Part I: New American Foreign
Policy Goals in the Middle East

A great deal has changed in the politics of the Middle East and Iraq in the past half century. American foreign policy initiatives in the region have altered with new leaders, crises, and wars. This is to be expected. What is unforeseen, however, is a recent alteration of American goals in the region with the bungling of the Iraq War.

Traditionally, the United States’ foreign policy goals in the Middle East and Iraq have been twofold, security and economic: the security of Israel and American interests, and guaranteed access to cheap oil.1 While these goals remain unaffected, and will still be of concern in ten to fifteen years, a new, less tangible goal has entered into the complex equation of American foreign policy in the Middle East: that of perceived American victory and competence in Iraq. We must save face.

When a disaster strikes, the moment is so chilling that even people not directly involved often can remember for decades what they were doing when the tragedy transpired. Who does not remember where they were when the first plane had struck the World Trade Center or the levees broke in New Orleans? Instead, if the United States government could describe where it was during recent disasters, it would likely respond, “out to lunch.”

Over the past twenty years, the U.S. government has remained a spectator while citizens have dealt with the effects of disasters. The debate over how to handle disasters is often between those who assume that major catastrophes are unlikely to happen, and those who think the government should go to great lengths to prevent all possible tragedies from occurring.1 Republicans tend to favor prevention when the potential disaster is a terrorist attack, while Democrats downplay the likelihood of future attacks.

What is baffling is that the two political parties tend to switch sides when the discussion shifts to natural disasters. The loser in these debates is the American people. Absent from these deliberations is the question: Is a homeland security policy almost entirely based on prevention the best approach? I will argue in this paper that the U.S. should revamp its policy based on prevention to one based on disaster mitigation. Homeland security policy needs to take a more realistic approach or American lives will continue to be lost due to a false sense of security.

“I don’t understand the need for affirmative action, Blacks are now on the same playing field as Whites and women definitely have reached a point where they are recognized in the workplace as much as men are,” said one of my classmates. I looked at her in dismay and asked her, “then where are our Black and female Presidents, legal partners and CEOs; where are they if we are all on the same playing field?”

For almost twenty-six years, the significant developments in human embryonic stem cell research have left many people, nationally and globally, hopeful for its prospects in medicinal advancements1. However, this hope has been somewhat truncated as opponents debate the ethical issues concerning the obtainment of embryonic stem cells. Has this opposition become an obstacle or stimulator in legislative policy regarding the obtainment and use of embryonic stem cells for scientific advancement?

The scientific background of stem cells is deeply rooted in the debate between religion and science. While the obtainment of embryonic stem cells is ethically “immoral,” the behavioral characteristics of embryonic stem cells could perhaps lead to some of the most significant breakthroughs in the biomedical field2. The opposing forces of the United States’ stem cell debate prevent particular bills that would fund embryonic stem cell research from being passed by the federal government. In spite of the lack of federal funding, some states have taken action to support embryonic stem cell research by using state grants to legislate laws that allow the obtainment and use of embryonic stem cells. Thus, the opposition is perhaps the cause for advancement, giving states more incentive to take action as the federal government mulls over ethical issues.


Background of Stem Cells and Embryonic Stem Cells