Stoopid Inglish EssAye!

So, today my teacher is going to give me my essay back... I'm worried about what he'll have to say because I wasn't happy with what I gave him.

For the essay, I had to pick between and exerpt from Noam Chomsky's book, Failed States, and Boot's (I don't know his first name) article Are we the Mongols of the Information Age? and argue AGAINST it. Since I agreed with a lot of what Noam Chomsky said in his book, I figured it would be easier to argue with Boot...but, it wasn't.

The hardest part was finding the proof I needed to "discredit" what Boot said... I would find something and write it out, but I would later find MORE proof that he was actually RIGHT... It was REALLY, REALLY FRUSTRATING, especially since I couldn't just say in my essay, "You know, this Boot guy has a point!" *Sigh* HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH SOMETHING I DON'T DISAGREE WITH?!!

My end result was an essay that I'm not AT ALL happy with... I know for a fact that if it were anything BUT politics I would have owned it, but fate was not so kind... Even now (as I skim through it) I see faults in my statements and it's frustrating.

I'm going to post it here, so I can get your opinions on it. It has to do with Military , so Dave's input would be especially appreciated... I'll let Adrian tear it appart, too, 'cause God knows he pays more attention t politics and worls issues than I do... GAH!

I JUST WANT TO STUDY SHAKESPEARE!!!!!

Jazzmin Wilson
English 101/JH 107
Essay #1
Jan. 3rd, 2007

In paragraph 2 of his article “Are we the Mongols of the information age?” Boot stated, “Over the last 500 years, the fate of nations has been increasingly tied to their success, or lack thereof, in harnessing revolutions in military affairs.” From there, Boot goes on to describe how the Mongols once had the strongest military until the “Gunpowder Revolution” and Europe became the strongest, until the second Industrial Revolution, etc. The fact that Boot believes a nation’s success depends on their military power and technology seems childish to me. It’s like he’s saying; “Only the biggest, toughest kid can rule the playground.” However, I believe that the fate of nations’ is not solely dependent on “harnessing revolutions in military affairs” because there have been victories and revolutions of many kinds and military technology rarely had anything to do with it.

In paragraph 3, Boot states that, “Until the 15th century, the mightiest military forces belonged to the Mongols. But strong as they were in the days of bows and arrows, the Mongols could not keep pace with the spread of gunpowder weapons and the centralized governments that used them.” Though the Mongols were a strong military force, the “Gunpowder Revolution” is not entirely what led to them being conquered. Genghis Khan’s death is a known to be a main cause in dividing the Mongolian tribes, and there were many other actions that lessened their power. Some of the Mongolians converted to Buddhism in the 17th century and other tribes became power hungry and fought amongst each other. Then in paragraph 13, when Boot speaks of “previous superpowers” (meaning countries, governments, etc.), Boot says that, “Their dominance lasted only until they missed a revolutionary turn in technology and tactics.” In the cases of the French Revolution and Russia’s February Revolution, government was overthrown by the people because they were unhappy with the way they were being treated. Therefore, it wasn’t a lack of technology and tactics that lead to the downfall of the Tsars of Russia (Nicholas II and Alexandra Fyodorovna). When Napoleon was in power in France, his army invaded Russia, and though Russia’s army was not as advanced, they had terrain advantage and, under the command of Mikhail Kutuzov, were able to gain the advantage and eventually defeat Napoleon and his army.

Throughout the article Boot gives examples and reasons as to why the “fate of nations” depends on updated military technology, but Boot contradicts himself in paragraph 10. He states, “…we spend more on the development and testing of new weapons than any other country spends on its entire defense. But all that spending produces weapons systems that aren’t much good for pacifying Baghdad or Kandahar. Technology isn’t irrelevant … But our enemies can stymie multi-billion dollar spy platforms by using couriers instead of satellite phones…” Boot has just admitted that enemies (or “terrorists”, because he was speaking of Osama) have been able to get past Americas oh-so advanced and expensive technology. He then goes on to talk about, in paragraph 11, how other forms of terrorist weapons can go by unnoticed. Boot explains, “Our scientific sophistication gives us a reasonable chance of shooting down a nuclear-tipped missile, but a nuclear suitcase smuggled into the U.S is harder to detect.” He, again, admits that these types of weapons are able to get passed ours. Once again, I believe that Boot’s idea of advanced weapons technology being the key to a country’s success is narrow-minded. Even in war, the armies with the bigger, badder weapons don’t always win. There are tactics to consider…not to mention, your communications (or, people you can ally yourself with) outside of the country. Boot even said in his article (paragraph 11), “To stop such stealthy threats, we need to get much better at human intelligence.” Although there are moments in time when weapons technology was crucial to a country’s survival, it has not and will not always be so. It all boils down to the intelligence of the people wielding those weapons. After all, what use is a gun if you don’t know how to use it?