In the time of war, the first casualty is truth. Boake Carter.
There is perception and there is reality. Some thoughts pervade and some thoughts provoke. The image is affluent, contented, and serene. The reality is impoverished, malnourished, and bloody. And this reality is depressing. The world has been a witness and victim of wars and bloodshed for centuries and there has not been a stopping point. The recent spate of attacks and violence has made the situation all the more baffling. The duration of wars is unpredictable and the casualties unaccounted for. War is dehumanizing, ruthless, and cruel by definition. It is brutal and its consequences are not just physical devastation, but long-lasting social and psychological deformities.
The world is inflicted with violence, be it the terrorist attacks carried out by fanatics in the name of jihad or airstrikes carried out by governments in the name of anti-terrorist missions. Whatever be the nature of violence, the ultimate consequence is the destruction of humanity. The perpetrators of war have nothing to lose. They exploit the innocent masses who are both the fighters and the fought, oblivious to the real motive of the mindless bloodshed. Wars and violence have triggered chain reactions. Once a terrorist strike happens, the government gears up to fight this terrorism the violent way, and terror strikes again. If history is replete with instances of terrorist attacks and the ensuing devastation, then there are a plethora of instances where the armed forces have tortured the common masses on the pretext of anti-terrorist operations. There are no saviors in war; only mortals who are trying to sort out ego clashes in the garb of economic superiority or a superpower status. Our ancestors fought for the sake of certain religious ideologies which had no real meaning in the life of a common man, but he got involved and affected. Such ghastly acts are being done today in the name of so many other ideologies and the victim and the vanquished is the common man again. Who says our society has become more sophisticated and civilized? The means might have changed, but the proposed end is the same, which is a big blow to humanity and tolerance.
Be it a young soldier or a terrorist, see it through the eyes of a mother. She has lost a son in both cases. And both of them did not know why were they fighting. Imagine the plight of so many orphaned children who have been the victims of violence. And when this phenomenon strikes impoverished countries, the conditions deteriorate to a level that can neither be improved nor changed.
As time goes by, the frequency of violent fervor is accelerating. Insensitivity and lack of wisdom are catalyzing its replication, intensity, and aftermath. The time is not far when the web of war would engulf us forever and barbarism would be an accepted norm.
No one wants to lose a war, so losing morals is a convenient bargain!
‘Humanitarian war’ is a contradiction in terms. War is an act of force that is used by rival parties for blending the enemies into the favor of their own will. Whenever and wherever any conflicts arise between the two revelries then such predisposition for blending the other party has been being used by the so willing merger party. Another authoritative definition on war can be presented: “War is an act of force which aims at making the enemy comply with our will”, writes Carl von Clausewitz at the beginning of last century. War is one kind of means of” (Ditchev, n.d.) establishing the concerned country’s selfness, recognizance, nationality, and self preservation. Absolute war establishes such a dynamic relationship between one rival party’s own will and the will of the other: one rival party’s will incites the other’s and vice versa. The leading contender parties could compare this to paranoia that is called ‘interpretative mayhem’ as the individual attained by such disarray sees the different elements of realty correctly, but misinterprets the connection between them.
Military Affairs in the Wars
“Most military analysts now agree that advances in military technology require a fundamental reappraisal and revision of operational concepts to ensure that full advantage is taken of them” (Ibrügger, November 1998). Such a revolution in military affairs has happened many times in history for different reasons. The most remarkable cause was technological advancement in war. The invention of gunpowder, the steam engine, the telegraph, railways, the aeroplane, the internal combustion engine, the aircraft carrier and the atomic bomb are some of the most obvious innovations, which has brought radical changes in the conduct of warfare. Many of these technological advances had emerged in the civilian world for creating revolution in military affairs by bringing about social military revolution such as the development of transportation facilities. Merely an agreement on technology is not sufficient to bring about a true insurgency in military affairs, for example almost five centuries have passed on the term of the invention of Gunpowder and its large amount application and exercise on the battlefield. In the early stages of the Second World War, Germany’s innovative operational concept that using communication strategies and technologies to integrate land and air forces became enabled to defeat French and British forces. Military strategy is an act of interpretation of means and goals.
Mechanism in war by tribal group
In war various types of tribal group performed activities for the sake of preserving their identities, self recognizance and self chastity. Sometimes they followed technology baseless mechanism and sometimes they followed their own made technologies for defending themselves. When a war arose the tribes at that time were considered as altogether vicious animal by observing their activities. Tribal distinctiveness expands dominance over that of an individual’s self identity in situations of tribal conflict and competition. Clannish characteristics almost takes over during times of war. Tribe members at such times drive themselves into an extreme an irrational passion. Normal language is replaced by unintelligible animal noises. “Tolaayeey, tolaayeey, Waar Hayaaye”
Tribal war
Basically tribal war is not for political means and a continuation of politics by most effective means. Anthropological researcher has tried to reveal that the most remarkable and notable cause of tribal war is revenge. Tribal groups don’t fight for principles and policies rather they fight for getting revenge. A tribal force is employed to the defence of honour and sanctity of their own lives. Unlike war between states and contrary, it is personal, immediate, emotional and ugly. Revenge is a problematic emotionally charged mode and manner. It has long-term effect on their memory. The tribal groups most often couldn’t forget the miseries which would take place before in consequence of revenge and their demands for taking revenge were above everything. Even their demand of serious revenge got importance more than mere justice, more than mere punishment.
In tribal war dehumanization is a tribal weapon of choice
Tribes in war affairs mostly refer to their enemies as “cockroaches”, “our game”, “mad dogs”, “rats”, “savages”, “slaves” “traitors” etc. The dehumanization refers the tribal killers to get out of the built-in human repugnance to killing members of its own species. Though this is contradictory with humanity and humanitarian war, thereafter dehumanization is the part of all tribal war. In dehumanisation process, the warriors avoid guilt because the enemies were considered by them as parasites, dogs, traitors but not human. At that time “non Isaaq Somalis have exceedingly limited information of the massive destruction of Hargaysa and its population by the fascist regime of Siyaad Barre in the late eighties. Non Majeerteen Somalis know very little about the genocide in Mudug and Majeertenia in the early eighties. Those who do not belong to the Digil/Mirifle tribe remained predominantly unaware about the humanitarian disaster and torment in the “City of Death”. And today Non Hawiye Somalis remain woefully ignorant of the massive human cost of Warlordism. Somalis see only tribes; they see not suffering human individuals of men, women and children with names and families and the capacity to feel pain.”
Iraq war and just war theory
In the finishing time of 2002 and in the springing time of 2003, the just war theory was implemented on Iraq by the Bush administration for the first time. Just war theory indicates that war will be only war for incarcerating and materialising the political policies and means to take reception of rival parties by applying political mechanism and forces only. IN this regard, the invasion of Iraq by U.S and their allies violated the humanitarian war theory on the other hand supported the just war theory. The primary acknowledged justification for anticipatory invasion of Iraq was based upon what the U.S. Senate has since discovered were “overstated”, “unsupported” and “mischaracterized” intelligence reports about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass destruction programs. The role of media at the time of invasion of Iraq played by them was mostly misrepresenting the scope and propinquity of the threat.
Saddam Hussein’s regime presented to the U.S defending mechanism and materialization. In this regard, Susan D. Moeller provides comment over the question of media coverage during Iraq war. He is the researcher of “media coverage of weapons of mass destruction for” (Naval Postgraduate School, n.d.) the University of Maryland’s centre for international and strategic studies. Physical environment, political climate and nuclear attraction provoked U.S and their allies to create invasion on Iraq. In “Humanitarian Action Under Attack: Reactions on the Iraq War,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Volume 17, Spring 2004, Nicholas de Torrente of Doctors Without Borders presents a revealing study of how the political climate in “Iraq has added to the usual difficulties of humanitarian action. He argues that non-governmental humanitarian organizations need to maintain principled neutrality in order to fulfill their missions. In “Politicized Humanitarianism,” Paul O’Brien offer a critical response to de Torrente’s article” (Rigstad, 2008).
Dan Fahey’s June 2004 article, “The Emergence and Decline of the Debate over Depleted Uranium Munitions,” is the most meticulous and even-handed assessment of the facts, fictions and reservations that I have found. It’s available for downloading from the Review of International Social observations. In a similar case the Bush administration blamed Chalabi and other ex-leaders and led incursion over Iraqi nation and sponsored regime change in their country. However better information was available at the time of war through internet and other system for making change of Islamic politics in Iraq. A study of Johns Hopkins University indicates that the civilian toll in Iraq nearly 100,000 and hiking. This can be considered as a significant outline given that supporters for the war, such as Gerard Alexander, have disputed erroneously that the invasion and occupation has probably saved civilian lives. Civilians were killed at an average rate of nearly 16,000 by Saddam Hussein when he was ruling his regime between 1979 and March 2003. Cost of the War in Iraq: $-, 234,111,177,347.
This thing also goes to the contradiction with the concept of humanitarian war. In Iraq war the weapons which were employed by the Bush administration were mass destructive. The present concept of humanitarian war does not support the inhumane activities during Iraq war which is continuing till today and conclusively present war affairs like Iraq invasion is fully contradictory term with humanitarian war though it connects just war theory.
Afghanistan War
After 911 of 2001 U.S led a mass destructive operation in Afghanistan in 2001. At the first look they run that operation in the name of searching for Osama Bin Laden but at the eleventh hour they became able to remove Taliban ruler from ruling Afghanistan and set up a new government with the help of American allied forces and NATO forces. The weapons which they employed for the operation were totally inhuman and destructive. Many Taliban forces as well as Afghan civilian were killed in a disparaging manner. Still today military forces and civilians are also being killed as a consequence of this operation. Though the American allied and NATO forces are working there, they don’t serve the Afghans rather they serve to preserve their interest for the sake of Bush administration. This is not supportable under humanity and real warfare theory; it is the result of contradiction with humanitarian war.
Disintegrating of war
John Lennon prospected as war is over but still it is continuing with inhumanity and brutality. This is far away from true humanitarianism. A new period of degenerate war has developed across the world in stead of brutal stage putting of the victimization of civilian populations in war. As for example some previous events of war can be presented here as such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic as well as for the warlords and schoolboy killers of Africa followed Hitler’s campaign against the Jews. It has become a hypothesis for rulers today. Gassing Kurds and wiping out Marsh Arabs, burning out, raping and killing populations across Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo have ensured the ugliest situation remaining a central reality of our late modern world. The gist of historical pacifism about the idea of war that is tending to historical redundancy said by Shaw in 1988. As regards old war, the tendency was to demolish the national solidarity and progressive goals by slaughtering the civilians. But in new war, the tendency of the rival groups should be to bulldoze the national solidarity and progressive goals by taking strategy and policy not to kill or slaughter the civilian population. The reproduced combination of racism, authoritarianism, arms markets and brigands. Such said tendencies above apparently shows that disintegration of war is going on the increase but it practically doesn’t go to this view rather it contravenes the concept of the term of humanitarian war.
Changing trend on present war
The present war situation does not support the changing trend on war but in this period the examination of debates about war politics and political theory implicates political economy of civil wars state collapse and new spate of military interventions. This trend includes a number of case studies including Africa conflict civil war and state collapse in Yugoslavia military belligerence in the U.S.A and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The western inclination about humanitarian war has become anticipated and re enforced by coverage and commentary in the passionate of employing new phenomenon for preserving their exact recognizance. From the early twenty first century the return of good war very closed with the term of humanitarian war has been being hampered by some western country’s activities in present wars. Struggling out of the closet and into the limelight of progressive in war is approved. The passionate of Tony Blair’s defence of the air war over Kosovo, which drew Ken Livingstone in its support, how political circles have moved has been showed by it. “Michael Ignatieff’s call (1998), in his eponymous recent book, for restoration of ‘the warrior’s honour’ is an intellectual straw in the wind” (Shaw, 2001).
Societies struggling with their leadership roles have redefined war. Sun Tzu counselled in “ The Art of War” more than 2,400 years ago, that armed force was to be applied so that “victory would be gained in the shortest possible time and possible cost in lives and effort, and with the infliction on the enemy of the fewest possible casualties” (Morris, Janet., and Baines, 1995). He also reported that “to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting”. and that “the skill full leader subdues the enemy’s “troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdoms without lengthy operations in the field” (Sun Tzu, n.d.). Clausewitz said on the trend of war that “it is nothing but continuation of policy by other means” (Clausewitz, n.d.) on July 10, 1827.
He also marked that maturation of modern war by conquest has become an instrument of state craft among that very nation whose destination may be regarded as imperialistic, nationalistic, economic, ideological, or some combination of all four. The goals of war are not determined by self-evidence but are determined by the goals of the state. Consequently the benefit of war depends on the wisely employment of the policy. This tendency also supports that the nature of war should be changed from the ancient times and insurgencies. Present complex irregular threats which can not be resolved by military force only. A trinity of war should be consisted of the military, the state and the population said by the 19th century military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. The trinity said by Clausewitz should remain relevant rebalanced to win the fight by the people including military affairs and policies. Savage wars of peace and modern technology have greatly enhanced the insurgent’s speed, reach, and power. Here the main focus on this topic is to realize and take a lesson when they will fight with weapons and when with information, humanitarian aid, economic solution and an advance towards better governance for the concerned people.
Form of Aggression in a new manner
In a new form of aggression, the thing which is considered as an important source of discussion of humanitarian war concept is that aggression was made in previous for retribution of their recognizance but at the present aggression is made for employing the political means and other policies. Sometimes it is considered that employing of political means and other policies by today’s belligerents is to blend the other rival parties into the will of the conquering belligerent. Another vital point of discussion for humanitarian was concept, is aggression for matured diplomatic recognition. As for example, Yugoslavia precipitated at that time for civil war but now it is for blending for the other party. Another aspect in this regard, Germany initially dominated the crisis that the US resolved. They dominated another aspect that is diplomatic recognition for creating military aggression against the Balkans, particularly Serbia Belgrade had been invaded and “occupied in 1915 and again in 1941 after a massive bombardment that killed tens of thousands of Serbian civilians by German troops. Austria-Hungary had annexed” (Carl, 2002).
Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 in violation of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin violating international law by taking the advantage of German diplomatic support. As practical show it can be presented that in 1941 in Yugoslavia, Adolf Hitler invaded and dominated and dismembered the country at the last created newly independent states, The Independent State of Croatia, and the then Orthodox Serbs Bosnia-Herzegovina. Two eras of a war can be presented such as; Defensive and aggressive war, in this regard the following quotation can be presented as:
“When and where has there been a war since so-called public opinion has played a role in governmental calculations, in which each and every belligerent party did not with a heavy heart, draw the sword from its sheath for the single and sole purpose of defending its Fatherland and its own righteous cause from the shameful attacks of the This legend is as inextricably a part of the game of war as powder and lead.” (Luxemburg, Rosa, 1915).
Present war is considered as politics by forcible means
The present war situation apparently shows that war is for upholding natural justice but practically it is found that it is for capturing the employment of the defeated belligerent. However, the mystification that surrounds war, considering just progressive and worthy of support, and reactionary, on the other hand some times unjust and not worthy of support. In this regard, Carl von Clausewitz proposed that “war is politics continued by other, violent means” (Geier, Summer 1999). The most remarkable fact in this context is that previous war was made for the purpose of protecting themselves and their recognizance but at this time we see that war is employed to capture other’s recognizance and over all to grasp their nationalities for making defeated blend into winning belligerent. At the eleventh hour, it seems to us that the employment of forces, policies, technologies, and weapons by the present war belligerents do not cope with the term of the concept of “Humanitarian war”. The above mentioned fact and article strongly suggests that today’s war is held only for capturing and sometimes preserving self interest and recognizance. So the term of humanitarian war is not taken as the main focus of present war. As referred by various writers and out look from the above discussion it is extracted that ‘Humanitarian war’ is a contradiction in terms with present war thesis.
References
Carl, K. Savich. (2002). The Origins and Causes of the Bosnian Civil War 1992-1995. Internet Library of Serb culture History. Web.
Clausewitz. (n.d.). SOME JUICY QUOTES FROM CLAUSEWITZ, ON WAR. 69-70. Web.
Ditchev, Ivaylo. (n.d.). The Politcal Economy of Victims. The Third World War of Media Over Kosovo. 1-19. Web.
Geier, Joel. (1999). Marxism and War. International Socialist Review Issue 8. International Socialist Review. Web.
Ibrügger, Lothar. (1998). The Revolution in Military Affairs By the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Web.
Morris, Chris., Janet, Morris., and Baines, Thomas. (1995). Weapons of mass protection: Nonlethality, Information warfare, and Airpower in the age of Choas. Airpower Journal. Web.
During World War II Germany had been expelled in 1943 from Africa and US forces had started to take an active part in the war by that time. In view of the increased strength of the Allied forces, the combined strength of the American and British armies was all set to attack Italy, Hitler’s partner. Italy too had become a strong force to reckon with and was a contender for the gains to be achieved from the war victories as portrayed by Hitler. The Allied forces now had a new ray of hope with the entry of America along their side, which would certainly have far-reaching consequences in their favor with the fresh lease of life being given to an embittered force that had already faced several setbacks and disappointments on the battlefront against the Axis forces. America was well poised and was waiting to make a decision to enter the war front and did so only when it became sure of the intentions of Hitler is not even sparing them in his annexation plans. Despite the increased strength of the Allied forces, there was considerable anxiety from the point of view of their victory being dependant on a cross channel initiative from the British Isle into Europe, which too did not have too many advantages in view of the previous negative experiences. There was also concern from the viewpoint that the combined might of the Axis powers had not been able to dent the aspirations of Hitler and his war partners in putting a stop to the unreasonable demands on them, which was slowly eroding the trust and confidence of citizens in these countries in their abilities to combat the challenges thrown open by Hitler. Indeed there was a stalemate about the course of action to be adopted by the Allied forces in checking Hitler and his band from causing further physical and financial loss as also in uplifting the morale of the people who had by now become morally and emotionally broken after having suffered from the travails of war for such a long period. Leaders of the Allied countries were well aware that immediate action using whatever means possible was required to be taken to stem the tide of continuous losses inflicted on them by the Axis forces. It was these circumstances that compelled the Commanders in the Allied camp to devise a plan that could be possible by using some form of deception since normal war techniques had failed to deliver any concrete results for them. But the fact remained that the Germans too were aware of this possibility and were alert in repulsing any attack in this regard. They had the experience and were well aware of Allied weaknesses that they had been exploiting against the Allied forces in keeping with the steady flow of victories. Operation Fortitude was brought about to counter the several setbacks already suffered and to remove obstacles by the Allied powers so as to initiate a reversal in the war outcomes that had till now been against their interests. It was an elaborate plan, which aimed at misguiding the Axis forces to make them ineffective till a time that the Normandy beach area was consolidated so as to meet the counter-attacks by the Germans. Operation Fortitude comprised of two parts, Fortitude North and Fortitude South. Fortitude North was devised in attempts to make the Germans believe that the Allied forces were to invade Norway first in association with the Soviet army that envisaged annexing Finland in order that it was removed from the Axis group. Fortitude North primarily aimed at fooling the Germans into believing that Norway would be invaded by the Allied powers prior to their attack on France. In consequence, the Germans would shift their armed strength from Normandy to Norway to meet the Allied forces in battle. This action would facilitate the Allied powers into attacking France with all their might so as to get a strong foothold on the European soil from that direction, which was imperative in view of the close proximity and convenience with which they could carry out offensives.
The tasks pertaining to Fortitude South were more challenging and of more far-reaching consequences in that despite the fact that the army builds up in southern England the Allied forces had to deceive the German forces into believing that they had no intentions about Normandy. Hitler too was aware of the significant strategic importance of Normandy and always had a close eye on the developments in the region as also on the maneuvers in this regard by the Allied forces. The intention of Fortitude South was to misdirect Hitler by fooling him into believing that they would attack Calais. This way the German forces would be brought away from Normandy into making defensive plans for Calais thus weakening them tremendously in Normandy. The initial plan envisaged viding Fortitude South was to make the Germans think that this fake attack would take place a few weeks after the actual invasion. But intelligence agencies were wary that the deception would not be carried forward in view of the large time gap, and hence a decision was taken to make the two dates close to each other. It was very important for the date and time to remain a secret in regard to the Normandy plan. The Germans too had their own intelligence services whose agents somehow managed to infiltrate the Allied information network, hence it was essential that such plans remain under top secrecy, and hence very few Allied officers were aware of the detailed plans. The Allied deception plans did succeed in making the Germans have a picture of the invasion-taking place in the near future, which made it all the more imperative for them to be misinformed about the place and nature of the attack in furtherance of misleading the Germans.
In order to make the plans a success, the first part of the execution entailed the leaking of the plans pertaining to the invasion of Norway and Calais, which was done by the British Secret Service in using its agents who had won the confidence of the German forces during the course of the war so far, in providing them reliable information about Allied plans. Leakage of such information at the hands of neutral diplomats also strengthened the German opinion in regard to the impending attack on Calais. With this eventuality facing them, the Germans actually got down to mobilizing their forces and equipment in the direction of Calais to meet the might of the Allied forces, which now had added strength due to the entry of American forces in the war. The Allied powers also did not take chances in creating any iota of doubt amongst the Germans and did in fact dispatch armies in the direction of Calais so that German forces were sure of the Allied strategies in this regard. This deceptive exercise was called “Operation Quicksilver” and was one of the most carefully planned, vital, elaborate, and successful of all the deceptive operations launched by the Allied forces. Several deceptive techniques such as the deployment of dummy paratroop, aircraft, sea crafts, radio deception, fake lighting systems, sonic devices were used in view of the several year’s experiences of the Allied forces in this regard. Truly, the German forces were deceived into believing as real, the presence of such dummy equipment in the fields, roadsides, harbors, and creeks as also the local estuaries surrounding Normandy. There was a giant oil pumping head that was made of paper mache, stationed over Dover and real convoys were entrusted the job to continuously drive back and forth in the area to give the impression to the Germans of troop movements in anticipation of Allied attacks. Additionally, the Germans were misguided by way of fictitious radio signals between nonexistent units and assumed that they were eavesdropping on Allied communications. Surely such elaborate exercises would have positive results in meeting the objectives in this regard.
The prime objective of the operation was to misguide the Germans into believing that they should not increase their number of troops in Normandy in order to defend their territories in other places where impending attacks by Allied forces had to be met with all efforts. It also envisaged that by misguiding them there would be a delay in the movement of troops to the Normandy beach so as to offset a strong counterattack by the German troops. Hence the main objective was to mislead the Germans into believing that the Allied forces were going to attack from the direction of Scandinavia. The modes of Operandi were many and included the use of German agents who were captured by the British and later released in using them as decoys to send radio messages about possible encounters to put them off track. Dummy tanks and aircraft and landing crafts were placed at strategic places for German air reconnaissance to view them and take action under deception. The deceptive practices were carried out using five specific tactics. Firstly fake equipment was used by displaying rubber tanks and plywood artillery to give a wrong impression to the enemy. Secondly, there was intentional leakage of information through diplomats of neutral countries who would pass it of to the Germans thus misguiding them about the factual situation. Thirdly the wireless traffic was used to create non-existent units by way of simulation in the wireless traffic that such units would generate, which would be detected by the Germans and make them take incorrect remedial measures. Fourthly there was an effective use of enemy agents controlled by the Allies through a double-cross system to transmit incorrect information to the German intelligence agencies. Fifthly there was a phantom presence of iconic personalities such as George Paton, the senior Allied Commander, in public places which rendered the operation as being authentic in the viewpoint of the Germans.
Most of the deception was done using fictitious wireless traffic as also with the help of German double agents. The latter was very vital in making such tactics successful. In fact, Fortitude was so truly deceptive that Hitler considered the Normandy invasion as a fake possibility and he kept his Panzer units where he expected an attack and at a distance from Normandy until the battle was fatefully decided against him in Normandy. When Normandy was invaded, the German resistance was very strong, but there were hardly any defensive launches by the reserve panzer forces which were actually being held in preparation for the actual invasion at Calais as conceived by the Germans. The German army was transfixed and taken aback by the stealth and precision of the phantom First U.S. Army Group and the sight of Patton wading ashore with his troops at Calais. Sure the Germans had no chance of combating at short notice the precision and strategic actions of this nature. They maintained the knowledge of the target information and other factors that threatened Calais for quite some time after D-Day, possibly till the end of World war II. This was very important for the success against the Germans by the plans of the Allied forces since it forced the Germans in keeping most of their might intact to be used at the right moment as perceived by them to be used for Calais which unfortunately for them, never came, thereby enabling the Allies to maintain and strengthen upon their initial foothold at Normandy.
Both the stages of Operation Fortitude were a total success from all fronts. The major difference between Fortitude North and Fortitude South was the time period of each operation. Fortitude North essentially became outdated after the real operations had begun, but the most important strategies of Fortitude South did not come into action until after the D-Day invasions at Normandy. Since the Germans believed that the Normandy invasion was a fake and least expected it, they kept their troops committed for the defense of Calais, thus giving ground to the Allies to gain a permanent footprint in German annexed Europe. In view of the strength of the German army, Operation Fortitude proved to be of immense value for the success of the Allies, and its aftereffects and positive results, and backlash lasted throughout the war. Because of the Americans, the Germans mistakenly underestimated the number of tanks that the Allied forces had, and thus were forced to keep much of their own weapons and artillery back in reserve to deal with a nonexistent threat at Calais. In his context, the practice is still followed in using rubber tanks to mislead enemies in days of nuclear weapons threatening the existence of mankind.
The operation was indeed successful from all fronts due to the coordinated efforts of the Allied forces in meeting the might of Hitler’s Germany at a time when defeating him had become a very bleak possibility especially in view of the constant flow of successes he had in Europe. Added to his victories were his un-daunting aspirations to move on with conquering other countries. It was primarily for these reasons that the USA had to join the war in fear of its own sovereignty being jeopardized in the event of Hitler continuing with his winning sprees. The efforts of the Commanders of Britain, USA, and France in coordinated teamwork that was directed at winning over Hitler, ultimately resulted in the strategy to outwit Hitler by deceptive means only in the true spirit of the saying “everything is fair in love and war”. Surely under the circumstances that the Allies were suffering at the hands of Hitler, there were no other means to achieve their objectives. The dedicated cooperation with which all the Allied powers executed the plans of Operation Fortitude enabled the victory against Hitler.
The key factors that led to the success of this operation related to the teamwork and synergy that resulted from such actions. The British Intelligence had a big hand in making the relevant information available by using their resources in cultivating agents that were used against German interests to provide requisite intelligence reports. These agents proved to be very helpful in providing a long-term channel for the inflow of required information without which it would have been impossible to devise the plans and strategy for the operation. The development and use of decrypting techniques that enabled enigma-coded messages between the German High Command and its contacts to reach the Allied Commanders as also in sending the deceptive messages to the German Commanders helped a great deal in making the deception to be effective with the Germans. A tactical strategy that was very effective for the operation was the insistence by some British commanders that for every radar station destroyed in the actual invasion area, two more were to be destroyed outside such areas so as to make the deception exercise effective and real. The German intelligence system was indeed very extensive and highly advanced but there was extreme rivalry amongst different elements in the army, which rendered it ineffective in catching up with the deceptive tactics of the Allied forces. Above all were the dedication and untiring willingness of an already battered army that wanted to have the war finished as soon as possible. Every soldier in the Allied army was aware that there had to be a victory for them if the world was to survive and they knew that victory would be for them. They saw in Hitler a personality that was determined to enslave the world by using the inhuman strategies that he had been using in exterminating his rivals such as Jews, millions of whom were killed in concentration camps and gas chambers just to keep himself satisfied that his enemies were being terminated.
Sure Operation Fortitude succeeded much beyond the expectations of the Allied Commanders. For long Hitler was under the illusion and false impression that the Normandy landings were tactics to divert his attention in inducing him to remove his army from Calais so that e significant attack could be carried out against him in that area. It was for this reason that he maintained his stand in stationing his best-equipped forces in that area ready to counter the anticipated attacks. However, it was too late by the time he got over his misconception in scanning the empty horizons while waiting for the attack that was never to come, and which in turn signaled the success of the Allied forces at Normandy in being the beginning of his defeat in the war.
Strong perceptions of worldwide disgrace and self-preservation followed on the heels of World War I among the vanquished Germans. These perceptions emanated from the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, a document that initiated deep-rooted and intense sentiments of nationalistic pride which Hitler and the Nazi Party ultimately exploited for their own objective of world domination. The map of Europe was transformed in the aftermath of WWI. Germany lost about half its territory. The diminished borders further fueled political, cultural, and social clashes between regions. The map in the Middle East was also altered, a circumstance which, not surprisingly, had a similar effect amongst indigenous persons in the region. Britain’s three provinces of the former Mesopotamia, Palestine, and created Iraq, a country, which experiences heated internal rivalries to this day.
According to the terms of the treaty, the Germans were forced to relinquish the Alsace-Lorraine region to France and consented to a military occupation by the allies (American, British, French, and Belgian) in the majority of western Germany including the Rhineland and many cities. Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark gained sections of former German territories. Additionally, the German Navy was reduced significantly to only a handful of small vessels. Financial reparations outlined in the treaty were substantial and ambiguous. Germany was forced to effectively sign over a blank check to the countries of Western Europe, an enormous amount that was to be paid out for several decades (“The Treaty of Versailles”, 2007).
While the treaty of Versailles was intended as a punishment and a means of controlling the expansionists, the Germans did not view their actions in such light and felt the treaty went too far in reducing its territory and ability to protect itself. It was perceived that Germany was being whittled away and most Germans were more than willing to defend their country from the ultimate destruction they were certain was intended. The Treaty of Versailles was unquestionably the catalyst that not only ignited the fire of resentment and calls for retaliation by the vast majority of Germans but continually fanned the flames as well during the years leading up to WWII. The treaty caused the widespread confusion and discontent that ruled Germany immediately after the WWI surrender.
The resentment of Western involvement in Arab lands began at this time which initiated nationalistic Arab and Islamic movements. Unlike the resentment of the German people, the tensions in the Middle East were not resolved by World War Two. “Everyone understood at the time that this was a thinly disguised new form of colonialism…,” according to Zachary Lockman, Professor of Middle East history at New York University. “The British and French had no thought of going anywhere anytime soon, and fully intended to remain in control of these territories for the indefinite future.” However, following the war, Arab opposition forces surfaced to challenge Western domination. As of today, the cultural, religious, and social differences between people of the Middle East and Westerners are great. Arabs still resist such radical changes to their society and resent Westerners for infringing on them, a sentiment that has grown since WWI (Shuster, 2008).
The terms contained within the Treaty of Versailles, whether justifiable or not, were indeed harsh. The Germans were humiliated, stripped of territories, military, and the financial means to thrive, or possibly survive, as a nation. more lenient and if it had been adopted as the final draft would have prevented the intensely hostile feelings of the Germans towards those countries that imposed the treaty. Had the Treaty been the making of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who suggested a more lenient plan, Hitler’s rise to power and the deaths of more than 60 million people may have been prevented. Had the British not attempted to control the Middle East, the terrorism of today may have been prevented.
References
Shuster, Mike “The Middle East and the West: WWI and Beyond” NPR Politics and Society.
The scholars put forth several possible options about the way the USA embarked on the wars with Philippines and Cuba. The main focus of the first essay is the imperialistic approach, applied to America. While the second one aims at explaining the other approach, i.e. the spread of the American ideology and the interest of the nation. The first essay explains the intentions of war to be promoted by Theodor Roosvelt, the leading proponent of the theory. It gives an idea that TR was influenced by the cultural concepts of gender and race and was sure that the American race was to lead worldwide. His vision of the picture of the world was dual in nature, both imperialistic and nationalistic. Thus, he saw certain changes, which needed t be done in the world, with American nation, leading on behalf of the humanity. The second essay sees the problem from quite another angle. Anders Stephanson goes deeper into explaining the historical context, taking place at that time. His arguments concern the era of imperialism, where the USA was not at all at the leading position, though very powerful nation. He seems to find a reason why it was needed to get into the rules of the game, mentioning the nation against nation principle, which introduced several consequences. One of them is the leading West, an ideological one and another, the extension of the policy, the political one.
Analysis
Then the type of expansion is being viewed by each of the authors, though differently. While the first essay claims that America sought the interests only in the expansion, subduing the countries under its reign, being after imperialism among the other nations, the second essay emphasizes that it was not only due to imperialism, that America involved itself in wars, though it took some part in their political agenda too. Among the reasons for the war to unfold, the second essay brings the spread of American ideology beyond its boundaries. Moreover, the second essay states of the high complexity of the situation all over the world, which enables scholars to make assumptions rather than state something for sure. Stephanson gives an insight into the view of the world perception TR, mentioning that he saw the domination of the US to make the barbarian countries turn out to be civilized countries one day. Though the inevitable step to move on to the civilization is despotism. On the whole, that was a good idea of Roosevelt’s.
The essays represent the same period of time, namely imperialistic one, where the world lived according to the pattern nation against nation, which brought up some consequences, like the country expansion on the cost of anther country. All the scholars agree upon this argument. Still, there some assumptions made, which claim the United States involvement in the wars was not only due to their political agenda, but also to the expansion of the ideology, which was the other reason to fight. While the first essay claims America to be imperialistically and nationalistically focused at the time, the second one puts ideological aspect within their intentions, claiming that America sought two goals to perceive, expanding their nation.
The documents under consideration belong directly to the time of imperialism. The one introduces the president’s ask for war in Cuba, the other one introduces the Anti-imperialistic nature of the politics, provided within the USA. These documents might be viewed as good source of information on the imperialistic intentions of the USA and give some important insights into the historical situation and reasons that urged America to act.
The first document, where President McKinley asks to start the war for Cuba liberation, states the pretext of the war, why it should be started in a compiled list of reasons. The president arranged them gradually, starting with the focus on the future virtues, which Cuba is going to receive from this war and ending the list that Cuba is a potential menace to the United States and its source of money waste. The second one, which denounces anti-imperialistic Policy within the US, condemns the war, held by the USA in Philippines. While both documents give a clear picture of the intentions of the US and the historical context is also rendered within them, they still have different views on the situation. So, the first document reveals the tense situation between America and Cuba at that time. And the second one reveals the injustice of war held by the US in Philippines, it calls to recollect the nature of the politics of the American nation. It calls for peace. In this relation, the documents are very different, as one asks for war for good cause, the other one is a pacifistic writing, which calls to stop the military deeds. Though seemingly different, they argue about the same argument, the imperialistic one. The documents propose different arguments for the reason to start and stop war. The first document clearly states that without a war, there is some potential menace for the state, while the pacifistic denounce notes about the policy, held within the United States, it calls to remember the cornerstone of the Liberal Ideology.
It is interesting to note, that both documents’ claims are taken for granted. So, whether it be war, which is to be proclaimed, or the peace, which is to be gained, it is rather stated, than assumed within documents. The documents find the relation to the essays, mentioned above. The issues brought up in the essays have the reflection in the claims stated in those documents. The imperialistic approach finds its reflection in the first document, which is after war. The second, document, however, discovering the reasons for the peace creation, contradicts the principles, stated within both essays.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is vital to understand that the documents, provided at the time of imperialism for the USA, say about the historical context of that era, explore the reasons, they state either to make war or peace. The first document comes up with a gradually arranged list of reasons, why the war should be started, thus reflecting the thought, stated in the essay by Stephanson. The other document, calling to make peace, contradicts both essays, stating that the politics of the USA is against any military power, which subdues the weaker nation. It is still hard to judge about the subtext of the documents, taking the complexity of the historical situation in the consideration. Nevertheless, the one, who makes a research, based on the documents of the time is able to put forth some assumptions about the historical situation taking place as well as about the imperialistic inclinations of the American nation.
The uneasy situation in the Middle East constantly attracts the attention of World Community. The war actions of Israel in Lebanon in the year 2006 bore a spontaneous character and made great tension in International relations in the world and in that area, particularly. The reasons of war then were related to some dangerous groups of people which represented a menace for peaceful development of relationships in the Middle East.
General research questions and hypotheses
The goals of the paper
The topic is related to work out the reasons for war and the participation of Lebanese and Israeli troops in dampening the conflict. Also the work of secret service of Israel “Masada” is touched upon in accordance with Hezbollah’s actions.
Historical background
Since the creation of the Israel in 1948 the country began providing its internal and external policy. It could not but be reflected on the neighboring countries with negative effects. In other words, the Arabic countries of Middle East frequently invoke conflicts with Israel. In 1968 it was concerned with counterattacks of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) on the southern borders of Israel. Lebanon took straightforward part in sponsorship of Fatah brigade in 1971 until 1980s when Israel several times tried to expel PLO by means of military forces. It concerned also so-called South Lebanon Army (SLA). The struggle was growing year by year when Israeli forces were in Lebanon. The activity of Hezbollah increased until 2000 when Israel withdrew its forces out of Lebanon (Mordechai Bar-On, 2006, 205). In 2006 the situation drew to a head when Hezbollah launched rockets to Israel and began war not only by air but also provided land operations killing, injuring, and capturing Israeli soldiers and peaceful population (Reinharz, Rabinovich, 2008, 551-553). ‘Operation Truthful Promise’, as it was declared by Hezbollah, was blamed by Israeli government and the war actions began.
Taking a detached view
The historical background provides a wide scope of facts and reasons which were responsible for the conflict in 2006. Moreover, Israeli struggle with neighboring Arabic countries does not decrease. According to the country’s intelligence the military weapon, rockets, missiles, came to Hezbollah from Iran, particularly. Other Muslim countries supported the war financially.
Specific research question and Hypothesis
Civilian death toll
War presupposes human losses. In this struggle mainly civilians were killed from the side of Lebanon. UNICEF stated that 30 % of killed were children (UNICEF, 2006). Moreover, from the side of Israel civilian losses were also considered with rates of killed and injured people. The number of killed Israeli civilians is less than in Lebanon, namely 47, due to in-time protection of people in bomb-shelters (BBC News Online, 2007).
Conclusion
The conflict between Israel and Lebanon showed once more the negative and struggling attitude of Arabic countries toward Israel. The work of intelligence and the direct involvement of troops were significant for Israeli government to finish the war. In this prospect the support of the USA and the International community helped to stabilize the situation with less human and economic losses. The succession of methods and steps, which were followed by both Israel and Hezbollah, should be counted for promotion of further solutions for peace in this uneasy area of the world.
References
Bar-On, Mordechai. Never-Ending Conflict : Israeli Military History . Stackpole Books, 2006.
Harel , Amos, and Avi Issacharoff. 34 Days: Israel, Hezbollah, and the War in Lebanon . Palgrave Macmillan , 2008.
Rabinovich, Itamar, and Jehuda Reinharz.. Israel in the Middle East : documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present University Press of New England, 2008.
Thomas, Baylis. the Dark Side of Zionism: Israel’s Quest for Security Through Dominance, 2009.
UNICEF (2006). “The humanitarian challenge in Lebanon“.
The Second World War led to the mobilization of almost the entire population of the countries involved. Women contributed extensively to the war effort by manning the factories, communications, hospitals, support services as also in various support arms of the armed forces. Perhaps what stands out remarkable has been the contribution of Russian women to the Russian war effort, a contribution unparalleled by other countries that took part in the war. They were the only country to deploy women in large numbers in actual combat operations. Amongst the various tales of valor, the most famous has been the exploits of female Russian snipers, whose acts have been publicized heavily by the Russians and whose exploits, have attained mythical heights in present-day literature. This essay examines the factual position on the exploits of female Russian snipers during the Second World War as well as their existence in the present-day Russian Federation.
Overview
The word “Sniper” has its origins in hunting a small, fast bird called ‘snipe’ in 18th century British India by the army. Since the bird is quick and small, the hunters needed to be expert marksmen. Snipe hunting was an art that required guile and patience in addition to being a good shot. All armies have trained snipers. But it is the Russians who organized snipers systematically as part and parcel of their Army in large proportions. Russians have always considered their women as combatants. Even during the First World War, women took an active part in combat operations and the legacy of those times continued into the later years. During the prewar period, the Russian youth organization Komsomol trained hundreds of women in marksmanship. Many of these women went on to win national championships and sure enough, were utilized for their talents when the war broke out. The sheer size and strength of the Nazi war plan Barbarossa caused heavy Russian losses in the initial years. Russia had therefore no choice but to enlist their women into combat operations. The peak strength of women in arms in the Russian Armed Forces during the Second World War reached a million or almost eight percent of the total Russian military force. Wagner et. al (2007), reports that out of these, an estimated 1000 women were enlisted as trained female snipers who totally accounted for over 12000 enemy kills (p. 324).
Training and Organization
Training such a large number of female snipers is by no means an easy task. The Russians had dedicated sniper training institutions that taught sniper tactics at platoon, company, battalion, and brigade levels of employment. Red Army snipers hunted in pairs, one spotting, and one firing. Both were armed with sniper rifles such as the Mosin-Nagant 1891/1930 and also carried a submachine gun as a fallback option. The spotter too formed part of the firefight if the shooter missed the target. In addition to sniper tactics, snipers were also taught basic infantry tactics and command functions to substitute fallen comrades if the situation so demanded. These snipers were highly valued for their skills and were invariably given better rations as it was realized that healthy snipers would produce better results. At the start of the war, there were two types of Russian snipers—snipers who were part of the Reserves of the Supreme High Command (RVGK) and snipers who were part of standard infantry units. “The RVGK snipers were organized into separate brigades—such as the RVGK sniper brigade made up of women (Grau & Cutshaw, 2002, p. 7)”.
Sniper Employment
Snipers were employed in great numbers by the Russians during the Second World War. Their worth was specially recognized in siege situations and urban combat scenarios such as during the Battle of Stalingrad. Critical sectors manned by group armies were assigned entire platoons, companies, and even battalions of RVGK snipers to help fight the enemy. In the initial years, each division had a squad but as their efficacy was realized, these were expanded and thus were expanded the number of division sniper schools during the war. By war’s end, there were 18 snipers per battalion, or two per rifle platoon, which by any account is a fairly large number. To build morale and enhance efficacy, Russian political officers started the ‘Sniper Movement’ in which the highest ‘head hunter’ of fascists was awarded medals and titles. For example, a score of forty kills ensured a “Bravery” medal and the title “noble sniper.” This resulted in surreal competition between division commanders, where each tried to beat the other’s ‘score’. Amongst these glorified shooters, many were women who earned their Bravery medal and title.
Contribution of Female Russian Snipers
So reputed were the female Russian snipers that Russian commanders could count on them to continue fighting till the last bullet, take over as commanders, lead the men and die fighting like a man. Broekmeyer and Buck (2004) state that one communiqué from the East Prussia and Pomerania front where the Russians had suffered heavy losses, with a company left with only 17 men read ” No matter, you still have four female snipers” (p. 119). The recorded exploits of some of the female Russian snipers tell an amazing story. Tatyana Nikolayevna Baramzina, a Russian killed 16 and 20 enemy soldiers in two separate engagements, who then took over as the commander as her leader was killed. She continued fighting till captured, was tortured to no avail, and then shot. Jr/Sgt Tatyana Ignatovna Kostyrina accounted for over 120 soldiers who also took over as the battalion commander and died fighting to the last bullet. Pvt Natalya Venedktovna Kovshova formed a team with another female sniper Pvt Marya Polvanova and has been reputed to have jointly killed 300 enemy soldiers. Both died fighting to the last bullet. Corp Alya Moldagulova a Kazakh, scored over 91 kills, also led her men into assaults, and died while leading one such action. (Sakaida & Hook, 2003, p. 56). Perhaps the most celebrated female Russian sniper of the Second World War was Lyudmila Pavlichenko who was “credited with a score of over 300 Germans” (Pegler, 2006, p. 181). Lyudmila pulled out of a history major from Kyiv University to sign up for the infantry in 1941. In June 1942, she was wounded by mortar fire. Declared a hero, promoted to the rank of a Major, Lyudmila was sent to the US and Canada where she was received by President Roosevelt. She never returned to active duty but continued training snipers till the end of the war. In 1943 she received the Gold Star of the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
Snipers Schools During the Cold War
After the Second World War ended, an ‘iron curtain’ descended over Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union flexed its muscles globally. Sniper tactics and sniper battalions continued to form part of Russian infantry tactics throughout the Cold war. Sniping, being a specialized art became shrouded in secrecy and the Soviets ensured that no real data was made available to the other side throughout the period of the Cold war. Female snipers continued to be trained in the Russian sniper schools, however; the numbers were never as large as they were during the Second World War. Most of the sniper work shifted from regular infantry to the Spetnaz, the Soviet special operations group. In fact, there are no reliable sources that can confirm or deny the continuance of training females as Russian snipers during the Cold war except through fictional tales. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had a telling effect on its armed forces. Overnight, Soviet forces were divided into their respective national services and the fate of many specialized arts such as sniping became uncertain.
Female Russian Snipers in Present-Day Russia
The initial years after the breakdown of the Soviet Union was very difficult for the Russian armed forces. Lack of financial support from the government forced many former armed forces personnel to become mercenaries and thus was born the myth of the female Russian sniper as a mercenary. These mercenaries for hire had spread across the globe, willing to kill for a price. Fredholm (2003) reports that “the word has spread …. that the advance guard of IMU guerrilla groups consists of beautiful female snipers armed with sophisticated guns and night vision goggles, equally prominent in seducing as killing enemy soldiers” (p. 11).
In Chechnya, Russian soldiers swear by the truth that the Chechens had used female Russian snipers, “a legendary unit of Latvian (or Estonian, or both) women snipers known as the “White Tights” – a unit which allegedly turned up in every post-Soviet war against Russia and her allies (Fredholm, p. 11). Some writers dismissed this as a figment of imagination as Oliker (2001) states “most colorful stories of the ‘White Stockings’, female snipers from the Baltic states, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Russia itself, who hired themselves out to rebels. Some journalists reported cases of actual shootouts with female snipers (p. 72).” However, some writers such as Edwards (2000) even put down a figure stating that “Snipers were used extensively by the Chechens, including 30 female snipers from the Baltics” (p. 90). The Russian army nonetheless believed the stories and considered the female snipers as traitors which resulted in some acts of unusual barbarity against those suspects caught. One Russian soldier recounts “I remember a Chechen female sniper. She didn’t have any chance of making it to the authorities. We just tore her apart with two armored personnel carriers, having tied her ankles with steel cables. There was a lot of blood, but the boys needed it. (Mohamed, p. 13)”.
The true factual position of present-day female Russian snipers can never be unraveled as such sensitive information is rarely made available in the public domain. The glory of female Russian snipers during the Second World War when they accounted for over 12,000 enemy soldiers and were publicly feted by a grateful Russian leadership is undeniable. They not only acquitted themselves admirably in the art of sniping but also led from the front with most dying on the battlefield. This class of warriors arose because of the need of the hour and possibly declined thereafter especially at the end of the Cold War. Their reincarnation as reviled mercenaries or ‘Amazonian beauties with a license to kill’ has been attributed to fevered imagination and media speculation. That some sections of this truly remarkable class of specialists may exist is a logical corollary that cannot be proved or disproved with certainty.
Works Cited
Broekmeyer, M. J., & Buck, R. (2004). Stalin, the Russians and Their War. Wisconsin: Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Edwards, S. J. (2000). Mars Unmasked. Washington DC: Rand Corporation.
Fredholm, M. (2003). Uzbekistan & the Threat From Islamic Extremism. Surrey: Defence Academy of UK.
Grau, L. W., & Cutshaw, C. Q. (2002). Russians Snipers: In the Mountains and Cities of Chechnya. Infantry , 7-11.
The United States of America has for so many years been sending its armed forces to fight to restore peace in troubled nations. Reports reveal that even though most of these operations are known to the world, many more others are carried out without the public’s knowledge[1]. The operations differ greatly in terms of hostility extent, purpose, and legal authorization. Most of these wars though have had notable positive impacts on the restoration of peace to the world, many of the American sons and daughters in the military have suffered the consequences…mothers have lost their sons, women have been widowed and many children orphaned, thanks to the wars. The government claims that the reasons why they get involved in the wars are to ensure that peace prevails in the world, protect US citizens in Diaspora, and also secure the countries’ interests. The operations range far and wide; for instance, they can include base operations, training operations, and mutual agreement on security operations among others. Osama bin Laden who has been in the run for fear of being caught by the Americans for masterminding quite some terrorist attacks targeting the United States citizens had admitted openly his hate to the Americans and anything affiliated to them. This was expressed in one of his hate speeches related to the 9/11 attack of the twin towers (Grimmett, p.293-295). This paper will analyze Osama’s speech considering the security situation of the world as far as terrorism is concerned. The paper will also contain highlights of the extent to which the wars affect American citizens. After giving the highlights, it will conclude whether America should continue or stop with the wars and if Osama’s claims in his speech were justifiable or not.
Analyzing Osama’s Speech
Osama bin Laden confirmed an agreement with the leader of the 9/11 attack, Muhammad Ataa that the operation was to last for only Twenty minutes before the Bush Administration notices, lest they reduce the number of casualties. That was a statement which was coming from a person who claimed to be preaching peace and fighting for freedom…In the speech Osama goes ahead to praise Allah for giving them more time to carry out the attack…quiet ironical for the “peace lover”. He prays for the soul of Ataa for a job well done. Indicating that he achieved their mission [killing 2,600 innocent non-combatants]. Ataa acted as the head of the group of 19 Arabs Islamic Extremists who were involved in the act.
Osama believed that he and his followers are involved ion constant fights with the US because they love freedom and that at no point will they let anyone take the freedom away from them…not even the “oppressive “ U.S government. They retaliated to this oppression by destroying the United States land as well as their citizens within and outside the US boarders. Osama stated that the attacks on Lebanon and Palestine by the coalition forces of United States and Israel was tyrannical and uncalled for. He felt that they were betrayed by the countries which only watched and kept mum as the U.S carried on their destruction. He therefore decided to take up the revenge by himself by engineering an attack on America’s twin towers. Lucky enough, the Americans security forces themselves ignored the numerous warning that were sent to them, making it much easier for the operation to be carried without any complication.
The argument fronted by Osama that president Bush was hiding the real truth behind the 9/11 attack was unfounded and baseless. What could have driven the world to believe him and not president Bush; Osama refuted Bush’s explanations on what had triggered the fights. Though, what is certainly clear is that, going to an extent of killing innocent non-combatants as a means of sending any kind of message to the world is not justifiable at all. Never have two wrongs made a right. If democracy does exist in any country, then it is in the United States. This fact renders null and void the statement by Osama that Bush’s administration was characterized by wealth appropriation, extreme arrogance, pride and greed. They are only sentiment of hate. “Bush took dictatorship and suppression of freedom to his son…” (Grimmett, p.293). Osama was quick in pointing accusing fingers towards the U.S and ignored countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, basically by the shear probable fact that the said countries support terrorism.
Osama further claimed that Bush had participated in the 2002 election fraud, planting his sympathizers to oversee the election. If at all this accusation could hold some water, it would be a great blow to the face on the credibility of the world’s most respected electoral system as well as the world’s view of Americas democracy. But on the other side, in case the accusations were false, it would only show the extent to which Osama and his followers could go just to damage the image of United States. It would be a practical proof that the group could stop at anything to bring U.S down.
The government of America claims that the responsibility of preserving American interest is upon the citizens themselves through the military, and if the only away out of this is to resort to a military action, then so be it. They have no one else to rely on regarding the security of the American citizens; so even if it means losing one’s life in the battle to ensure this, so it will be. By the fact that America is the super power, the security of most unstable countries depend on them; and since it is a peace loving nation, it means that they can go to any length to try to restore peace to the world even if it means ousting a leader who is promoting corruption and other criminal acts through military operation. The problem caused by the activities of international terrorists is complicating the security situation in the world…The Countries which are funding terrorism are putting the lives of everyone in jeopardy. Countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan have been reported to be promoting terrorism, by playing host to terrorism suspects; particularly the 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.
Conclusion
By abandoning the involvement in other countries, America will be putting at risk their entire land, but also the lives of thousands of their citizens in Diaspora. The terrorists and there supporters have never relented even for a minute in spreading fear to the world and their actions must always be monitored. Attacks targeting Americans, their interests and their allies have been quiet a lot. The issue of terrorism must never be treated lightly if the lives of entirely all the America and the rest of the world are to be kept safe, such criminal acts must be fought with all the peace loving nations in the world, working as a unit. The inability of the U.S government to thwart the 9/11attack showed how vulnerable any country can be if its security matters are not taken seriously. Finally, this paper draws a conclusion by giving some recommendations to be effected to ensure that terrorism is tackled amicably:-a coalition of peace loving countries to ensure Islamic terrorist organizations do not develop into a world threat, identify and root out potential terrorist sanctuaries, strengthen the relationship that the U.S have with international communities (including Pakistan and Afghanistan) and finally confront the sour relationship that the U.S have with the Arab communities and build it beyond oil related matters.
Bibliography
Bailey, Kathleen. (1996). Policy options for combating chemical-biological terrorism. Politics and the Life Sciences 15 (2): pp.185-187.
Grimmett, F. R. (2006). America and the World: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2004. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. pp.248 279.
Walter Laquer. (1999). The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Oxford University Press. pp.34-52.
In this discursive paper on war and the essential reasons for going into war, the case of the pacifist approach of Pres. Woodrow Wilson will be cited as a case in point for governments and essentially everybody in using force as a last resort. The justification of taking a pacifist stance in the discussion about war will be explored and my opinions on the subject matter will be illustrated with reference to current events and Wilson’s example.
World War 1 began in the year 1914 and ended in the year 1918. Its cause is seen to have been triggered by a chain reaction of events starting with the assassination of the archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand, which was a Serbian nationalist secret society. Austria and Hungary saw this as an opportunity to stamp out its authority and to cement its influence over the Balkans thus declared issued an ultimatum to Serbia and effectively declared war against Russia who was in an alliance with Serbia. European countries such as Italy, France, Britain and Germany became involved through such ties and alliances bringing the war into a full-scale global battle. This then explains the larger and substantive reason for the war, imperialism in foreign nations. For example, Britain drew in its colonies through this policy (Duffy par.8).
America during this time had adopted a policy of absolute neutrality and had taken the logical stance of not involving itself in a war of which it had no ties and was therefore senseless. This was however changed in April of 1917 due to the German provocation in the form of unrestricted submarine warfare, which threatened its shipping routes with its allies such as Britain.
In my opinion, going to war or not going to war is a choice that should be rationalized through the principle of preserving human life. Life is a basic human right that should not just be taken carelessly even if the reasons are logical as in the case of a country protecting its sovereignty. Most of the reasons for world turmoil are the scramble of scarce resources by human beings where most people tend to put greed and money over human life. The reason for this is that money is the driving force of all life’s activities, and those that do not have it are powerless and weak. Wars have begun and have been sustained by this because after all, aren’t most wars economic wars.
As seen in the events of the WW1, Pres. Wilson was forced to put aside his pacifist stance and engage in war with Germany because it had attempted to cut off the economic life blood of the US to Europe which is their trade link. Why did the US get into a war with Iraq? The reasons for the Bush’s administration doing so may have started off as humble and with no ill intent (although this is a bone of contention among conspiracy theorists); the real motive as seen by some conspiracy theorists soon became to amass the oil wealth that is abundant there. Many people have since died for a cause that could have been resolve in a more peaceful way rather than invading a sovereign country.
It is a very troubling idea to think that human beings will resort to violence to solve conflicts without first seeking peaceful means as shown by religious icons and political leaders like Jesus and Gandhi among others. It is the reason why there is suffering for the underprivileged in society as it justifies the exercise of power over another with the option of resorting to violence to achieve this purpose.
A great author gives my pacifist stance a more scholarly and witty view on peace and why people should choose to be peaceful than go to war.
According to Wendell (1), nothing noble or even an item of necessity has the capabilities of dignifying the cause of a foreign war. They are usually just senseless and cost many lives all in vain. Diplomacy always plays a bigger and more important role in conflicts and they would work if given a chance. Case in point is the subsequent formation of the League of Nations post WW1.
War most of the time results in devastating effects for the nations involved. It is the prime reason why there are so many imbalances in the world today in terms of religious conflicts and propaganda e.g. the war in Iraq.
Lastly, according to Wendell (431), “To kill in hot savagery like a beast is understandable. It is forgivable and curable. But to kill, by design, deliberately, without wrath, that is the sullen labor that perfects Hell”. It gives people the opportunity to oppress the meek and powerless in absolute sadism as seen in the war crimes committed during the 1914-1918 period like the rape of Belgium where hundreds of townspeople were massacred.
In the end it comes down to doing good by our fellow man in trying to achieve and maintain world peace.
In conclusion, the history of the First World War, its effects and the reason why the policy of pacificism and rationalizing of the possible alternatives to conflict resolution is a better choice than rushing into war are outlined in the paper above. The ideals and concepts of Berry are also explained in relation to pacifism.
In the words of Pres. Wilson: “Peace had to be peace of reconciliation , a peace without victory, for a victor’s peace would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand”(America and World War One par.8).
Works Cited
America and World War One. History Learning Site, n.d. 2010. Web.
Duffy, Michael. The Causes of World War One. First World War site, 2009.
Wendell, Berry. The Peace of Wild Things. Web. 2010.
The Persian Gulf War in 1991 was triggered by the decision by Iraq to invade Kuwait on basis that it was historically part of it. The interest of Iraq was disputed as being imperial and that the only interest was the rich oil fields Kuwait had. These could have helped Iraq effectively take control of the region considering that oil has a fetches a lot of revenue. The move aggravated the international community, since despite the deadline issued by the UN Security Council for Iraq to vacate Kuwait; Iraq did not honor it. The US led a coalition of thirty two nations among them Arab nations and some western countries. The coalition launched air attacks to demolish the Iraqi military in what was called the operation desert storm. Iraqi retaliated by launch ballistic missiles to its neighbors but still lost. The second Persian Gulf War of 2003 was more of an extension of the desert storm. Also called the Iraq war, the 2003 invasion pod Iraq was basically Britain idea as Iraq had failed to act in accordance with the directive of UN Security Council armistice terms to allow weapon inspection.
The US Intelligence Flaws
Following the operation desert storm, the US together with its coalition allies was hailed for the victory in Iraq. It was in fact regarded as the greatest military activity in history. However despite the famed accomplishments, there were some obvious intelligence faults that were evident though they were not taken seriously. In fact these mistakes could have helped evoke the second Persian Gulf War (Coia, 1995, para 4). The wartime military men noted some problems in the operations of the US intelligence systems that were backing the coalition. The commanders reported that the system’s resources ware not adequate enough to support the war at all the levels of command.
The US Marine Corps identified some crucial shortages in the US intelligence’s functional sector and hence started reviewing its system. The I Marine Expeditionary Force commandants were greatly dissatisfied by the service and support they had been receiving from the US intelligence team (Coia, 1995, para 4). Actually lacking a major resource like quality intelligence would be a great frustration to the fighters especially when the commanders were sure that the support capacity was present. So basically what was wrong with the intelligence system that could have been carried to the second gulf war? There are several flaws as will be described below
Combat Organization
essentially, the surest way of creating efficient working combination during war was to order movement only when sufficient information about the opponent’s proceeding have been obtained (Cox, 2005, p. 5). It’s very difficult for one to say that he/she can do the job when he/she is ignorant of the adversaries. Yet, obtaining this decisive information is an extremely difficult undertaking not to say impossible! Considering this in mind, what did I MEF bring to the table? The Marine Corps brought together all the aspects of intelligence into one entity referred to as surveillance, Reconnaissance and intelligence grouping (SRIG) (Coia, 1995, para 6). This was a directive from Alfred Gray, the Commandant General, whose idea was to consolidate the elements and form and organization in which intelligence assets from all over the marine forces create a unified, synergetic, vivacious collector and disseminator of intelligence.
Information operation was very essential tool in the attack (Cox, 2005, p. 5). The mission of the SRIG was among other things to offer surveillance, intelligence, and tactical trick and communication in support of the MEF commands and other backers. Better technology is one of the reasons that the US based their decision to attack. At the begriming of the desert storm, the IMEF speculative capacity to carry out the intelligence operations in the theater was very appropriate (Coia, 1995, para 8). Regardless of the fact that there was not doctrinal backing, the Marine Corps build an intelligence organization that seemed competent enough to provide reliable combat support (Hunton, 2007, p. 12). Conceptually, backing the organization would not overpower units with enormous data volumes since the MAFC was combined with multi-choice receiving information and offer the MAGTF important intelligence products. Nonetheless the commandant in the first SRIG could not possibly envisage the utter enormity of task MEF commandeer was to give him. The variables to be deal with under the combined war would make planning exceedingly difficult.
Intelligence Planning before the Storm
The US military was confident that there was a comprehensible and unmistakable plan for the intelligence schemers of the Gulf war (Hunton, 2007, p. 12). Lieutenant General Boomer believed that the greatest threat to Iraqi was corps level artillery, short range missiles and indirect fire weaponry. The likely retaliation from Iraq would be the possible release of chemical fires on ground war. G-2 was directed to build and execute collection plan founded on that guidance. The requirements that were put upon the I MEF G-2 were so overwhelming (Coia, 1995, para 12). Together with the first SRIG, they had to offer support to their commanding general demands and the needs of MEF whom were going to carry out a massive marine assault since the 1945 Okinawa battle.
The planning was too widespread for MEF G-2. These dealing with marine intelligence were enormously braved to meet the back up necessities stemming from all command levels since of the immaturely constructed SRIG organization and substantial in-theater limitations and constraints (Coia, 1995, para 14). Though enough measures were taken to correct the existing restrictions and drawbacks and MEF G-2 was then satisfying some intelligence needs by the bringing of the desert storm, momentous impediments still existed as the operations peaked when ground phase was launched.
The Iraq War
The above brief evaluation of the situation on the ground prior and during the Persian Gulf War is very critical to the US foreign policy (Hunton, 2007, p. 15). Basically the information from the US intelligence plays a big role in policy making. When it came to 2003, the US and Britain still decide to go to war with Iraq claiming that it had forfeited the US demands of allowing inspection of weapon. This comes down to the idea of having sufficient information about the enemy before making the move (Woodward, 2007, p. 56). Many of the nations that had supported the previous attacks in 1991 were basically opposed to the move but the US claimed that it had collected enough evidence that Iraq was a threat to international security.
The attacks on the US twin towers in 2001 seem to have been a player to the move. However President Bush claimed that he based his decision on the facts presented by the UD intelligence system. First, it was claimed that Iraq was attempting to make nuclear weapons; second, Iraq was building a nuclear weapon plant; third, the US would try to graft Iraq to family of nations and fourth, Iraq was used to deceiving the world (Coia, 1995, para 4).
Having failed to live up to the condition of the cease fire in desert storm, the US saw it worth to take action. Iraq was accused of giving false information to the world and that only force could reveal the truth, this was the decision by the congress. Some of the US security officer posed like the UN security personnel to obtain information from Iraq (Mandeles et al, 1996, p. 45). However, in spite of the attempt by Iraq to declare that it had no mass destruction artillery in December 2002 and the report by the UN that it had found no sign of the suspected weapons, the US still insisted on attacking (Woodward, 2007, p. 56). This was in regardless of opposition from its former allies in desert storm and with sole backing from Britain. This shows that the US intelligence failed to provide proper information about the enemy because after the war, no weapons were found after all.
The MEF operations were this time not overwhelmed by the war and demands from various commands though a lot of lives were lost on both sides. The planning of the intelligence was not competent in this case (Mandeles et al, 1996, p. 45). The expectations were extremely exaggerated to justify that attacks.
Conclusion
The Persian Gulf Wars presented the faults in the US intelligence system. The poor structure that was not responsive to the needs of the fighters – commandants and their subordinates. The testing of the operations was not sufficient. This resulted into an operation that was characterized by insufficient manning, poor training and coordination. The information environment is very important for the commanders. The decision to go the war is very important. However of more importance is the situation during the war. Poor coordination can result into devastating outcomes.
Reference
Coia, R.E. 1995. A Critical Analysis of the I MEF Intelligence Performances in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A Report to Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Web.
Cox, L.J. 2005. Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom—What Went Wrong? US Army School of Advanced Military Studies Monograph, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, AY 2005–06, 1–123. Web.
Hunton, C.T. 2007. The War of Ideas and the Role of Information Operations in Counter Insurgency. Monograph, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
Mandeles, M.D., Hone, T & Terry, S.S. 1996. Managing “Command and Control” In the Persian Gulf War. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Woodward, B. (2007). State Of Denial: Bush at War. Simon & Schuster. New York.