Category: Armed Hostilities 701

After the events of 9/11, not only the United States but the whole world has entered the condition of constant fear. As a response, in 2011, the US commander in chief, President Obama, ordered an operation that aimed to kill Osama bin Laden who was the head of a terroristic organization called Al Qaeda. The organization was responsible for the loss of thousands of lives during the attacks of 9/11. Operation Geronimo captured and killed Osama bin Laden, thus actively supporting most of the American and international community. However, the debates around the legality of the Presidents permission of Operation Geronimo are not going to end. This essay argues that President Obama was legally correct to order and execute Operation Geronimo.

Authorizing Operation Geronimo is the decision that was made by applying the US domestic laws as well as international ones. After the bombing of 9/11, Congress approved the resolution of Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The resolution provided President Obama a chance to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons (Joint Resolution, 2001).

Therefore, due to the resolution, the US commander in chief was legally correct within the US domestic laws to permit the mission that captured and killed Osama bin Laden. The killing of the head of the organization that planned the attacks and was a significant threat to national security was necessary to protect the people. This ensured people of the US that the government is on their side, making them feel secure.

On the other hand, critiques of the legality of allowing Operation Geronimo rely on Executive Order 12333 of President Reagan. The order prohibits assassination by any person or organization that works in or acting as a representative of the United States (1981). Nevertheless, it does not provide detailed conditions or context of the assassination. Without any context or further information, it was difficult to draw lines about what to do and how. As such, Operation Geronimo did not violate any rules and cannot be defined as an illegal action.

The United States was true a victim of the attacks of Al Qaeda. According to the jus ad Bellum, which is a set of international laws, a state can justify its use of global force if the force was used with regard to the United Nations Security Council (Wood). The use of force is also suitable in the context of self-defense following an external armed attack (Wood). Thus, the killing of Osama bin Laden is considered to be a self-defense measure due to the fact that the US is a victim of the attack from an international source. Moreover, preventing function of a terroristic organization and its future attacks is a valuable mission that provides security not only for one country but for the whole world.

In addition to this, international law has a set of rules about the parameters of the allowed scope and the nature of used force. Due to this, entering Pakistan by the US military force and completing its mission to capture the head were legal according to international law. The US forces did not have any other option but to enter the territory of Pakistan. On the other side, there was a critique claiming that the US violated the sovereignty of Pakistan because the US armed force was acting in the country without any communication with local authorities.

The territorial integrity of every state should be respected by other states and not be interrupted without an agreement. However, the United Nations highlights the fact that countries may enter a territory of other countries if there are factors leading to prevent international conflicts (Wood). As such, when the US armed force entered Pakistan, it was not a violation but a legal measure. Considering this, the order and execution of the plan of Operation by President Obama were legally authorized.

To conclude, looking back to September 11, 2001, is terrifying due to the loss of lives, hopes, and dreams of thousands of people. It was an attack that nobody was expecting and even though about it. People were occupied by fear and a sense of loss. The US government was required to do something to support its citizens and maintain national security. Therefore, President Obama decided to order the case of Osama bin Laden to weaken the terroristic organization.

This decision divided the world into two sides, the one that supported Obamas action and the other one that questioned its legality. However, Obamas order was done in accordance with domestic and international laws. Moreover, it gained support of the millions of Americans and international organizations. As such, Operation Geronimo must be considered legally correct and not be questioned anymore.

References

Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. S.J.Res. 23. 107^th Cong. (2001).

Wood. (n.d.). International Law and the Use of Force: What happens in Practice?. Legal UN. 53(1): 345-367.

Executive Order No. 12333. 46. 59941, 3 C.F.R. 200. (1981).

Introduction

In August 1998, US President Bill Clinton declared Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Islamist terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, Public Enemy Number One. Fisher and Becker (2019) add that the United States has adopted the targeted killing of high-ranking members of terrorist organizations to disrupt terrorist networks and exert general deterrence (p. 301). It was then that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began a large-scale hunt for bin Laden, who until that time was considered only a major sponsor of extremists.

As the end result of that hunt, Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, by the US special forces. Ali (2019) claims that the killing of Bin Laden was a major breakthrough in the US led global war on terror that drew unprecedented media coverage both domestically and globally (p. 11). Thus, this paper explains in detail that the operation Geronimo was, in fact, justified by both external factors and international and state laws.

International Laws on the Legality of Operation Geronimo

The liquidation of the infamous terrorist was well received by the US public opinion; the operation has been endorsed by the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and a large number of governments. According to Marwan and Jan (2017), the prevailing scenario gave opportunity to the conservative lawmakers, politico-religious parties and even different radical organizations to come on front and take on the political stage (p. 52). The official views of most countries on the murder of bin Laden are primarily positive. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the operation to destroy bin Laden justified from the point of view of international law. Lavrov recalled that, after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the UN Security Council adopted a specific resolution.

This resolution recognized the right of the United States to act in self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter (The UN Council, 1945). According to this article, any act of aggression, even indirect, against a UN member state gives the right to individual or collective self-defense. The former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon supported that opinion, calling the elimination of bin Laden a turning point in the global war against terrorism (Ki Moon, 2011). The international approval of the elimination of the Terrorist Number One by American special forces officers further proves that the operation was justified, especially in terms of international law.

American Laws on the Legality of Operation Geronimo

The situation with American domestic laws, however, is a bit more complicated. The country has an order of 1976, which prohibits the commission of murders by the US special services. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan have consistently improved the document that banned the planning and execution of political assassinations in any form. Still, in regards to bin Laden, this ban could be circumvented by the concept of Harold Koch, who was chief legal adviser for international law of the US Department of State. This concept claims that, under national law, the use of military actions to target specific hostile leaders in self-defense or armed conflict is legitimate and cannot be considered murder.

For that specific case, the formality of the use of the term self-defense was indirectly confirmed by US Attorney General Eric Holder. He admitted that the special forces were tasked with shooting or capturing bin Laden. However, according to the prosecutor general, the attack group had no reason to believe that the terrorist was about to surrender. Additionally, John Bellinger III, who was the senior attorney for the US State Department from 2005 to 2009, referred to the 2001 congressional approval of the use of military force against Al-Qaeda. The US Attorney General has combined these two main legal arguments, stating that the operation to eliminate bin Laden was carried out in self-defense against a military objective.

Counterarguments on the Legality of Operation Geronimo

Amnesty International had pretenses for a number of legal and ethical aspects of the assassination  such as the fact that bin Laden was not captured alive, despite his disarmament. In this matter, one is confronted with the nodal concept of self-defense. Is it legitimate to call state self-defense the murder of a person who calls themselves the leader of an organization about whose activity there has been no reliable data for several years?

Moreover, can the murder of bin Laden, his wife, and son be considered a forced measure of self-defense of the special forces? After all, the absence of weapons from those killed at the time of the attack was confirmed even by the press secretary of the White House, Jay Carney. Additionally, Rashid et al. (2018) claim that US covert military actions in Pakistan have further fueled to the fire to the already complex relations with Pakistan (p. 544). The only legal reason for the assassination of bin Laden in such a situation could be the suspicion that the terrorist may wear a suicide belt.

However, the reliability of this version is easy to assess  if one takes into account that the main argument in its favor was bin Ladens long-standing oral assurances that he would never surrender alive. Still, the American legal experts justify the legality of the elimination of bin Laden by the fact that he was at war with the United States, which he himself declared in 1998. Moreover, as Al-Qaeda confirmed the death of Osama bin Laden on May 6, the organization promised to avenge the murder of its leader.

Conclusion

The assassination of the leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, Osama bin Laden, was justified since he had no intention of surrendering to the American special forces. In fact, the elimination of Ben Laden saved the United States from a number of legal problems that would arise, was it necessary to start a trial against him.

Even before the start of the trial, the American government would have to justify the international legal legitimacy of a special forces operation on the territory of a sovereign country. Most countries officially support the assassination of bin Laden as a huge step in battling terrorism worldwide. Additionally, the concept of self-defense is absolutely workable in the case of bin Laden, seeing as he proved to have ties to the US 9/11 terrorist attack, for the Al-Qaeda took responsibility for the act.

However, it is also important to note that bin Ladens trial could be an essential platform for a comprehensive discussion of the origins and nature of the terrorist disease and methods of its cure. Nowadays, the selective application of international legal norms, as well as the expansion of permitted extrajudicial violence within their framework, became an important argument in a new round of terrorist propaganda. Still, it can be surely said that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was, in fact, justified, as he presented an international danger as one of the most notorious terrorist leaders. The operation Geronimo was accepted as fully legal both by international and American domestic laws.

References

Ali, A. (2019). Framing the killing of bin Laden in national press: implications for us public diplomacy. Journal of Security Studies and Global Politics, 4(1), 1118. Web.

Fisher, D., & Becker, M. H. (2019). The heterogeneous repercussions of killing Osama bin Laden on global terrorism patterns. European Journal of Criminology, 18(3), 301324. Web.

Ki Moon, B. (2011). Secretary-General, calling Osama bin Ladens death Watershed Moment, pledges continuing United Nations leadership in global anti-terrorism campaign | Meetings coverage and press releases. United Nations. Web.

Marwan, A. H., & Jan, F. (2017). Representation of Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani, British and American media: A case study of the Abbottabad operation. PUTAJ  Humanities and Social Sciences, 24(2), 5260.

Rashid, M. I., Javaid, U., & Shamshad, M. (2018). Pakistan-US Relations after 9/11: Points of Divergence. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 33(2), 541553.

The UN Security Council. (1945). United nations Charter (full text). United Nations. Web.

Introduction

Anaconda was a military operation carried out by an international coalition led by the United States of America against the forces of the terrorist organization al Qaeda in Afghanistan in March 2002. One of the most significant and famous operations of the global war on terrorism. During the operation, the original plan did not work, but thanks to the coordinated command, the military campaign came to a realization. The seven basic principles of the command used include competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, mission orders, commanders intention, discipline imitative, and risk acceptance. The success was largely based on its leaders and their approach to strategic planning and organization.

The Principle of Mission Orders

After the fall of Kabul and the fortified complex of Tora Bora in November-December 2001, part of the al Qaeda militants retreated to the Gardez region in southeastern Afghanistan. American intelligence data in early 2002 showed that militants were regrouping in the Shahikot valley and preparing for active hostilities. It was decided by the United States command to start a strike. This action was done to destroy the grouping activity of enemies before it restarts (Ye, 2018). Planning, understanding the strategic importance of the moment, and adapting to the situation allowed the US military to gain a competitive advantage.

The Principles of Disciplined Imitative and Mutual Trust

Operation Anaconda was carried out from 2 to 18 March 2002. The original plan called for a hammer and anvil scheme aimed at the strategy in which US-loyal Afghan forces would enter the valley, and two American battalions would block all exits from it. This was planned to avoid the enemys encirclement. Serious miscalculations were made at the planning stage of the operation (Caruso, 2019). Al Qaeda fighters were ready for defense, which was not planned by the US Army.

The operation showed that difficulties and unexpected developments arose in the process. At the same time, the principle of trust was respected, and the US military continued to follow the commands. This made it possible to achieve the effectiveness of actions, despite the process. The commander trusted his military representatives, their abilities, and forces, and used them as a strategic resource. They, in turn, trusted their actions and lives, following the instructions of the commander.

The Principle of Risk Acceptance

The most famous event of operation Anaconda was the battle on the ridge of Takur Ghar on March 4. Due to the lack of coordination of their actions, American special forces units were ambushed three times a day at the Takur Ghar height, as a result of which two heavy transport helicopters were damaged and the third was destroyed. Further, using additional aviation forces, which played a very significant role in the operation, the coalition forces managed to enter the Shahikot valley and comb it (Caruso, 2019). By this time, most of the al-Qaeda operatives had either died or left the valley safely. Nowadays, the battle in the Shahikot Valley remains one of the largest battles involving US ground forces in Afghanistan.

The Principle of Competence

The US command declared Operation Anaconda a major success for the coalition, but this statement was ambiguously perceived in army circles. As a result of Anaconda, a lively discussion unfolded about why the aviation component of the coalition forces was not given due attention at the planning stage, which led to very great difficulties in the interaction of ground units with strike aircraft. The experience of this operation led to an improvement in the mechanisms of interaction between the Air Force and the US Army. Therefore, in operation Anaconda, the competence of the command staff and the use of resources remains in question (Greentree, 2021). However, the effective use of other principles of command no doubt made it successful.

The Principles of Commanders Intent and Shared Understanding

The intentions of the command were brief, clear, and understandable, and were followed throughout the entire operation. The key task from beginning to end of the operation was the elimination of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. For Operation Anaconda, which captures a large number of resources, it was important to have a mutual understanding among its participants and leadership. Countries united and effectively used the opportunities provided. The joint choice of General Franks to lead a key operation while maintaining a multi-management structure for the entire process also proved to be an effective decision (Caruso, 2019). For the military forces that participated in the operation, mutual understanding and trust helped to adapt to unexpected situations on the battlefield.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the well-coordinated actions of the US military, and adherence to the principles of command, made it possible to reduce the danger of the al Qaeda organization. The effective use of the principles of command allowed leaders to organize people, and appoint a commander for them, who could regulate processes. While Operation Anaconda has some ambiguous aspects, overall, it can be described as one of the most successful. High-quality command and coordination made it possible to adapt to the unexpected in the course of the operation and get sufficient results.

References

Caruso, D. (2019). Operation Anaconda. The Oral History Review, 39(2), 334-336. Web.

Greentree, T. (2021). What went wrong in Afghanistan?. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 51(4), 7-22. Web.

Ye, W. C. (2018). US military operations in Afghanistan: Sun Tzus view on opportunities and challenges. Advances In Natural And Applied Sciences, 12(7), 10-13. Web.

The Treaty of Versailles is an official document that ended the First World War on June 28, 1919. This is the most important result of the Paris Peace Conference, in which most countries of the world discussed issues of cooperation and concluded truces. When signing the armistice, many German leaders believed that the Fourteen Points would form the basis of a future peace treaty. However, when the heads of government of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy met in Paris to discuss the terms of the agreement, the European contingent of the Big Four had a completely different plan. Considering Germany as the main initiator of the conflict, the European Allied Powers eventually imposed stricter contractual obligations on defeated Germany. Although the word surrender was not used anywhere, but the terms of the truce were quite strict and, in some way, unfair. The Versailles peace settlement is a fundamentally erroneous agreement of the superpowers, which unfairly punished Germany and its citizens.

After the official end of the First World War, Germany became the sole culprit of its unleashing with all the ensuing consequences. The Entente countries and their allies, who conducted preliminary negotiations in Paris without the Germans participation, agreed that the treaty should discuss several essential aspects. These aspects include the payment of reparations, the cession of part of the territory, the limitation of armed forces, and the acceptance of responsibility for the war (Kiger, 2019).

This also included other conditions to prevent a repeat of what happened in 1914-1918. Perhaps the most humiliating part of the treaty for defeated Germany was Article 231, known as the War Guilty Clause (Gozzi, 2019, p. 160). This article forced Germany to take full responsibility for initiating the First World War. Hence, the defeated country had to admit guilt for starting the war and compensate for the damage done to other countries.

All privileges concerned only the countries included in the treaty, and Germanys rights were severely curtailed. Accordingly, there was no benefit to the country from humiliation. The German delegation initially refused to sign the peace treaty because, according to the Germans, it was of an ultimatum nature (Neiberg, 2017, p. 27). Germany proposed to make several significant modifications to the document. The Entente countries subsequently rejected all changes, except only a few minor points, such as holding a referendum in Upper Silesia. In response to the refusal of the Germans to sign the treaty, they threatened to occupy the whole of Germany, giving the Germans five days to think (Desai and Desai, 2020, p. 203).

The threat was real, and the population was also starving due to a severe food crisis. In this situation, the Weimar National Assembly had to accept an ultimatum after a sharp debate (Desai and Desai, 2020, pp. 203-204). Although the Germans signed the treaty, they simultaneously expressed their protests and disagreements.

The Treaty of Versailles dictated very difficult conditions for Germany, and it was no accident that most Germans considered it humiliating and enslaving. These provisions were soon skillfully used by Nazi propaganda. Germany, together with its allies, was declared the only aggressor, through whose fault the First World War began (Blakemore, 2019). However, many historians and scientists agree that this guilt should not be regarded unambiguously (Blakemore, 2019). The First World War was caused by more complex and difficult reasons than just the militarism of Kaiser (World War I, 2021). Thus, the guilt of Germany was unjustifiably measured not only from the point of view of morality but within the framework of preconceived beliefs.

Germany was circumcised by the victors from all sides, lost its overseas colonies, and strong restrictions were imposed on the size of its army. According to the treaty, the German armed forces were limited to a 100-thousandth land army, and compulsory military service was canceled (ONeill, 2020).

The main part of the navy was subject to transfer to the winners. Strict restrictions were also imposed on constructing new warships; it was forbidden to have many modern types of weapons, such as combat aircraft and armored vehicles. In addition, Germany was forbidden to have planes, airships, tanks, submarines, and vessels with a displacement of more than 10 thousand tons (Treaty of Versailles). The countrys fleet could include six light battleships, six light cruisers, as well as 12 destroyers and torpedo boats, such a tiny army was already unsuitable for the defense of the country.

Germans were charged with all material responsibility for the damage caused by the war. The amount of reparations that the winning countries demanded from the Weimar Republic was initially estimated at about 20 billion gold marks (Mulder, 2020, p. 513). Soon, this figure grew as much as 269 billion gold marks (Fischer, 2019, p. 402). In addition, Germany was obliged to give up 90 percent of its merchant fleet, which also hit the economy of the young Weimar Republic very hard. German foreign assets in the amount of $7 billion were seized. Within ten years, Germany has pledged to supply France with up to 140 million tons of coal, 80 million tons to Belgium, and 77 million tons to Italy.

The calculations were based not only on military damage, the cost of destroyed houses, submerged ships, pension payments to war invalids, widows, and orphans. Germany also had to pay reparations for the damage inflicted by the Austro-Hungarian troops on the Entente countries because nothing could be recovered from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy since it no longer existed. The German economy caused by the war and the high level of inflation, even with a very strong desire, could not in any way contribute to the full payment of reparations. In addition, to motivate the debtor, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr region, the main industrial region of Germany, in 1923.

The Weimar Republic has lost huge territories, 80 percent of iron ore reserves and 36 percent of steel production (Jackson, 2019, p. 367). Besides, the country has lost almost a third of coal reserves, 40 percent of all blast furnaces, and more than 15 percent of agricultural land. Moreover, part of the countrys territory was under the administration of the League of Nations. Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to France, West Prussia, and Posen in large part to Poland, the north of Schleswig to Denmark, the Gluchin region of Silesia to Czechoslovakia, and so on.

The Germans considered the humiliating treaty a dictate of the winners. In addition, the majority of the population perceived democracy as an alien order imposed by the victorious countries  the struggle against Versailles began. Politicians who called for restraint and compromise with the West were accused of weakness and betrayal. This prepared the ground on which the totalitarian and aggressive Nazi regime subsequently grew. Exactly twenty years after the end of World War I, Germany unleashed World War II. But Germany did pay reparations, according to the Versailles Treaty. Thus, the treaty can be considered one of the most unsuccessful and controversial documents in world history. In opposition to it, Hitler managed to revive the German Reich in a much worse hypostasis, and the world tragedy was repeated with even greater victims (Hanska, 2020, p. 37). It is not surprising that at first, the sentiments of extremism began to grow among the countrys population, and then fascism altogether.

In conclusion, the Treaty of Versailles brought Germany to its knees, putting forward cruel and merciless conditions. Germany, which lost the war, lost colonies, and parts of its territories in favor of its neighbors and pledged to pay astronomical reparations. The country had the right only to a small army of 100 thousand people for such a state without aviation, armored vehicles, and a fleet. The country found itself at a disadvantage and was forced to concessions to the winning countries. The agreement was unprofitable for Germany, and many believed that it could not be signed, but it still had to be done. Moreover, the Nazis very often referred to 1919 as the starting point of the humiliation of Germany and talked about a stab in the back. Despite such unequal and unfair demands on the Weimar Republic, the country could withstand the onslaught from the outside and did not allow itself to be ruled and pushed around as it pleased.

Reference List

Blakemore, E. (2019) How the Treaty of Versailles ended WWI and started WWII. Web.

Desai, B. H., and Desai, J. B. (2020). On the century of peacemaking at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles: looking back to look ahead. International Studies, 57(3), pp. 201-222. Web.

Fischer, C. (2019). Germany, Versailles, and the limits of nationhood, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 30(2), pp. 398-420. Web.

Gozzi, G. (2019) Rights and civilizations: a history and philosophy of international law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hanska, J. (2020) War of time: managing time and temporality in operational art. Rovaniemi, Finland: Springer International Publishing.

Jackson, P. (2019) Great Britain in French policy conceptions at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 30(2), pp. 358-397. Web.

Kiger, P.J. (2019) The Treaty of Versailles punished defeated Germany with these provisions. Web.

Mulder, N. (2020). A retrograde tendency: the expropriation of German property in the Versailles Treaty, Journal of the History of International Law/Revue dhistoire du droit international, 22(4), pp. 507-535. Web.

Neiberg, M.S. (2019) The Treaty of Versailles: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

ONeill, A. (2020) German military and navy structures restrictions outlined in the Treaty of Versailles. Web.

Treaty of Versailles (no date). Web.

World War I (2021). Web.

Introduction

Former President Obama was the US commander-in-chief who authorized the Geronimo operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden  the most wanted man at the time. Various reports show a series of consultations between the National Security Council (NSC) and the president way before the strike was executed. President Obama gave executive orders for Osama bin Laden to be killed in a military operation christened Geronimo. The killing ended decade-long of a search mission to capture fugitive Bin Laden. It brought about relief to the international community and American citizens in the wake of the September 11 bombing of the Twin Towers by the Al Qaeda terrorist group. However, dissenting voices have downplayed President Obamas active role in the execution. This paper believes that according to the American constitution, Obama had the executive authority to approve and execute operation Geronimo.

Supporting Arguments

When the issue is put into proper perspective, there is a need to interrogate the executive decision based on domestic and international law. Such an interrogation would help understand the legality that President Obama leveraged to authorize operation Geronimo. The legality of authorizing the operation can be located in Former US President Reagans Executive order number 12333, which provided that no American civil servant had the right to assassinate another. However, the Order fell short of contextually defining what an assassination was (Wachtel, 2015). Additionally, After the Twin Tower bombings, the US Congress passed a resolution to authorize the use of military force, which allowed the commander-in-chief to use all appropriate and necessary force against organizations, countries, and persons considered to have planned, committed, authorized, or assisted in the September 11terrorist attacks. Under the Congress resolution, President Barrack Obama was within his rights as the US commander-in-chief to execute such orders, which were within the purview of the US domestic laws after the September 11 Twin-Tower bombings.

Questions have also arisen on how the operation was executed and if it complied with the laws that govern armed conflict compared to military necessity, discrimination, and proportionality. In the first instance, the operation complied with military necessity because it was a response necessitated by Bin Ladens September 11 terrorist attack that also posed a threat to the lives of American citizens and the international community through terrorism. On proportionality, one can argue that the force used in operation was proportional to the situation then. The threat that Bin Laden posed to the security agents who raided his hideout required the actions carried out by the team because he was armed and ready to strike. Finally, the was no issue of discrimination in the operation because the people who died in the mission were not targets of the operations but should be regarded as collateral damage. Therefore, operation Geronimo was a legit military exercise that fully complied with armed conflict laws.

There are still some quarters that are still doubtful whether President Obamas executive orders in authorizing the operation complied with international laws. Certain rules in International law provide a window for a country to justify the use of military force internationally as a form of self-defense, or if the United Nations Security Council has expressly authorized such a force. The US was a victim of the 9/11 attacks by Osama Bin Laden, and its actions to capture him at all costs are to be considered an aspect of self-defense to protect its people from further attacks. On the other hand, International law also provides the jus in bello rules that define the parameters of the scope and nature of the force used in such a situation (Hodgin, 2014). In this regard, America had the legal authority originating from international law to enter Pakistan and execute its operation. Therefore, allegations that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty without their involvement are baseless. Even though the UN Charter emphasizes territorial sovereignty that all nations must respect, it also creates a window where self-defense can be used to justify a breach of a countrys sovereignty when pursuing its aggressors (Hodgin, 2014). Therefore, President Obama had the legal authority to pursue Osama bin Laden into Pakistan in self-defense.

Conclusion

The September 11 terrorist attack by Osama Bin Laden forced America to change its tact on how it defended itself when faced with such hostilities. Congress resolved to pursue the perpetrators of the attack through legislation that gave the President the power and authority to do so. President Obama authorized the military attack on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda after his hideout was identified. He drew his power and legal authority from the resolution passed by Congress after the 9/11 attack. However, after executing the operation, questions arose about the origins of such authorizations concerning domestic and international laws. Further questions were also posed about how the mission was carried out and compliance with the laws of armed conflicts. The paper has answered these questions with the view of maintaining that President Obama had the legal authority to order and execute operation Geronimo.

References

Hodgin, S. (2014). Killing Osama Bin Laden: Legal and necessary. Widener Law Review, 20(1), 1- 26.

Wachtel, H. (2015). Targeting Osama bin Laden: Examining the legality of assassination as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Duke Law Journal, 55(677), 680-693.

Clausewitz was a notable general and a strategist who theorized about war and its essential elements. He focused on such aspects as defense, offense, and combat, actively using Buonaparte as an example due to them being contemporaries and enemies at one point (Clausewitz, 2020). The theorists suggested several new concepts related to warfare, such as moral forces, the fog of war, and the center of gravity (COG) (Clausewitz, 2020).

Despite those being approximately two centuries old, they remain relevant, although their significance is operational rather than strategic (Echevarria II, 2016). The COG also retains military planning importance, evident by the US Army rediscovering the concept and applying it to modern-day warfare (Coker, 2017). This paper will discuss the original understanding of the idea and its current perception.

Clausewitz references the COG throughout his signature work, On War. First, he describes the battle, or the conflict, as the true center of gravity (Clausewitz, 2020, p. 248). That definition may be incongruent with how Clausewitz explains the concept later but does not directly contradict it. The COGs essence is revealed when Clausewitz (2020) discusses a victorys effect, which is ultimately dependent on how massive and mobile the conquered enemy troops are. Using an analogy from mechanics, the theorist refers to that mass concentration as the COG and concludes that a blow against it will be the most effective (Clausewitz, 2020).

However, those centers of gravity manifest for both sides, meaning that an army will employ its center against the enemys, potentially determining the wars outcome (Clausewitz, 2020). Meanwhile, attacking smaller parts could be a waste of force, and it tends to happen due to limitations associated with assaulting the COG (Clausewitz, 2020). Overall, the COG is the highest concentration of ones own and enemy force and movement.

While discussing offense, Clausewitz attempts to integrate the concept into the best strategy. He believes that a crucial part of military planning involves identifying the opposing sides centers of gravity to consequently reduce their number to one (Clausewitz, 2020). For instance, Frances centers are Paris and the military force, so conquering the former or defeating the latter several times in battle will leave a singular COG (Clausewitz, 2020).

Performing both actions will ideally result in Frances defeat because the implication is that the army is divided between the two, so no one will continue waging war from the French side (Clausewitz, 2020). However, the strategy ignores a nations plans regarding its enemy, which may not necessarily imply total destruction, and the fact that the military force could be spread across the country (Clausewitz, 2020). Additionally, Clausewitz (2020) infers that if reducing the adversarys centers of gravity proves impossible, the army is likely participating in two wars, each possessing its unique goal. This understanding brings one to the first definition of the COG as the conflict itself and justifies it.

Clausewitzs ideas do not apply to every war in existence. Some wars are waged to reach a settlement, and the COG may not occur due to insufficient pressure from both parties, meaning that they purposefully avoid great risks and sacrifices (Clausewitz, 2020). Applying the COG to non-combatant operations, which are common nowadays, would also be challenging, but the same is true for reconceptualizing it to adjust to modern-day warfare.

After rediscovering Clausewitzs theory, the US military started applying it to various operations worldwide. A notable example would be the Iraq War, where the use of COG was openly considered (Eikmeier, 2017). However, its application was a failure, as evident by the eventual disbandment, meaning that the American forces failed to target the correct COG (Coker, 2017). According to Eikmeier (2017), the choice was between the government and population, and by selecting the former, the US military only provoked more insurgence among the people. The event implied two possible conclusions: Clausewitzs COG is no longer applicable to modern-day warfare, as the forces acted according to the original concept, and the fact that it requires a different reading considering the altered circumstances.

As previously established, Clausewitz focused on the massiveness of force and movement while describing the COG. However, he could have implied that the focal point is spiritual instead of strictly material, as Russia, for instance, sacrificed its capital and still prevailed in the war against Napoleon (Coker, 2017). Therefore, while the past, which Clausewitz managed to discuss in terms of his concepts, appeared absent of nuance, the contemporary events were more ambiguous, and the current times are radically different. According to Eikmeier (2017), many people criticize the COG, despite its supposed utility. Some believe that the concept has too much ambiguity, which is detrimental to building military plans and advancing the doctrine (Eikmeier, 2017).

Simultaneously, they are also attempting to clarify the COGs definition and factors contributing to reaching objectives and impacting the operational environment (Eikmeier, 2017). Others deny that the concept has utility and find it completely outdated, not serving any purpose nowadays (Eikmeier, 2017). Out of the two, the former point at least acknowledges some ambiguity, while the latter takes the concept literally and removes nuances associated with COGs maturity throughout the centuries.

Both positions reflect the current issue with the COG, but abandoning it altogether, as the second one suggests, does not seem sensible. Many military concepts developed by those who predated Clausewitz by centuries, such as Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, remain relevant, although the environment where they were conceived and the present one have nothing in common (Eikmeier, 2017). The same could be said in the COGs defense, as the idea appears simple  the adversary can be defeated by focusing on a certain point (Echevarria II, 2016). While in the past, the options were limited (the capital or the military force), they can be expanded or rewritten to reflect the new reality.

The failed attempt in Iraq reveals the failure to grasp and apply the concept because the US military did not consider long-term consequences rather than its inherent faultiness. Therefore, reworking the COG may benefit future operations considering the extant utility.

In conclusion, Clausewitzs COG is a crucial element in warfare, playing a significant role in determining a conflicts outcome. While originally it was the battle itself or a concentrated mass manifested in the military force or the capital, the concept can be subject to expansion, as evident by more recent wars. Sometimes the COG may be absent due to the scale being small or the goal not pursuing total destruction. Nowadays, the idea is more nuanced than ever, and following Clausewitzs words literally might be reckless. The concept is still updating but whether it will be required to perform staggering operations in the future remains a mystery.

References

Clausewitz, C. von. (2020). On war. Sanage Publishing House.

Coker, C. (2017). Rebooting Clausewitz: On War in the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press.

Echevarria II, A. J. (2016). Strategic thought: The relevance of Clausewitz. In G. Kassimeris & J. Buckley (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to modern warfare (pp. 17-30). Routledge.

Eikmeier, D. C. (2017). The center of gravity: Still relevant after all those years? Army University Press. Web.

The topic I would like to know more about is Reinhard Heydrichs involvement in the final solution and his hatred towards the Jews, as well as his assassination history. Reinhard Heydrich was a high-ranking Nazi official and one of the main architects of the Holocaust. He was born in 1904 in Czechoslovakia to a Protestant family, and his father was an influential officer in the German army. Heydrich joined the Nazi party in 1931 and quickly rose through the ranks, becoming one of Adolf Hitlers most trusted advisors. In 1942, he was appointed head of the Gestapo, Nazi Germanys secret police force, and he also served as Deputy Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia (a region in Czechoslovakia that had been annexed by Germany). Moreover, Heydrichs role in the Holocaust was primarily as the head of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA), which oversaw all Nazi security services and was responsible for implementing the Final Solution (Steinback 160). Heydrich took part in final solution because he supported Hitler and Nazi party, while his Jews hatred was mainly due to their domination in Germany, which eventually led to his assassination.

Concerning the final solution, Reinhard Heydrich involved himself in two main ways. Firstly, Heydrich was a brutal and ruthless leader known for his cold-blooded disregard for human life. He was responsible for numerous atrocities during World War II, including the massacre of Czech civilians in Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane (Allred 15). Reinhard Heydrich was the mastermind behind two heinous massacres of Czech civilians during World War II. The first destruction of the village of Lidice, was ordered as retaliation for the assassination of Heydrich himself. Many people in the village were shot, and all women and children were deported to concentration camps, while the village itself was burned to the ground. The second massacre, conducted in Oradour-sur-Glane, was even more horrific. Six hundred forty-two civilians, including women and children, were rounded up and herded into a barn that was then set on fire (Allred 14). Only few people survived, both massacres were considered war crimes and punishable by death.

Secondly, Heydrich was an enthusiastic supporter of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party and was one of the earliest members of the SS. Heydrichs support for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party contributed to his involvement in the genocide of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals (Russell 26). Heydrich believed wholeheartedly in the Nazi ideology of racial purity, and he was convinced that Jewish people posed a grave threat to the German race. He saw it as his duty to do whatever he could to annihilate all Jews from Europe and implement Hitlers vision for a Jew-free continent. Adolf Hitler insisted in his Jew-free vision because to him, Jews represented everything that was wrong with the world. He believed that they were responsible for all of societys problems and that by getting rid of them, he could create a perfect world free from corruption and greed (Arad 5). Additionally, Hitler saw the Jews as a threat to Germanys national security. He thought that they were planning to take over the country and enslave the German people.

Reinhard Heydrichs hatred for Jews was due to several reasons. Reinhard Heydrich felt that the Jews were responsible for the death of his father. Reinhard Heydrich believed that Jews were responsible for the death of his father because he blamed them for the First World War. Heydrich was convinced that the Jews had orchestrated the whole thing in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine. In his eyes, they were a race of parasites who were determined to destroy everything that was good and pure (Arad 5). Therefore, when his father was killed in action on the frontlines, Heydrich held the Jews accountable.

Similarly, he thought and felt that Jews were dominating Germany. There are a few reasons why Jews dominated Germany leading up to and during the Holocaust. First, they were one of the only groups that were able to own businesses and hold positions in Germany. Second, they were highly educated and had strong institutional networks. For example, Jews controlled almost half of the department stores and grocery stores in Germany by 1931 (Kreutzmüller 99). Likewise, earlier, Ludwig Wassermann became the first Jew to be appointed as a judge on the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany. Lastly, from 1919 to 1933, there were several Jewish members of the German parliament (the Reichstag). Third, they kept to themselves and did not assimilate with the rest of the population, which made them easy to target (Yonkman 39). Finally, they were seen as a threat to the Nazi regime because they represented different values and ideologies.

In addition, Heydrich believed that the Jews were responsible for Germanys defeat in World War I and that they had deliberately sabotaged the war effort. Heydrich was convinced that the Jews had betrayed Germany- they were to blame for the countrys economic problems and military defeats. For example, he believed that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was funded and organized by Jews (Arad 12). Similarly, he blamed the Jews for Germanys economic problems; he felt that they were not contributing their fair share to the economy and were taking advantage of the Germans goodwill. This idea of Jewish treachery was popular among many Germans in the 1920s and 1930s. Anti-Semitic propaganda circulated throughout the country, painting Jews as evil, cunning manipulators who were out to get Germany. The Nazis used this propaganda to fuel their campaign against the Jewish people, culminating in the Holocaust.

At the end, in 1941, British intelligence hatched a daring plan to assassinate Nazi Germanys Deputy Führer, Reinhard Heydrich. The man chosen for the task was Jan Kubis, a member of the Czech resistance. On May 27, 1942, Kubis and his colleague, Jozef Gab
ík, succeeded in killing Heydrich with a bomb planted inside his car (Allred 15). The assassination sparked retaliatory measures by the Nazis that led to the deaths of thousands of Czech civilians. Despite this, the assassination is considered to be one of the most successful acts of sabotage against Nazi Germany during World War II. There were a number of factors that led to Reinhard Heydrichs assassination. One was his role in the Holocaust, another was his involvement in the Czech resistance, and yet another was the bounty that had been placed on him (he had a very high profile).

In conclusion, Reinhard Heydrich was one of the main architects behind the Holocaust and the genocide of European Jewry. He was a key figure in Nazi Germanys SS and Gestapo and played a leading role in planning and carrying out the Final Solution. Although his role in the Holocaust cannot be excused, it is worth noting that Heydrich was also responsible for some significant wartime achievements. Some of these accomplishments includes shutting down Czech resistance groups, capturing Parisian saboteurs, and reorganizing German intelligence. Nonetheless, his central role in orchestrating genocide makes him one of historys most notorious villains.

Works Cited

Allred, Etienne G. SOE and its Contribution to the Allied War Effort during the Second World War, 2021.

Arad, Yitzhak. The Holocaust in the Soviet Union. University of Nebraska Press, 2020.

Kreutzmüller, Christoph. Picketing Jewish-Owned Businesses in Nazi Germany: A Boycott? Boycotts Past and Present. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.

Russell, Nestar. Understanding Willing Participants, Volume 2: Milgrams Obedience Experiments and The Holocaust. Springer Nature, 2019.

Steinback, Athahn. Dark ApostlesHitlers Oligarchs: Göring, Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Revolutionary Totalitarian Oligarchy in the Third Reich. History in the Making, 2017.

Yonkman, Michaela. The Treaty of Versailles and the Rise of Nazism in Germany, 1918-1933, 2021.

Young, Harry F. Maximillian Harden: Censor Germaniae the Critic in Opposition from Bismarck to the Rise of Nazism, Springer, 2013.

Introduction

Many people say that at war, there are no entirely right or wrong actions or decisions. When the victory or defeat of entire nations is at stake, many politicians forget about issues of morality and ethics and can make controversial choices. Some later prove to be ethical and positive, while others may go down in history as dubious and difficult to justify. One event that is included in the second group is the bombing of Dresden in 1945 (Dawsey, 2019). After considering all the relevant factors and information about the attack, I can state that if I were to decide for the Allies, I would not have fire-bombed Dresden, and the reasons for my statement are explained further.

Discussion

First, it seems to me that morale and ethics should still be considered even during military actions. It was inhumane and immoral to murder thousands of innocent people who were not experienced or ready for the bombing (Webb, 2019). Surely, many actions of Germany towards the Allied countries were even more inhumane. However, the war was started by politicians, not by ordinary people and not personally by residents of Dresden, so why did the latter have to pay for the crimes of the Axis Powers? Second, numerous past and current politicians and historians argue that the city did not carry any strategic value for Germany (Dawsey, 2019). At the time of World War II, Dresden was a beautiful city famous for its arts and architecture. While the latter does not play a major role during military conflicts, it still can be considered yet another, less major reason for not bombing the city. Finally, there definitely were other options to show the power of the Allies and weaken Germany.

It is essential to discuss what was lost and gained in the bombing. First of all, the allied states managed to demonstrate their strength and power to their enemies without significant losses in resources (Slawson, 2023). Next, there were three advantages that the Allies gained in relation to Russia. The states simultaneously made it easier for the country to approach from the east and ensured that there was nothing valuable left of the land for the Soviet Union to conquer or occupy (Webb, 2019). Finally, they reminded the country of their power in order to prevent Russias possible desire to start the conquest of its allies after the war ended (Webb, 2019). Eventually, one of the key gains of the Allies was their success in depriving Germans of the ability to communicate freely, as the city had some strategic significance, including communications centers. As for the losses, they included the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people, the undermining of the moral foundations of the allied countries, as well as the destruction of the citys cultural heritage.

Concerning the question of whether the bombing can be justified, one may say it cannot because the primary purpose (to end the war) was not reached immediately but much later than expected. The same result could have been achieved if the Allies had focused on destroying other strategically significant places where no innocent people lived (Priest, 2020). However, considering the fact that informational and other resources were limited, the Allies probably failed to see any other alternative, and since the nations fought for their lives and freedom, this choice can, in this case, be justified.

Conclusion

This is what can be said to the people who argue that in the bombing of Dresden, the Allies proved themselves no better than the Axis Powers. This statement is most likely true, but the former sacrificed innocent citizens while defending themselves, and the latter sacrificed their own people to conquer other nations. The choice between life and death was only for the Allies, and they most likely had the right to use any method to achieve their freedom and safety.

References

Dawsey, J. (2020). Apocalypse in Dresden, February 1945. The National WWII Museum. Web.

Priest, C. (2020). Was Dresden a war crime? The Spectator. Web.

Slawson, L. (2023). Was the bombing of Dresden necessary? Owlcation. Web.

Webb, M. B. (2019). The bombing of Dresden: Was the attack fully justified? Warfare History Network. Web.

War& There are only three letters in this word, but how much meaning and content. Having heard this simple, from the point of view of structure, word, peoples minds create terrible pictures of blood, pain and tears. Visual art is one of the main types of art which manages to deliver the information about such terrible time, which transfer all the feelings and peoples fears through pictures, their pain and disasters, which had to be overcome. Visual arts is the type of art, which is used in modern world with different aims, taking those, which are the most close to the theme of war and politics, the following spheres of social life may be identified as propaganda, communication, war, the signs of some changes and political critics.

Visual arts as an instrument of government (propaganda)

Starting the discussion of visual arts as an instrument of government, propaganda should be mentioned as the main issue, which is used by government to impose its ideas in public. One of the most common spheres, where propaganda is used, is political sphere, when some people, in reference to some considerations, use propaganda as the tool to alter the audiences opinion through the manipulation of narrative art and graphic symbols (Cull, Culbert, & Welch 2003, p.21). Visual propaganda also comprises media, which is one of the main influencer on peoples minds. Media and other types of propaganda give the extended power to those, who use such type of influence on peoples opinion (Jowett & ODonnell, 2006, p.282).

During the war time propaganda in the USA reached its highest level. Patriotism was the core concentration of peoples attention, and navy forces tried to attract as much people as possible in their rows. The slogans like Pull Together Men  the Navy Needs Us with the visual interpretations (Appendix 1) were put all over the country. I was then able to justify the influence of this picture on people, as future solders began to come from different parts of the state. The main aim of the introduced picture by Boomhower, which was first published in 1917 (Appendix 1), pushed on the patriotic feelings of every citizen and the rows of American soldiers began to increase, as it seems to me. In a word, media and other visual arts were controlled by the military sphere. Taking Australian example, visual art widespread in the society is controlled by the government, as film industry, television, with all advertizing, art and other cultural heritage is supported and remains under the control of the government (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, p.367).

The above information led me to the question, whether to consider visual art as the art, or as propaganda. Ruud van Dijk (2008) in his Encyclopedia of the Cold War is sure that propaganda is the tool gradually eroded both the financial and philosophical foundations (p.954). I definitely agree with it as all visual arts are the propaganda in this or that way, if to consider propaganda as the way of influence peoples feelings, emotions and opinion. Visual art provides this very function in the society, to show people some thing, with the aim to influence them.

Visual arts as an agent for political change

Visual arts usually function as the agent of the politics change. The main characteristic of these changes are introduced on the pictures and in other types of visual arts. Visual arts deliver the information to the society about changes in social and political life. The example may be introduced, which is the strong support of the mentioned information, as for me. When the new president is chosen, his/her pictures will be represented to the whole society, in the case if important decisions in the country are provided, the society will know about this either from TV, or through other pictures in the streets. In this case, visual arts play the role of the agent between government and society. In addition, the use of visual arts, as the agents of some changes, is not so new, and it was used for many years in different countries (Hornik & Parsons 2005, p.102)

Having looked on the picture by Saalberg, which was introduces for the audience in 1942 (Appendix 3), the slogan is rather impressive, we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain& Remember Dec. 7th. I see this information and the spoiled flag of the USA as the example of the government politics, directed on the social imposing of other people to respect those, who died during Pearl Harbor attack by the Empire of Japan, and do so that their actions were not in vane. This is the example, to my mind, when government wants to deliver some information to the society through pictures, and visual arts are the agents in this delivery.

The main aim of the agent functions of the visual arts, which I was able to determine, is not just to introduce the information, but for implementation of the ideological ideas in the society (Jones 2003, p.82). All visual arts on the social and political theme have their ideological contest and any changes, which occur in the political and social life of the country predetermine some changes, that is why visual arts are some times considered as the agents of the changes, as the information, introduced there, usually have informative character and changes directed.

Visual art as a political critic

Often pictures, introduced to the audience, express some critiques to the actions, provided by the government. The October demonstration with visual support in London is the example of peoples dissatisfaction with the government actions and the demand to change the course. The picture, made during the London demonstration on October 24, 2009 is the visual, which perfectly shows how society may protest. On the photo, made by James Wray (Appendix 5) the posters with the slogans bring the troops home, no more imperialism wars and others are seen, and in my opinion they are of the great influence. Watching the photo, it may be understood that the main aim of the demonstration and the posters, which are used, is to attract peoples attention to the problem of war in Afghanistan, and to make government take into account the social critics (Stop the war activists 2009).

Pictures and posters, used during demonstration, attract more attention than just words, and crowd, as I see. The development of democratic in the society gives way and freedom to the political artists, who by their work show the dissatisfaction of the whole society and introduce critical theories to the whole country (Carrier 2003, p.170). Visual arts have always been considered as drawings and paintings by me, which are introduced in the museums and galleries, but the modern tendency is that contemporary art is sometimes intended as a political critique or social commentary, it has increasingly taken on a practical role related to social transformation (Salmon 2008, p.8). Moreover, some scholars stress that visual arts in the political sphere became commercialized, in other words, if somebody wants to implement his/her ideas in the society through posters and other visualization, money is the only barrier, which may be easily come through (Meurer 2000). And I definitely agree with this statement.

Visual arts in war

As I was able to determine, the use of visual arts in war and about war are the most exciting and emotional, terrifying and intensional. Portraying children (Appendix 6), the artists have the aim to show the biggest disaster of wars as they are unprotected and cannot cope with the problems, which adults can. Analyzing different wars and identifying the role of children there, I noticed that that during war children become elder, they take arm in their hands, become soldiers and fight for the benefit of their land (Singer 2006, p.71). Watching such pictures, my heart bleeds for them. The pain of children may never be compared with the pain of adults, as children are in the highest level of threat, starting with inner suffering, and finishing with the health problems (Machel & Salgado 2001, p.123).

During the war, children are considered as the most dangerous that middle-aged people, as they have many years ahead of them in which to produce more offspring and renew ethnic group (Sterling 2002, p.63). Such ideas were used during Nazi depopulation of Jewish. The main law of the war is the violence of life, health and physical murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any other murder as well as cruel treatment (Delupis 2000, p.319). Considering the paintings and photos of war, the comparison may be provided about their aims and destination. Battle of Menin Road by H. Septimus Power, 1917 (Appendix 1) in the picture, which shows the very duration of the war, the event is imprinted with the aim to show people how war is held and what people sustain. Moreover, watching this picture I have remembered my uncles, who had died during the Iran war. Living in Iran by myself, I saw influence, which was provided on people by the war pictures, their consolidation in the difficult time. Guernica by Pablo Picasso, 1937 (Appendix 4) is the representation of the consequences of Nazi invasion, the reaction, which is left by them, the pain, which was provided. One more picture is Roll of Honor bronze panel at the Australian War Memorial by Craig Tibbitts (Appendix 7) has the aim to remind people about the death of their friends, the death of others and not to give them forget. The same aim is of the poster Remember Dec. 7th! (Appendix 3). Analyzing the pictures given in the Appendix 1-7, the common theme is introduced there, WAR, and the same aim, not to give people to forget about terrible events of the war time and not to give the war start again. These pictures led me to the question: it is not enough of pain and disaster provided by the previous wars? Why people start them again?

In conclusion, visual art is one of the main deliverer of information, which may function as propaganda, as the reminder, the facility of communication, the identifier of some events and the facility to proclaim of some changes. Visual arts are perceived better that any audio information and that is why it is used rapidly. Politics is one of the main spheres, where visual arts are introduced. The other popular theme is war, and visual arts have mostly social character, and are aimed to remind people about that terrible time and wish never be repeated.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, Year book, Australia (83), Aust. Bureau of Statistics, Victoria.

Carrier, D 2003, Writing about visual art, Allworth Communications, Inc.,

Dijk, R 2008, Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Salmon, M 2008, Opportunities in Visual Arts Careers, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York.

Sterling, EJ 2002, Rescue and trauma: Jewish children and kinder transport during the Holocaust in Children and war: a historical anthology by Marten, JA, NYU Press, New York.

The article The Woman Who Loved Children is rather moving and inspiring. It tells the story of Irena Sendler, a Polish woman who managed to rescue 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis in her country. It was previously unknown until three schoolgirls did research on her for a project and created a play that would later make Sendlers story famous. The following text will explain why the depicted events may be interesting for present-day readers.

Primarily, Irenas story is rather motivational, as it depicts the tireless dedication and bravery that was involved in rescuing the children. The womans heroism takes roots in the time when her father treated Jewish people during a typhoid outbreak, having succumbed to the disease when she was only seven. As the woman explained, she valued helping the oppressed because she was taught that if a man is drowning, it is irrelevant what is his religion or nationality (Attoun 95). This provides context behind Sendlers deed of saving the children.

What may surprise the readers is Irenas modesty, in spite of having received recognition and awards. Sendler did not see herself as a hero because a hero is someone doing extraordinary things (Attoun 104). The woman did not perceive her heroic deed that way and was more motivated to help others. One of the kids she had rescued returned the favor by taking care of her in a nursing home.

The history required to understand the story predominantly revolves around Polish history and Nazi persecution and torture of the Jews in ghettos and sending those who could not escape to concentration camps. While the article itself already provides some of the necessary historical context, such as the depiction of the Nazis forcing 350,000 Jews inside the ghetto and how the torment of the people locked inside intensified, extra information could emphasize the odds the woman risked while saving the children. Thus, the story is not only a tale of selfless heroism but a valuable moment in history as well.

Work Cited

Attoun, Marti. The Woman Who Loved Children. Ladies Home Journal, December 2001, pp. 94-104.