writes, “The [French] Revolution generated a pervasive feeling that this was an age of new beginnings when, by discarding traditional procedures and outworn customs, everything was possible, and not only in the political and social realm but in intellectual and literary enterprises as well” (1318). Poets, noticeably William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Percy Bysshe Shelley, felt their age, which scholars ascribe as falling between, roughly, the years1785-1830, were more open towards a new “renascence” of poetic breadth and evolvement casing a more profound exploration of the poet himself. With the political revolutions taking place in the world a new sense of creative revolution followed suit, allowing poetic freedom to emerge and to showcase each individual poet’s emotional, mental, and, as this paper will explore to more detail, spiritual aspects. One of the more notable characteristics of the age was the prominent description of a “higher spiritual power” residing within the minds of man and its significance towards happiness and creativity. As it will be explored further, that “higher power” does not necessarily facilitate the admittance to God, but is also reserved in the sense of a higher state of being, and, or, consciousness.

The poet perhaps best known and affiliated with the Romantic period was William Wordsworth. Wordsworth’s Lyrical Ballads contained a preface, revised and extended with each succeeding edition, totaling three, explaining the many characteristics of the anthology’s works, with those characteristics influencing other poets of that generation as well as poets of future generations. The third preface to Lyrical Ballads, quoted from the Norton Anthology’s reprinting, explains Wordsworth’s own revolutionary thinking and justification towards what a poem, and poet, should be and aim to accomplish:

The principal object, then, which I proposed to myself in these poems [ within Lyrical Ballads] was to choose incidents and situations from common life, and to relate or describe them, throughout, as far as was possible, in a selection of language really used by men; and, at the same time, to throw over them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to incidents and situations interesting by tracing in them…the primary laws of our nature: chiefly, as far as regards the manner in which we associate ideas in a state of excitement. (1438)

Each of these points of Wordsworth’s poetic practice was radically indifferent to past ideology of poetry, formed, essentially, by the neo-classicists within England, especially the “excitement” taking place in the poet’s mind. Wordsworth writes, “For the human mind is capable of being excited without the application of gross and violent stimulants; and he must have a very faint perception of its beauty and dignity who does not know this, and who does not further know, that one being is elevated above another, in proportion as he possesses this capability” (1440). Two points can be taken from this quotation: the first is that Wordsworth’s thinking that one’s mind possesses an underlying sense of strength and creativity and, thusly, admits that man’s mind retains a higher power. In the prior Eighteenth-century, people, including writers, felt that humanity had a precise and limited range of thought and capability. With the rise of the Romantic period, however, these notions were challenged and rebelled against. The notion that man possesses and retains an intangible and “divine” power would have been refuted by many prior to the Romantics. The Norton Anthology goes on to describe:

Through the greater part of the eighteenth century, humans had for the most part been viewed as limited beings in a strictly ordered and essentially unchanging world. A variety of philosophical and religious systems in that century coincided in a distrust of radical innovation, a respect for the precedents established through the ages by the common sense of humanity, and the recommendation to set accessible goals and to avoid extremes, whether in politics, intellect, morality, or art. (1325)

By Wordsworth’s own belief that poets are “to choose incidents and situations from common life, and to relate or describe them…” this new exploration of artistic thinking would unequivocally arise within specific poetic works. Wordsworth’s sonnet “It is a beauteous evening” perhaps best illustrates his own thinking.

It is a beauteous evening, calm and free,
The holy time is quiet as a Nun
Breathless with adoration; the broad sun
Is sinking down in its tranquility;
The gentleness of heaven broods o’er the Sea:
Listen! The mighty Being is awake,
And doth with his eternal motion make
A sound like thunder—everlastingly.
Dear Child! Dear Girl! that walkest with me here,
If thou appear untouched by solemn thought,
Thy nature is not therefore less divine:
Thou liest in Abraham’s bosom all the year;
And worshipp’st at the Temple’s inner shrine,
God being with thee when we know it not. (1490)

Several references within this poem inspire thought towards Wordsworth’s notion that a higher power does exist within the mind of man. “Listen! The mighty Being is awake, / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder…” (Lines 6-8). Wordsworth states that “The mighty Being is awake” clearly suggesting a divine power, and that it makes an “internal motion,” implying that the “Being,” note it’s capitalization implying importance and significance with the verse, lies within. The ending lines of the poem conclude with “Thou liest in Abraham’s bosom all the year; / And worshipp’st at the Temple’s inner shrine, / God being with thee when we know it not” (12-5). Here Wordsworth states that the girl with him is constantly around “divinity” throughout the year, implying a never severing relationship, and that she worships “at the Temple’s inner shrine,” again reiterating an internal power. Wordsworth goes further by addressing this power as “God,” who is “…with thee when we know it not.” The idea of “God” possessing divine power is nothing unique to the Romantic period, but, what is unique is referring to an almighty internal power as “God.” William A. Ulmer, professor of English at the University of Alabama, writes:

Wordsworth transfer the heavenly redemption celebrated in Luke—“and it came to pass that the begger died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22)—to a child in her natural innocence, finding in that innocence, however, not merely a sign of God but a reconfirmation of Christian spiritual deliverance. While “It is a beauteous Evening” ignores Church doctrine, it establishes a resonantly Christian religious perspective for the scene it describes. (94-5)

In the sonnet Wordsworth clearly emphasizes that one possesses and retains a “God”-like power, even if it clashes with societal norms of religion and its practice.

The belief that a higher “internal” power is not solely applicable to William Wordsworth’s own personal belief. A fellow Romantic poet, and friend who aided in the writing of Lyrical Ballads, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, also held this belief. His poem “The Eolian Harp” also provides evidence to this new expressive thinking. An eolian harp, named after the god of the winds, Aeolus, contains strings that, when placed to allow exposure to wind fluctuations, vary with played musical notes. This harp was very common in homes during the Romantic period. “The Eolian Harp” was composed a year after Coleridge married Sara Fricker and was commentary on Coleridge’s love of her and the various emotions that were spawned within that love. The first stanzas of the poem utilize the presence of the harp inside the cottage of the two newlyweds. Coleridge uses the harp as a metaphor for the peace and tranquility given to him by the love he possesses for his wife, Sarah. Coleridge later goes on to ponder that perhaps every man possesses their own “eolian harp”, pleasantly and peacefully struck by the winds within one’s own mind. “And what if all of animated nature / Be but organic harps diversely framed, / That tremble into thought, as o’er them sweeps / Plastic and vast, one intellectual breeze, / At once the Soul of each, and God of All?” (Lines 44-8). In these lines one can see that Coleridge, much the same as Wordsworth, feels that “God” is a divine power amongst nature as well as inside one’s mind. This pantheistic belief is met with criticism within the lines of the poem. Coleridge’s own wife rebukes his comment. “Well hast thou said and holily dispraised / These shapings of the unregenerate mind…” (54-5). Here Coleridge cites that Sarah feels his spiritual belief is unfounded and incorrect. In a book analyzing Coleridge’s use of biblical imagery and natural symbolism, author H. W. Piper comments, “What Sarah here particularly points out is that he [Coleridge] has forgotten that God is incomprehensible, and that the proper response to him is simply awe and deep feeling…Certainly he let the speculations stand as, apparently, the main purpose of the poem” (34). This reiterates that the line-of-thinking regarding the belief that a great power, “God” in this case and the former, lying within the mind was not commonly accepted in Romantic society.

In another example presenting the ideology of divine power within man’s mind comes from Percy Bysshe Shelley. Shelley was in line for a baronetcy and, subsequently, was sent to Oxford for schooling. While attending Oxford Shelley and a close friend published a pamphlet titled The Necessity of Atheism and mailed it to bishops and heads of the Oxford colleges, which resulted in his expulsion from school.

After his expulsion Shelley published “Queen Mab”, a poem about a fairy, Mab, and her journey through a horrific past and present and culmination in a rejoice-filled future. The character Mab refutes institutional religion and maxims of morality, feeling they are the cause of evil within society. In keeping with Shelley’s Oxford expelling pamphlet, one can very easily presume that Mab’s beliefs parallel, even to a slight degree, Shelley’s own. Ergo, as an atheist, one could also presume that Shelley would not harbor beliefs that a divine power would be prevalent outside or within the minds of man. However, Shelley’s poems did not exempt the reference towards such a power.

In his poem “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty” Shelley devotes the entire work towards the admittance and explanation of a higher power. The first stanza begins “The awful shadow of some unseen Power / Floats though unseen amongst us…” (1.1-2). Here Shelley does, in fact, admit that there is “some unseen Power,” note, again, the significance of capitalization. Stanza two decries “Spirit of BEAUTY, that dost consecrate / With thine own hues all thou dost shine upon / Of human thought or form,--where art thou gone? / Why dost thou pass away and leave our state, / This dim vast vale of tears, vacant and desolate?” (2.3-6). Here Shelley ponders why this “Spirit of BEAUTY” is not constant, and can be unattached, leaving man to sadness and despair. Shelley continues the poem by commenting on society’s creation of “God.” “No voice from some sublimer world hath ever / To sage or poet these responses given-- / Therefore the name of God and ghosts of Heaven, / Remain the records of their vain endeavor” (3.25-9). Shelley explains that this “Spirit of BEAUTY” has been given the name of “God” and the existence of “Heaven.” “Love, Hope, and Self-esteem, like clouds depart / And come, for some uncertain moments lent. / Man were immortal, and omnipotent… / Keep with thy glorious train firm state within his heart” (4.37-41). Here Shelley states that love, hope, and self-esteem do indeed cease to be and if man could retain those divine characteristics this “spirit” would be indefinitely present. Within the poem Shelley goes on to recount his religious upbringing associated with his youth and his search for the metaphysical. “While yet a boy I sought for ghosts, and sped / Through many a listening chamber, cave and ruin … / Hopes of high talk with the departed dead… / I called on poisonous names with which our youth is fed; / I was not heard—I saw them not…” (5.49-54). In a book analyzing metaphysics within Romantic poetry the author, Jack G. Voller, writes:

This passage has an autobiographical aspect; Percy Shelley dabbled in necromancy as a youth, but the passage refers equally well to his early literary explorations of the supernatural. Just as he raised no ghosts with his youthful incantations, the Gothic fictions supplied no answers, provided no high talk with the departed dead. The “answer,” if such it is, lies ultimately not in the realm of the supernatural but the natural: (176)

“When musing deeply on the lot / Of life, at that sweet time when winds are wooing / All vital things that wake to bring / News of buds and blossoming, -- / Sudden, thy shadow fell on me; / I shrieked, and clasped my hand in extacy!” (5.55-60). Shelley goes on to cite “I vowed that I would dedicate my powers / To thee and thine…” (6.61-2). “Whom, SPIRIT fair, thy spells did bind / To fear himself, and love all human kind” (7.83-4). Here again Shelley remarks of the “Spirit.” Although his explanation of this higher power differs from that of Wordsworth’s and Coleridge’s label of “God,” it does parallel their belief that a higher power is indeed present.

Correlating with the vast changes of society, i.e. the American and French revolutions, the poetry of the Romantic period carried out a revolution of its own shelling the ideas and traditions that came before it. With the vast expansion and movement of “acceptable” norms, the poetry, and poets, of the period became preoccupied with the “liberation” of man and his powers. The Norton Anthology underscores, “The Romantic period…was also an age of radical individualism in which both the philosophers and poets put an extraordinarily high estimate on human potentialities and powers” (1325). Fitting with the new individualistic “freedoms” pursued by the generation, fresh and enlightened thoughts of a “higher power,” and its place within man, was pursued more extensively. William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge did not abolish the existence, or name, of “God,” but went against the established pietistic notions of that “God” by suggesting divine powers lie inside, not away from, the minds of man. However, this view was not uniformly shared within the age. Percy Bysshe Shelley was noted for expressing atheistic views, yet he to admitted to searching for, and feeling, a higher power above the state of normal consciousness. With past traditions being broken and ignored in the Romantic age one clearly sees that a protrusion of that traditionalistic rebellion is the thinking of what man’s mind truly possesses and is capable of.

Works Cited

Abrams, M. H., Stephen Greenblatt, eds. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: Volume B. 7th Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Piper, H. W. The Singing of Mount Abora: Coleridge’s Use of Biblical Imagery and Natural Symbolism in Poetry and Philosophy. New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1987.

Ulmer, William A. The Christian Wordsworth: 1798-1805. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001.

Voller, Jack G. The Supernatural Sublime: The Metaphysics of Terror in Anglo-American Romanticism. Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1994.

African-American Literature Essay

The Harlem “Dream Deferred:”

Frustration and History Represented in the Weaving of Theme and Form

In 1925, Alain Leroy Locke, the first African-American Rhodes Scholar, said, “Harlem has the same role to play for the New Negro as Dublin has had for the New Ireland or Prague for the New Czechoslovakia.” When humans begin a process of rebirth, so does their environment. This is what took place during the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920’s. Yet, the hopeful bastion of African-American creativity and hope was doomed by financial disaster. By looking at the historical foundations of Harlem and its Renaissance, and then examining a poem by one of its instrumental figures, Langston Hughes, we can trace the emphatic hope and tragic loss of a unique period in American history. Hughes’ poetry, years after the death of the Renaissance, flows through image and structure dichotomies, mirroring the sadness and frustration of Hughes and his generation.

There was exuberance in the city of New York during the zenith of the Harlem Renaissance in 1926. A major population shift after Reconstruction involved, approximately, five million African-American migrants. These migrants ventured to northern states where a burgeoning process of industrialization was taking place, increasing chances of employment and financial well-being. In addition, another notable lure of the American north was the diminished presence of racism (the creation of the Klu Klux Klan took place during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War).

However, despite the containment of racist ideology, the floundering economy and environmental factors of the American South after the war played the biggest role. In his seminal book on the subject When Harlem Was in Vogue, David Levering Lewis writes, “The real reason for the mass migration was economic. The deadly blows to the South’s economy from natural disasters during 1915 and 1916—drought and rain and the boll weevil—launched the evacuation” (21).

So, the migration began. New York City had been a major metropolis of American society and industry, and the section of the city known as Harlem became a vital center of a re-birth of artistic culture and ideas: a community of writers, poets, artists, and dancers, amongst many others, interjected creativity originally quelled by slavery and social slighting. Now, in a community whose artistic ability fed off the participants, African-American culture was changing. Lewis continues: “[the population]…shared in equal measure what might be called Harlem nationalism—the emotional certainty that the very dynamism of the ‘World’s Greatest Negro Metropolis’ was somehow a guarantee of ultimate racial victory” (169-170). This new social optimism was not limited to a select number of the burgeoning populous, but to everyone.

To a remarkable degree that collective optimism touched everyone—the humble cleaning woman, the illiterate janitor, and even the criminal element. Nowhere else in America were ordinary people as aware of the doings of their artists and actors, composers and musicians, painters and poets, sculptors and singers, and its literary and academic writers than the Harlem of the mid- and late twenties (Lewis 170).

However, the Stock Market crash of 1929 blanketed the country in financial destitution. No creative movement could sustain its strength in such impoverishing conditions, especially in already poor sections of the country, like Harlem. The light of the Harlem Renaissance had been effectively extinguished. It is here, in lost hope, that we find Langston Hughes’ poem, Harlem.

When reading “Harlem,” one immediately senses a frustrated disillusionment of the speaker’s current condition. Hughes published the poem in his anthology Montage of a Dream Deferred in 1951, over twenty years after the end of the Harlem Renaissance, a period still very much on his mind. In his essay “Langston Hughes: Cool Poet,” Arthur P. Davis describes the collection; “Actually one long poem of seventy-five pages, this work employs a ‘jam session’ technique that allows the poet to make use of a host of varied, blending and contrasting vignettes to paint a full picture of Harlem’s frustration” (22).

The poem begins with the posing of the question, “What happens to a dream deferred?” (1). Hughes refers to the feelings of disenfranchisement, even disempowerment, to the ideals asserted with the Harlem Renaissance. Where has this “dream,” the Harlem Renaissance, gone?
Hughes supplies the reader with imagery that resembles the withering-away of 1920’s Harlem: a raisin drying in the sun (2-3), the festering of a sore (4), a stench of rotten meat (6), the crusting of sugar (7), the sagging of a heavy load (9-10), and the final image of an explosion (11).

The imagery is very appropriate for the theme that Hughes attempts to create. In addition to the images that Hughes kindles for his audience, he incorporates rhyme that provides a dichotomy to the decaying visualizations.

Beginning with the second line, the poem adopts a rhyme scheme of abcbdedfgf. What is odd about this use of rhyme, considering the subject matter of the poem, is that it has an air of playfulness, lightheartedness. This is a polar opposite of the speaker’s lamentations about the foregone Harlem Renaissance. In their book Western Wind: An Introduction to Poetry, David Mason and John Frederick Nims write on phonetics in poetry that, “…People find [rhyme] fun. Poetry has been seen as the supreme example of the play spirit in human beings…the use of rhyme has been seen as a subconscious recollection of the fun of childhood” (181).

Rhymes do have a sense of childlike appeal and conjuration. If so, why would Hughes use end rhymes, especially in shorter sentences that exacerbate playfulness, when dealing with the vanishing of the Harlem Renaissance? The amalgam of both rhyme playfulness and subject somberness creates a dichotomy and tension against form and tone that mirrors the environment of 1951 Harlem. In another of his essays on the subject, “The Harlem of Langston Hughes’ Poetry,” Arthur P. Davis writes, “Perhaps the dominant over-all impression that one gets from Montage of a Dream Deferred [again, the anthology where Hughes published "Harlem"] is that of a vague unrest. Tense and moody, the inhabitants of this 1951 Harlem seem to be seeking feverishly and forlornly for some simple yet apparently unattainable satisfaction in life…” (142). Hughes very adeptly uses this dichotomy to underscore the frustration experienced by those who had seen the Harlem Renaissance, and the ideals it represented, disappear and not return. Davis continues:

…this theme of Harlem’s dream deferred marches relentlessly throughout ["Harlem"]. Hughes knows that Harlem is neither a gay nor healthy but basically a tragic and frustrated city, and he beats that message home. Because of the fugue-like structure of the poem, it is impossible for the reader to miss the theme or forget it (142).

Immense hope and creativity once filled the streets of Harlem. An influx of slighted people, with new, but unclear freedoms, reinvigorated this area of New York in the 1920’s. This part of the city represented more than just a new home; it represented a life unclaimed. Its subsequent crumbling through the fate of the Stock Market crash crippled the movement, the people. Langston Hughes writes of the sadness and frustration of what was, but now no longer is, in "Harlem." His dream deferred floats amongst dichotomy, and counterintuitive poetic relationships that bring into the mind of his readers what was in the hearts of his contemporaries. It could be argued that the “dream deferred” would float unfulfilled until Martin Luther King Jr. spoke under the gaze of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, speaking to the world the great dream of the Harlem Renaissance and Langston Hughes.

Works Cited

Davis, Arthur P. “The Harlem of Langston Hughes’ Poetry.” Critical Essays on Langston Hughes. Ed. Edward J. Mullen. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1986.

Davis, Arthur P. “Langston Hughes: Cool Poet.” Langston Hughes Black Genius: A Critical Evaluation. Ed. Therman B. O’Daniel. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1971.

Hughes, Langston. “Harlem.” The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. 2nd ed. Ed. Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Nellie Y. McKay. New York: WW Norton & Co., 2004.

Lewis, David Levering. When Harlem Was in Vogue. New York: Penguin Books, 1979.

Mason, David and John Frederick Nims. Western Wind: An Introduction to Poetry. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Who's got Left?????

The loss of Alfonso Soriano (now a Chicago Cub) to free agency gives the Nationals an opening in their roster for left field. I think the most obvious choice to replace Soriano is Ryan Church. But Church comes with apprehensive baggage.

The most recent example comes with his refusal to participate in Mexican winter ball, in which to improve his success with breaking pitches. In 2005 some felt Church did not display either the physical or mental toughness to allow his potential to come through.

Yet, he is by far the best option for the club.

Although he is no spring chicken, Church is 28 years old, which is considered relatively “young” in MLB years. In 196 at bats his numbers (OBP / SLG / AVG) were .353 /.466 /.287 . Although mindful that Soriano had 647 at bats in 2006 (.351 / .560 / .277), Church went toe-to-toe with Soriano in OBP and AVG.

Another option that the Nats have is to play Alex Escobar. In 87 at-bats: (.394 /.575 /.356).

Obviously, offensive numbers in 87 at-bats is in no way a strong prediction as to how that player’s numbers will evolve in 500+ opportunities. Despite this, Escobar has evident talent. That is clear.

However, he has severe trouble remaining healthy. After an in-game shoulder injury last August then-manager Frank Robinson said, “It's like he has a cloud hanging over his head, a negative force…I feel bad for him and I know he feels bad about this.”

100% health can never be guaranteed for any player, but no one should assume that Escobar can remain healthy throughout the 2007 season given his previous health-related concerns.

I would like to see Escobar in a CF platoon situation with Nook Logan, at least at the onset of the Spring Training and the regular season. New Manager Manny Acta said this about Logan shortly after the club announced that he would replace Robinson: "Logan played well during the month of September…Nook has a tool that never goes into a slump and that is speed, especially playing in spacious RFK Stadium. This team has not had a reliable center fielder the last three or four years. We are going to give him every opportunity to win the job."

From that, it appears that the club wants Logan to win the job outright with his performance, which does not attenuate my initial thoughts about a center field platoon.

There is no dispute that Logan needs to improve his offensive production, especially his OBP. His exceptional speed, in addition to making him an above-average defensive player, needs to be used on the base paths. Although Acta has admitted that he is not extremely aggressive with base stealing, no one denies that it is far more preferable to have speed on base as opposed to not. Whether or not any offensive improvements warrant a full-time position on the roster remains to be seen.

In addition, Kory Casto has impressed many in the organization, being named the club’s Minor League Player of the Year in two consecutive years. His 2006 numbers at AA Harrisonburg in 489 at bats were .379 /.468 /.272.

However, I think Casto should get ample playing time during Spring Training, but should start out in AAA Columbus. If at any point during the season there is an opening in either LF or CF, he should be called up.

There are many factors that will determine the opening day lineup. Many won’t occur until Spring Training, should the roster remain as it does currently.

However, of all the outfielders, excluding RF Austin Kearns, Ryan Church has had the most consistent success (which is slim in and of itself).

I think that Church’s talent potential, his relatively young age, and his inexpensive contract will make him quite valuable in the months and weeks leading up to the trade deadline of July 31. Church would be an expendable player knowing that Kory Casto would, presumably, improve in the minors. By giving him consistent playing time, his value will be maximized, giving the Nats a better chance of acquiring starting pitching or any other position that needs amelioration.

Obviously, coaches and personnel are going to have a better idea as to how these players fit into the club and its future. But by giving Ryan Church a consistent shot to test his metal, the club will most likely improve an eventual return on its investment.

Thoughts on Iraq

The removal of Donald Rumsfeld from the office of Secretary of Defense will interject new ideas and new policy to the Iraq war. The move, in step with the eventual release of findings by the Baker Institute and the Democratic “thumping” in the recent midterm congressional elections, shows that the environment in Iraq is at a disconnect with the goals of the Presidential administration and the public.

The midterm elections were a referendum on the Republican leadership. The underlying issue that seems to have generated the referendum-feel, and also an increase in voter turnout across the country, was not a national issue, but a foreign policy issue—The Iraq War.

But can Iraq be fixed? Can the hopes of the President that Iraq will be a peaceful, democratic bastion in a region as volatile as the Middle East?

Probably not. At least not in the near future.

A mistake that war planners at the Pentagon and Central Command (under now retired Gen. Tommy Franks) made was that they did not foresee the animosity that was to be unleashed, a virulence amongst Shiites and Sunnis, against one another, that Saddam Hussein repressed under dictatorial control. In fact, they had no substantive strategy for post-Saddam Iraq (referred to as Phase IV of the war plan). Thomas E. Ricks in his book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq:

It wasn’t that there was no planning. To the contrary, there was a lot, with at least three groups inside the military and one at the State Department working on postwar issues and producing thousands of pages of documents. But much of the planning was shoddy, there was no one really in charge of it, and there was little coordination between the various groups (79).

The lack of significant preparation and adequate troop numbers caused Iraq to explode. Looting was widespread and difficult to control. In addition, the minimal number of troops allowed a free passing of select Iraqis into neighboring Syria (and would also be the impetus for Iraqi civilian abuse at the hands of U.S. soldiers, notably General Odierno’s 4th Infantry Division), some of whom would fund characters of insurgency. In addition, it is a prime violation of counterinsurgency warfare to allow a lax control of territorial borders (see Lt. Col. David Galula’s, French army, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, a counterinsurgency “bible” despite its dated publication, 1938.)

Paul Bremer’s implication of de-baathification (removing all individuals once associated with Hussein’s party) and the abolishment of the Iraqi army effectively rooted insurgency in the already unstable country. Roughly half a million individuals were slighted, dishonored, and now without paychecks to support their families.

The current unemployment rate in Iraq is between 30%-70%, with notable percentage differences in various sections of the country. The creation of jobs in the country is essential. This will require extensive amounts of money. Perhaps Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran, can help to build-up the fragile Iraq economy (both Syria and Iran have no need for a continuing unstable Iraq, which would cause an influx of refugees and could insight intra-religious violence amongst Muslims in their own countries).

In a recent article for Newsweek magazine, Fareed Zakaria puts forth this contemplation: “If you think that Iraq's tumult is a product of its culture, religion and history, ask yourself what the United States would look like after three years of 50 percent unemployment. Would there not be civil strife in Manhattan, Detroit, Los Angeles and New Orleans?”

There is one bright spot in Iraq, which is the growing economic strength of the Kurdistan region in the north. “While the government in Baghdad is still haggling over its petroleum law and violence wracks much of the country, the Kurds are about to pass their own oil law. They have already signed contracts with a handful of foreign oil companies, and they’re aggressively wooing more” (Fang, -style: italic;">U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 13, 2006). Fareed Zakaria further adds this notable characteristic: “…it is a Muslim region in the Arab world that wants to be part of the modern world, not blow it up.”

Iraq needs to find a way to allocate petroleum revenue to both Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias. This will generate much needed income if the new country is to grow.

However, the sustained violence curbs development in the country, and security is not at the levels it needs to be. This is the primary difficulty that the new Secretary of Defense will undertake. However, it is a pipedream to assume that U.S. forces can eliminate the sectarian violence in the country. The best hope that forces have is to keep the violence at minimal levels so the economy, based in oil revenue and employment-creation, can grow and become, at some level, self-sustaining without the aid of American troops.

I’m not quite sure how Americans view the situations in Iraq, nor do I comprehend their best wishes and intents (even their realistic goals) for that fragile country. But, we would be kidding ourselves to assume that a peaceful and a working democratic country will take form in the none-to-distant future. It will take many years, possibly generations, for a stable economy to emerge amongst sustained security and prevalent democracy.

However, there is no guarantee that this will happen.

Run, Barack. Run????

A few hundred people crowded onto the property of Virginia Union University in Richmond to participate in a rally for Virginia senatorial candidate Jim Webb. Sharing the stage with him were three of the most famous Virginia Democrats in the history of the Old Dominion: current Mayor Douglas Wilder, current Governor Tim Kaine, and former Governor (and a once hopeful presidential candidate) Mark Warner.

Despite the local stature of these individuals, it was a Democrat from Illinois that received the loudest cheers from the crowd: Sen. Barrack Obama.

I have heard a great deal about the Illinois Senator. He left his first nationwide impression during the last Democratic Convention where he gave a rousing speech. That speech inspired many to think that, perhaps, they were hearing a future President. If so, Obama would be the first African-American President of the United States.

I was surprised to see the Senator with a sense of meekness in the chilly, sunny autumn November. He, at times, seemed as though he was a bit overwhelmed with the attention he has been receiving of late. During the occasions when one of the local politicians would insinuate that Sen. Obama could be the “next President,” he would smile sheepishly, even once looking to the ground, made awkward with the crowd’s cheering.

Who can blame him? Within the past two years, he has moved from “high-level prospect” status in the Democratic Party to starting shortstop.

Yet, his humble demeanor did not derail is ability to inspire the crowd. Yes, he was among members of his own party, who are further electrified with leaders of their own party as Election Day is less than a week away. And yes, he himself is not running for election, but using his “star power” to elect a hopeful Democrat into the Senate. But that doesn’t guarantee that a politician can still electrify the crowd. His strong presence today did not come from an overt Type-A personality, but a genuine honesty and a relatable quality that makes him especially hard to dislike.

One of his best lines recanted the decision-making process he had when deciding to run for public office. He did the two things that every would-be politician does: he first prayed, and then asked his wife for permission. With a yes from both “almighty decision makers,” he decided to run for Senate.

Whereas Mark Warner comes across as a politician that you can like, Sen. Obama comes across as an individual that you like. There is a difference.

To prove this point, after the rally had ended, and the politicians onstage walked down the steps leading to the grounds of VUU, Senatorial candidate Jim Webb was easily and readily accessible for a handshake, picture, or autograph. However, the swarming crowd forced Senator Obama to return back up the stairs and into a VUU building to avoid those eager to meet him.

At one point, every news camera was inches away from Barrack Obama, with the rally’s spectators crowding the Illinois Senator with copies of his two most recent books for him to sign.

As I began my walk back to the Fan district of Richmond, I saw one man selling t-shirts and buttons that read “Obama for President.”

It’s hard to imagine not seeing more of those as 2008 approaches.

Op-Ed Piece

“Hey Congress, Where Ya’ At?”

The current presidential administration bears much of the blame that circulates regarding the Iraq War. The executive branch of the government must shoulder the responsibility of a wartime United States; our President is the country’s Commander in Chief.

However, the structure of the Constitution does not delegate full authority to the branch of the executive during times of war. The legislative branch shares its own authority, and thusly its own responsibility, as well.

The current congress (the 109th in U.S. history) has relinquished its own power of oversight when examining the actions and policy of the executive branch. Oversight enables Congress to examine how their legislation is carried out, in addition to “checking” and “balancing” the other two branches of government.

Under the Clinton administration, Congress formed an oversight process to investigate whether or not President Clinton had used his Christmas card list to petition possible campaign contributors. The Congress took in roughly 140 hours of testimony on the matter. Contrast this with the number of testimony-hours the current Congress took, 12 hours, when investigating the Abu-Ghraib abuse allegations.

The state of military involvement in Iraq has been given slighted attention. In June of this year, the Republican Congress began a debate to decide whether to enact formal resolution to “stay the course” over, the largely Democrat position to, “cut and run.” This debate was the first formal Congressional discussion on U.S. / Iraq military relations since 2002, when in October Congress voted the use of force in Iraq.

In addition to the lowered numbers of oversight discussions in the legislative branch (in the 60’s and 70’s Congress held a biannual average of 5,700 subcommittees, between 2003-2004, roughly 2,100) the current Presidential administration views oversight discussions as an annoyance, and unnecessary. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld begrudgingly attended an Armed Services Committee meeting in August of this year, only after Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) turned Rumsfeld initial refusal into a favorable political issue for the Democrats.

Another example of how the current administration approaches oversight came in May of 2004. The Armed Services Committee, in light of the Abu-Ghraib scandal, asked Rumsfeld and various army personal about proper chain of command. When Rumsfeld was about to demonstrate the command, he was informed that one of his accompanying Generals neglected to bring a prepared chart for the committee to use as a visualization aid.

A lack of interaction between both branches may cause many to feel that it is necessary for opposing parties to control the executive and legislative branches separately. Competition is good for the political market. However, it does not need to come to this. Congress is an independent force in the American government, as is the Presidency. Both need to keep an “eye out” on the other. Had Congress been more vocal about oversight discussions, or more vocal about a lack of cooperation on the part of the Bush administration, perhaps the Iraq war would not be in the position we find it now. It is necessary for Congress to reinvigorate oversight to minimize failures and to better, and quickly, adapt to changing circumstances.

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) said, “You don’t need the [oversight] hearings” when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government. Hopefully, just as Rep. Delay, that ideology will be pushed out of Congress.