Category: War

Introduction

The Middle East is known to possess a wide range of religious, cultural, economic, ethnic, and ideological diversity. Serving as a geostrategic gateway between essential players such as Africa, Asia, and Europe, the Middle East has a history of both cultural and religious conflict as well as political instability in the modern era. Thus, the sovereignty of the states and the rights of their citizens have continuously been threatened by neighboring states on a regular basis. In particular, conflict over territory, as well as the search for political and spiritual influence, contributed to the process of shaping the nation. The competition over territory involved a variety of issues, including vital resources, such as oil and water, claims over religious sites, commerce centers and trade routes, cultural homelands, as well as geostrategic location. The majority of religious rivalries involved Islam, Judaism, and Christianity along with their political forms such as Islamic fundamentalism or Zionism. The background of the dispute between the Arabs and the Israelis lied in the opposing foundations of Arab nationalism and modern Zionism, with much of the conflict centering around the completing claims to the cultural and religious homelands between Muslims and Jews, the armed control of strategic territories, crucial threats to the state of Israel, as well as the search for self-determination by Palestinians.

The Ramadan War of 1973 was the fourth of the Arab-Israeli wars, which was initiated by Syria and Egypt in October of that year on an essential Jewish day called Yom Kippur. It also took place during Ramadan, the sacred month of fasting as established in the Islamic tradition. Thus, to Israelis, the war as the Yom Kippur War and the Ramadan War to Arabs. It enabled the development of a new context in the Arab world through changing the approach of the US foreign policies toward handling the affairs in the Middle East (Gutfeld & Vanetik, 2016). The events that pre-shaped the beginning of the Ramadan War were formed six years before. In 1967, Israel began its attacks on Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, which unleashed the June war that led in the occupation of historic Palestine by the Israeli along with the Egyptian Sinai desert and Golan Heights. Within six days, the army of Israel delivered a significant disadvantage to the forces of three Arab countries and managed to occupy land that was three times larger (Tibi, 1998). As six years passed, both Egypt and Syria decided to coordinate a two-front campaign in order to recapture the territories they had lost back in 1967.

The Ramadan War was an important event that contributed to the furthering of hostile relationships between the United States and the Soviet Union. For the two nations, the Middle East was a setting in which they could compete to create client states and facilitate influence, with the region affected significantly by the Cold War’s geopolitical dictates (Tibi, 1998). For example, while the USSR was the leading supplier of arms and aid to Egypt and Syria, the US was a supplied of key military equipment to Israel, along with some economic assistance. The United States aimed at ensuring that Israel is not defeated in the Arab-Israeli conflict while the Soviet Union wanted to ensure that Egypt is not conquered, with either superpower wanting to jeopardize their improved relationships with the other when trying to break the peace between Israel and Egypt.

The Role of President Anwar al-Sadat

The role of the former Egyptian President, Anwar al-Sadat, is important to note as related to the Ramadan War because the confrontation between countries occurred during his rule. Anwar Sadat is considered to be a controversial figure because his legacy was associated with a series of ongoing processes, such as the Arab-Israeli peace process, the economic development of Egypt, as well as the political liberalization of Egypt (Alterman, 1998). Anwar al-Sadat became the leader of the company upon the death of former President Nasser, at the time of an intense and competing political, economic, and diplomatic changes. One of the most prominent objectives that were set at the beginning of the presidency is the intent to recover all Arab territory that Israel occupied following the 1967 war as well as to reach a peaceful solution of the long-term conflict. In order to achieve this, Sadat aimed to use all international diplomacy means; however, he understood that military action was the likely scenario. Therefore, while exploring peaceful options of conflict resolution, President al-Sadat simultaneously started preparing Egypt for limited war.

From the diplomatic perspective, the President believed that there was a need for creating a sense of urgent crisis in order to ’tilt’ the balance of power in the favor of Egypt. Al-Sadat sought to widen the support of the international community for the cause of Arabian countries whole, also strengthening the relations with third countries to increase the pressure on Israel regarding political, diplomatic, and economic affairs. In particular, the President wanted to convince the United States government to use its influence on Israel and to enable an environment of support among the African and Arab countries as well as the help from the United Nations (Gutfeld & Vanetik, 2016). In addition, he pursued collaboration with Arab producers of oil in order to establish an embargo as a political means of manipulation. Cutting production and boosting oil prices was expected to implement international pressure on the government of Israel in order to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Considering the history of military failures in the previous wars between countries, al-Sadat had to overcome the negative reputation of Egypt. As a representative of his people, the President needed to show both honor and dignity of his country, which are important principles embedded in bot the Arab culture and the Muslim religions. Because the Arab military were down in their spirits due to the outcome of the Six-Day War, a repeat of the tragedy would be a moral disaster for the country. Therefore, Anwar Sadat understood the essential role of establishing Egypt as a powerful force in the region if the country managed to recapture its territory, with such a victory in a limited war serving as a means of overcoming the humiliation that Arab states encountered in 1967. As mentioned by Sadat himself, “first to go would be the humiliation we had endured since the 1967 defeat; for, to cross into Sinai and hold on to any territory recaptured would restore our self-confidence (Al-Sadat, 1978, p. 244).

Thus, Sadat was faced with the challenge of the need to expend the efforts and increasingly scarce resources in order to prepare the country for military war. However, the Egyptian economy was not strong enough in order to bear the burden of military mobilization, with the continuing loss of the revenue from the Suez Canal becoming a significant financial issue for the country. Time became a critical problem, and Sadat could no longer afford another year of living in failure, otherwise, he would not be favored in terms of political reputation. The President had no other choice but to use military force to refresh its communication with Israel and win the public opinion by reopening the Suez Canal.

The achievement of the set political goals needed the implementation of a limited armed operation that would be sufficient for encouraging an international emergency raising the prospects of superpower confrontation, thus involving both the US and the USSR to resolve the larger and more significant conflict on the terms that would be welcomed by Egypt. It is essential to note that both the full-blown offensive and the on-off armed operations would be ineffective because of their intense strain on the economy of the country as well as its military capabilities. In turn, Sadat believed that the political objectives of Egypt would be achieved by recapturing and holding a portion of the Sinai.

Implementation

The Arabs developed a plan of a blitzkrieg when both rival sides were in the celebration of religious feasts. The fourth passage of arms within the Arab-Israeli conflict was launched with the help of air attacks at 14:00 on Saturday, October 6, 1973 (Tibi, 1998). The timing of the military action coincided with Ramadan for the Arabs and the Yom Kippur for the Israelis. Together with Egypt’s commander of armed forces, General Ahmed Ismail, Sadat believed that “military operation that regained and successfully held even a small portion of the Sinai, and that inflicted heavy human and material losses on the Israeli Defense Forces would amount to a significant defeat for Israel” (Al-Sadat, 1978, p. 246). According to them, such a move would eliminate the unquestioned confidence of the Israelis, and therefore its security doctrine, increasing Arab confidence in the armed forces of Egypt as well as the confidence of those forces in themselves. To target Israel’s center of military forces, General Ismail created a plan the objective of which was to pass through the Suez Canal, cross Israel’s defense line of Bar Lev, and then establish a defensible foothold on the canal’s eastern bank (The Richard Nixon Presidential Library & Museum, 2013). An important challenge to address was that Israel had significant superiority on air, which meant that its military leadership would not hesitate to launch a strike if an attack from Egypt was imminent, based on the experience of 1967.

Timing and the strategies of deceptions were essential for Egypt to achieve success in the campaign. According to the General’s plan, it was crucial that Egypt overcomes every advantage that Israel had while also exploiting its vulnerabilities. The measures of deception became essential for reaching the defeat of Israel; for example, the measures implemented had to disorient the enemy in terms of military preparations of the country. This was expected to encourage Israel to face high mobilization expenses in the twofold size when responding to false alarms, misinterpreting the true intentions of Egypt. The Egyptian leadership chose Yom Kippur the time of the strike because it was one of the most important holidays in Israel. During that time, media broadcasting was highly limited, which would impair the ability of the Israeli Defense Forces to quickly mobilize. Since the offense was implemented during Ramadan, a period of fasting and limited physical activity, taking advantage of Yom Kippur was seen as a benefit for Egypt. Although, it is important to point out that the military force of Egypt did not consider the fact that the citizens of Israel used to spend most of their time at the time, which would enable alternative procedures of call-up. However, this did not ultimately matter because the deceptive efforts of Egypt turned out to be so effective that the Israeli Defense Force did not facilitate mobilization until the night of the attack. Such a response was too late for Israel to thwart the assault coming from Egypt. Just as Ismail had initially planned, the first twenty-four hours of the conflict belonged to the military forces of Egypt.

Collaboration with Syria

In order to increase the prospects of success in the offense, President al-Sadat and General Ismail aimed to convince the Syrian front to join Egypt in the strategic operation, which would involve a simultaneous unexpected offense in the Golan Heights. The leadership of Syria agreed to participate in the offense together with Egypt because President Assad aimed to recover Golan, which was the territory lost during the 1967 war (Tibi, 1998). Senior Syrian and Egyptian staff officers collaborated closely together during 1973 to agree on the timing of the strategic offense for both countries as well as develop mechanisms for coordinating joint assaults, including the specific airstrikes.

The role of Syria was linked to the fact that Sadat thought that Israel perceived Golan Heights as more critical than Sinai. For example, the Golan dominated the Jordan and Hula River Valley and Lake Tiberias, which are highly critical for allowing control over such an important resource as water. Therefore, when the simultaneous attacks would occur in both the Sinai and the Golan Heights, the initial response of the Israeli Defense Force would be to defend the Golan from the Syrian assault. Such a strategic move was intended to diminish at least the first response of Israel to the attack from Egypt, thus diluting the ground and air strength of the rival. Despite the range of advantages offered by the cooperation between Egypt and Syria in the strategic offense against Israel, the collaboration resulted in previously unexpected vulnerabilities. For example, Syrian cooperation meant increased expenses as related to the extension of the assault in the Sinai beginning the surface-to-air missile attack cover to lessen the pressure on Syrian forces that the Israeli Defense would have to implement. Nevertheless, the cooperation with Syria on the part of Egypt was considered an asset because it was beneficial in helping President Sadat achieve his limited victory in the war. Israel prioritized responding to the attack on the Golan, which was a positive outcome for the aims set by Egypt. Eventually, Egyptian troops took the Defense Forces of Israel by surprise by sweeping its forces deep into the Sinai Peninsula while Syria was struggling to occupy Israeli soldiers out of the Goal Heights. However, Israel launched a counterattack to regain control of the Golan Heights, with the cease-fire going into effect on October 25, 1973. Thus, it is necessary to point out that there were two important setbacks in the strategy implemented by Egypt. For example, the assumption of Sadat that both the United States and the Soviet Union would be instantly drawn into the Ramadan War due to the limited military victory of Egypt over Israel was incorrect. Both General Ismail and President Sadat failed to anticipate the counterattack of Israel across the Canal, which signifies another disadvantage in the strategy.

Outcomes

In the Ramadan War, both Israel and the Arabs declared their victory, with the latter managing to salvage their defeats and after the repeated losses of territory in the previous three wars. Within four years after the end of the offense, President Sadat visited Jerusalem to give a peace speech to the Parliament of Israel. In addition, both Sadat and former Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin were invited by US President Jimmy Carter to Camp David, which pointed to a beginning of positive relations with the United States. Nevertheless, there was a long way to go for the establishment of reliable connections. Even though the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed in March 1979 in Washington, there were some limitations, with the framework not being established for several reasons and the two sides laying blame on the other. In particular, the proposal of peace did not include specific information on the subject of Palestinian refugees, with the key issue of the status of Jerusalem remaining unresolved.

The Ramadan or the Yom Kippur War signified a significant historical event that influenced the political relations between Arabs and Israelis. The offensive of Egypt was successful in allowing President Sadat achieve his crucial strategic objectives when he made the decision that there would be no other resolution to the conflict rather than limited war (Alterman, 1998). The main objective was reached – Egypt created and successfully secured a foothold in the Sinai. Such an accomplishment was instrumental in helping Egypt to shape a psychological framework for further negotiations while also encouraging the US to pressure Israel into willingly giving away its control over the Sinai. From the political standpoint, Sadat’s initiative to begin a strategic attack resulted in setting in motion a chain of reactions that would be favorable to Egypt within the sociopolitical climate of the Middle East. It could be noted that the unity and the effectiveness of Egyptian leadership appeared almost overnight. With the help of Egypt’s success, it was possible to reclaim the lost honor that the country desperately needed in order to move further (Alterman, 1998). Until October 1973, much of Egyptian citizens’ hopes for regaining lost territories seemed unrealistic. For instance, the lack of superpowers’ interest in resolving the conflict between Arabs and Israelis as well as the reputation of Israel as having an invincible army created a gloomy image of Egypt’s future. Nevertheless, the Yom Kippur War initiated by Sadat forced the conflict on the top of the list of US and USSR’s priorities and encouraged them to resolve important claims made by Egypt in a way that would be consistent with national interests.

However, the positive results were not immediate to Egypt. It took some time, with the Sadat-inspired oil embargo leading to both the European community and Japan to endorse the demands of Arabs before the US compelled Israel to give away its control over Sinai. Significant prospects for the peace in the Middle East were associated with Sadat’s limited military offense as well as the diplomatic offensive leading to the historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem, the Camp David Accords in 1978, as well as the initial treaty of peace between Israel and an Arab state in 1979.

Conclusions

The Ramadan or the Yom Kippur War was instrumental in establishing a new environment in the Arab world and changing the approach of the US toward its foreign policies regarding the Middle East. Both Arabs and the Israelis found themselves in periods of important religious holidays, which would enable a delayed military response from the party that was being attacked by the other. Such timing was strategically chosen by the military and political leadership of Egypt that aimed to catch Israel in an unprepared position unexpectedly. The strategy was developed by President Sadat and General Ismail as a means of taking advantage of the holidays and having the upper hand in the initial strikes. In addition, the collaboration with Syria and Egypt meant that Arabs could strike Israel from two fronts, thus enabling its Defense Force to divert its attention to the Golan Heights, which was strategically important to the country. Even though both sides declared victory, Sadat’s and Ismail’s offense allowed Egypt to recover from the guilt of losing territories in the past. While there was a long way to go toward a comprehensive peace process, the Ramadan War represented an essential step toward establishing a framework for further negotiations.

References

Al-Sadat, A. (1978). In search of identity. Harper & Row.

Alterman, J. (1998). Sadat and his legacy: Egypt and the world, 1977-1997. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Gutfeld, A., & Vanetik, B. (2016). A situation that had to be manipulated: The American airlift to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Middle Eastern Studies, 52(3), 419-447.

The Richard Nixon Presidential Library & Museum. (2013). President Nixon and the role of intelligence in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Web.

Tibi, B. (1998). Conflict and war in the Middle East. Palgrave MacMillan.

Introduction

Just war is the doctrine that has been based on the beliefs of the Roman and the catholic based military ethics. This is the doctrine that moral ethnologists and international lawmakers have studied. In this case, it has been seen that the conflicts that occur between the states undergoing war should cover all the aspects of religious, political, and philosophical justice.

Body

Just war thinking belongs to the religious traditions of the West, especially the older forms of Christianity that were laid down in the fifth century. Started the legal approach to war began after the Second World War. Examples include the Nuremberg tribunal. Since this tribunal, it has been seen that the UN has passed a law against the use of any kind of force that can be counted as being non-defensive.

The wars have to be limited to the political goals that have been responsible for starting the wars, as the law states. Any unnecessary destruction caused by the war shall be counted in the unjust context. As soon as possible, all the gains have been achieved in the case of the political payments and the political measures, and the war should be brought to an end so that it does not cause any more trouble for the country s citizens. According to international laws, the people and their related properties are the ones that should be protected by all means, and no harm should be caused as these two are not part of the political gains.

Jus in Bello, in other words, has been known as justice in war. This is the guideline for continuing the fighting in war once the war has been declared in its official terms. In this case, it has been said that there is no moral in warfare, and therefore this is the case where the just war theory and the just war-related laws are the ones that are being negated here.

There has been an argument about the war that it is an immoral act. Thereby there are no legal limitations that can be implicated. In this case, the guidelines from Jus in Bello come into action by saying that the humanitarian laws are the ones that are to be applied here in this case in which it is to be made sure that during the war, military conduct has to be limited to some extent so that the war does not change into the merciless killing. Furthermore, Jus has given some additional clauses in Bello in which it has been said that the people responsible for the brutal war crimes are to be held for questioning in the courts.

In some cases, the Jus in Bello can be applied in insurgent warfare. As principal, the insurgent warfare is always aimed to be specific towards some rules, some people in the states who have been responsible for the insurgent wars as has been noticed in the case of the recent terrorism wave against the specific countries. Jus in Bello, in this case, has been bringing in the rules that this, in addition, has to be sad being unjust.

The states themselves reflect moral values, and it all depends upon how the state people think and how they can judge the world in their surroundings. Realism perspective has always been based on despair in case of progress and limited human possibilities. Conflicts have been a part of world politics. Decisions makers of the states have a little choice to combat these conflicts but to protect themselves and their countries in case of security purposes, status, and wealth. This is the situation that calls on for war and thus the merciless killing in many cases. In this case, the realists always take action by making changes in the policies as these are the ones that are regulated by the unbalanced competition from the states in different conditions.

Liberalists are the ones who are much more optimistic about human progress in this world, and thereby it says that gains in a coordinated manner can be achieved rather than using forces on the states. The goals, in this case, are to be completed within and across the societies in a friendly manner by taking into account the peace of an individual and the community, prosperity of the cultures and states, including institutions. In this, the liberal always thinks of the foreign policies as having the domestic incentives.

In the Marxist system, the people’s position in society is always based on the economic system provided to the people of the community. As the financial system is better, the people can have better statuses and have better conditions in their lives. This is the understaffing and the realization that can lead the people to have a just way of living. In this case, the moral fact that has been taken into account is that the economic systems have been balanced as the main factor that can lead the people to live in a balanced society in the financial system.

Conclusion

Since the event of Peace of Westphalia that occurred in 1648, there have been many changes in the international laws relating to just war. These are the laws related to using a global force for some purpose. During the changes in the rules, the basic guidelines for just war were replaced by international lawmakers. Here the continuity was built between the religious outlook of the Europeans on the war and the modern secular outlook of the states in the modern days.

Bibliography

Doyle, W. Michael. The Ways of War and Peace. Rolf Harris Productions Pty, Limited, 1996.

Walzer, Michael. Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books, 1977.

The home front is a collective term that covers civilian activities in a country at war. Both World War I and II were totally destructive, and homeland production became more indispensable to the Axis powers and Allies. Armed forces were at the front line fighting while citizens at home worked to produce supplies and materials for the soldiers (Roediger et al., 2019). The impact of the war was visible in the civilian activities of Germany, Japan, and the United States. This essay compares the conditions on the home front of Japan and Germany with that of the United States.

The home front of Germany and Japan during WWII was not heavily invested in the mobilization of manpower as the war was happening on their territories. Germans remained quiet at the start of the conflict because they feared disaster. Total mobilization of the economy came in late, and the number of women working in domestic service, agriculture, industry, and business increased only slightly during the fight (Roediger et al., 2019). Likewise, the Japanese society kept their women at home as they believed that females maintained the cohesion of the family system. Although the country was highly mobilized from the beginning, the government was reluctant to mobilize women for war. Chinese and Korean workers were recruited to fill the labor gaps instead of utilizing Japanese women.

Contrarily, the home front of the U.S was different from that of Germany and Japan as America was not fighting on its territory. New factories were created, and boomtowns grew around them; many people came to work in these industries (Roediger et al., 2019). About sixteen million men and women were recruited into the military, and over a million Black Americans came from the rural South to look for jobs. As a result, there were increased racial tensions, and riots erupted as Whites reacted to the Black residents. Japanese Americans were forced to reside in camps surrounded by barbed wire and take loyalty oaths to the U.S. However, Italian and Germans were not put in camps, a policy that demonstrated racism in America.

To conclude, Germany and Japan involved their territories in WWI and WWII, leading to many people losing their lives in attacks and bombing raids. Governments were involved in manpower allocation, rationing, and evacuation as a result of air raids, home defense, and response to enemy power occupation. As a result, people feared disasters, and women were not heavily involved in war efforts. On the contrary, in America, people, including women, willingly took part in working at factories that manufactured war weapons and, consequently, communities and boomtowns grew.

Reference

Roediger, H., Abel, M., Umanath, S., Shaffer, R. A., Fairfield, B., Takahashi, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2019). Competing national memories of World War II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16678-16686. Web.

Introduction

Gulf War was the most significant military conflict since World War II, which not only provoked the formation of the largest military alliance but also was marked by the massive application of modern high-technology weapons. In this regard, the Patriot air defense missile system occupies a prominent place in the coalition’s victory in this conflict, serving as primary air defense equipment against Scud ballistic missiles. Nevertheless, debates still exist concerning the performance and feasibility of the Patriot system in the context of the Gulf War. This paper aims at examining the development of the US Patriot missile, its use in the given war, and its effectiveness.

The General Description of the System

Patriot was a direct child of the hot phase of the Cold War confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States and its allies. Initially shooting only down aircraft, Patriot received its anti-ballistic purpose only in 1986 after obtaining the PAC-1 software. During the Persian Gulf crisis, Patriot batteries were usually outfitted with PAC-1 and PAC-2 missiles (Schubert and Kraus, 2000). It is worth noting that Patriot became immensely complicated air defense artillery (ADA) due to electronically scanning radar that could track approximately 100 targets simultaneously. The system also included command and six to eight launchers that possessed four missiles. In addition, the battery was linked to the engagement control station, the functional center equipped with sophisticated, computer-based equipment, and an air-conditioned van. Altogether, the Patriot system could detect, track, search for, identify, engage, and terminate missiles without additional help.

Deployment in the War

The reason for the utilization of the Patriot missile in the Persian Gulf crisis was the coalition’s promise to defend Israel if it abstained from replying to the continuous Scud attacks by using Israeli jets. In particular, PAC-2 missiles shipped to the Persian Gulf to prevent military targets and protect civilian populations comprised 424 by January 1991, 159 of which were launched during the confrontation (Sherman, 2003). The central locations to cover Scud’s 600-kilometer range were Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and later Israel (Postol, 1991). The first portion of the Patriot batteries was in service with the 82d Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade in Saudi Arabia, but then protect the strategic targets were moved to operate with HAWK units. For instance, the HAWK batteries and three Patriot batteries are part of the 11^th Brigade providing air defense for the XVIII Airborne Corps (Schubert and Kraus, 2000). Consequently, all Patriot units participating in the operation titled DESERT STORM were taken from the 11^th Brigade and other similar US brigades. It is worth indicating that this was the first time in history when anti-tactical ballistic missiles countered hostile attacks.

Performance

The early estimates of the Patriot’s performance indicated its success and utility in the Gulf War. For example, according to Sherman (2003), the successful interception or at least engagement of hostile missiles comprised about 40 percent in Israel and 70 percent in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, these initial appraisals were overstated by the US Army. The main problem was that despite the interception of many incoming missiles, they produced debris and unexploded warheads, which resulted in substantial damage and casualties. However, considering that this was the first use of anti-tactical ballistic rockets in history, Patriot showed its relatively decent effectiveness. Moreover, the system provided psychological support for the land army and civilians, which contributed to the overall success in the Gulf War. Finally, the complex has paved the way for further, more accurate developments and improvements in the detection system of enemy missiles.

Conclusion

In summary, the paper has explored the development of the US Patriot missile, its use in the Gulf War, and its performance. Patriot is a highly complicated air defense system equipped with electronically scanning radar, command, and six to eight launchers, the management of which was executed from the engagement control station. Most batteries were formed in the 11th Brigade and located in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. Patriot system demonstrated their relative effectiveness in the defense against hostile missiles, despite the need for further considerable improvement.

References

Postol, T. A. (1991-1992). Lessons of the Gulf War experience with Patriot.International Security, 16(3), 119-171. Web.

Schubert, F.N., & Kraus, T.L. (2000). The Whirlwind War: The United States Army in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.The US Army Center of Military History. Web.

Sherman, J. D. (2003). Patriot PAC-2 development and deployment in the Gulf War. Defense Acquisition University Alumni Association. Web.

During the era of the Bush administration, a range of political missteps was made, yet none of them was as egregious as the notorious war in Iraq. Having led to multiple losses and the development of a massive conflict between the U.S. and Iraqi governments, the war aggravated the political tensions and reinforced the sense of national insecurity within the U.S. A plethora of polarizing opinions on the war in Iraq have been voiced, yet the conflict of opinions is exemplified best by the disagreement between George Bush, Jr., the then President of the U.S., and David Koehler. Although Bush’s position is understandable given the atmosphere of fear observed in the U.S. at the time due to terrorist attacks, the position of Koehler is much more reasonable since it is devoid of the logical fallacies present in Bush’s ar2014gument.

When dissecting the argument that Bush and the supporters of the war in Iraq provided, one should address the presence of a false dilemma. Namely, the problem in Bush’s argument concerns the wrongful assumption that the United States are only presented with two solutions, namely, either facing the threat of terrorism, or start a war with Iraq (deLaplante, 2013). In reality, the U.S. had a plethora of other opportunities, which rendered Bush’s argument pointless. Likewise, the general idea behind Bush’s argumentation represented the fallacy of the argument from ignorance (deLaplante, 2013). In turn, Koehler’s assumptions did not have any major biases in them, which allowed his statements to seem much more reasonable and measured than those of Bush. Specifically, Koehler promoted the idea of liberating Iraq from the terrors of war. Therefore, Koehler’s line of reasoning appears to be much more sensible than that one of Bush.

Reference

deLaplante, D. (2013). What is a good argument? (Part I) [Video]. YouTube.

Introduction

The First Gulf War between coalition and Iraqi forces began in January 1991 and ended in February of the same year, lasting a little more than a month. However, the conflicts in the Arabian Gulf preceding the war lasted eight years (Bulloch & Morris, 2017). The coalition was the largest alliance since World War II. It consisted of 35 nations with a total of 543 thousand soldiers assembled initially and more than 956 thousand people by the end of the war (Carmichael & Anderson, 2021; Ansbacher & Schleifer, 2021).

The majority of coalition forces were from the US, Saudi Arabia, the UK, and Egypt. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein had the fourth largest armed forces globally, with 955 thousand regular army and 650 thousand paramilitaries (Carmichael & Anderson, 2021). The main military scene was Kuwait, from where Iraqi forces planned to invade Saudi Arabia. The latter became a place of military buildup and the main base of operations for the coalition. The resources and armed forces of Saudi Arabia played a significant role during the war.

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm

Members of the coalition used various names for war operations, with the most prominent two being operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. On the 2nd of August, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait’s capital, which is considered the starting point for the war countdown. Corrigan (2017) notes about the day: “Helicopters descended on the city like locusts, their beating blades announcing the invasion” (p. 8).

Iraq completely occupied Kuwait within 48 hours and started consolidating armies near the Kuwait border with the Saudis (Carmichael & Anderson, 2021). Fearing the invasion, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia asked other countries to help with the troops. US military immediately answered with operation Desert Shield, building up forces in Saudi Arabia and preparing for defense. The Saudis themselves had a formidable air force, but their ground troops were limited in number (Corrigan, 2017). Moreover, the Iraqi army outnumbered and outgunned the Saudis, and the invasion could end with their defeat if it started immediately after Kuwait.

The five-month waiting period for Iraqi to vacate Kuwait was over, and Operation Desert Storm commenced. The name ‘Desert Storm’ is often confused with the name of the war because of the operation’s significance. The coalition attacked Iraq on the night of the 17th of January, 1991. It was the aerial campaign to liberate and defend Kuwait. “Dawn broke, removing the safety of the night, but the airstrikes continued without pause” as the coalition wanted to pressure Saddam Hussein (Corrigan, 2017, p. 78). The Iraqi leader liked to “micro-manage his forces,” so the coalition tried to erode his control (Carmichael & Anderson, 2021, p. 436). The alliance air force flew thousands of sorties and expanded a significant amount of ammunition up until the 29th of January.

It was a surprise attack on the Saudi coastal city Ras al-Khafji located a little more than a dozen miles away from Kuwait border. The results of this attack had not met Hussein’s expectations leaving the Iraqi army wide open for the coalition’s airstrikes (Allison, 2021). This attack hastened the war, and the first ground battles between the coalition and Iraqi started two weeks later. However, the major ground war began on the 24th of February, ending in four days with the coalition’s victory on the 28th of February, 1991.

Saudi Arabian Impact on Desert Operations

First and foremost, Saudi Arabia granted the coalition lands to amass three-quarters of a million forces. It was “an enormously complex logistical exercise, feeding and supplying millions of gallons of water” to the troops (Gornall, Ch. 2, para. 96). Prince Khaled (1993) recalled that it was a hard decision for King Fahd to invite western forces to Saudi Arabia because of “the Islamic nature of that soil” (as cited in Gornall, Ch. 2, para. 76). Nevertheless, the Saudis knew they needed western support because they helped build Hussein’s army over the years and realized its strength. Ultimately, members of the coalition showed mutual respect and tolerance. The coalition summarily spent more than 60 billion dollars on the operations against Iraq, and Gulf states provided over 30 billion dollars for the cause (Gornall). Without Saudi resources and considerable symbiosis among the alliance members, the war would not be possible.

The Saudi armed forces were part of two out of four command areas: Joint Forces Command North, represented by joint Arab forces, and Joint Forces Command East, comprised of three task forces. Overall, five Saudi brigades took part in the war, from 15 to 25 thousand people (Gornall). Both Joint Forces North and East fought in Kuwait and defended Ras Al-Khafji. Prince Khaled was appointed as the commander of Arab forces. He remembers it in his memoir as a “complex operation to stop a terrible dictator” (Khaled, 1993, as cited in Gornall, Ch. 2, para. 48). Saudi Arabian army was prominent during Operation Desert Storm and helped achieve the operation’s objectives.

Saudi Arabian Armed Forces in Desert Storm

Operation Desert Storm can be divided into four major phases. The first phase was to destroy the Iraqi logistics, air force, and Scud missile sites. Iraq had nearly a thousand air vehicles, including fighters and jets (Allison, 2021). The Tomahawk missiles were bombing Baghdad’s electricity, communication, research, production and supply facilities, air defense systems, and other infrastructure. Meanwhile, the coalition aircraft, including the Saudi air force, were striking at numerous strategic targets in southeastern Iraq, namely Iraqi airbases, with most enemy aircraft not even leaving the ground (Gornall).

Royal Saudi Air Force F-5E Tiger II fighters were supporting the operation. “Saudi pilots flew more than 7 thousand sorties” out of over 100 thousand sorties flown by the coalition (Britannica, para. 2; Carmichael & Anderson, 2021). It was a swift, precise, and deadly collaboration to cripple Hussein’s chain of command and resources.

The Iraqi ground attack on Ras Al-Khafji was reckless and irrational, possibly out of frustration. Gornall notes that three weeks of the war were one-sided, and “Iraqis had done nothing but take casualties and fire Scud missiles … at targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel” (Ch. 3, para. 21). Ras Al-Khafji had been evacuated immediately after the Kuwait occupation. Still, the coalition dispatched two Saudi Arabian National Guard battalions and the US Marine Corps to stop the Iraqi advance inwards Saudi Arabia (Gornall). US aircraft spotted the mechanized and armored divisions before Iraqi reached the city; thus, air attacks heavily damaged the columns (Allison, 2021). After stopping the Iraqi advancement, Saudi Arabian and Qatari forces retook the city with the help of the coalition artillery and aircraft.

The second, third, and fourth phases were to free Kuwait. Much time went into planning the ground attack on Iraqi positions because they had built defensive belts during a five-month waiting period. The coalition surrounded Kuwait attacking from the left and right flanks while joint Arab forces, Saudi, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti armies, were advancing from the front. Despite solid defenses, including minefields, fire trenches, and barriers, Arab forces penetrated the border. By the end of the second day of the four-day ground war, they reached Kuwait City (Gornall).

Left flank forces cut the retreat of a portion of the Iraqi army, while US Marines on the right flank and US battleships supported the Arab force’s advancement towards the capital. After firing a couple of Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia as a last of power, Saddam Hussein ordered a general withdrawal resorting to the scorched earth policy (Carmichael & Anderson, 2021). The Saudis and Arab forces led by Prince Khaled had the honor to liberate Kuwait City.

Conclusion

Saudi Arabia had a major role in the First Gulf War in January-February 1991. The Saudi king invited western forces and provided the coalition with land, money, and provisions during Desert operations. The Saudi army and air force were part of every major phase of Operation Desert Storm. Royal fighters supported strikes at Iraqi strategic targets, and National Guard defended Ras Al-Khafji. The joint Arab army under the command of Prince Khaled overwhelmed the Iraqi at the border to Kuwait, proceeded to its capital, and helped drive out Iraqi forces from the country. The coalition achieved victory due to the well-coordinated warfare of all parties involved. Careful planning, enormous money inputs, workforce, soldiers, and machinery made the war swift and nearly one-sided. Apart from the US, Saudi Arabia made the next most substantial contribution toward the military success of the operations.

References

Allison, F. H. (2021). The Desert war: Marine Corps aviation in Desert Storm, January–February 1991. Expeditions with MCUP, 2021, 1–49. Web.

Ansbacher, Y., & Schleifer, R. (2021). How special operations forces can contribute strategically to modern wars: An Israel–US case study comparison. The RUSI Journal, 166(4), 30–39. Web.

Britannica. (n.d.). The Persian Gulf War and its aftermath. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Web.

Bulloch, J., & Morris, H. (2017). The Gulf War: Its origins, history and consequences. Routledge.

Carmichael, E. B., & Anderson, Q. (2021). The First Gulf War: Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (17 January-28 February 1991). British Dental Journal, 230, 435–443. Web.

Corrigan, J. (2017). Desert Storm air war: The aerial campaign against Saddam’s Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. Rowman & Littlefield.

Gornall, J. (n.d.). Desert Storm: 30 years on. Arab News. Web.

Sometimes in their life, people might face circumstances where they are required to step out of their comfort zones in order to impact the community. Such an instance took place in my life as well. In September 2020, when I was a part of the Armenian community in Cleveland, a terrible conflict emerged between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh War was taken place in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh province and its surrounding areas. This incident had an adverse impact on the Armenian people, leaving many frightened kids without fathers, innocent people without a crowd, and innocent young lives killed. It has affected the community economically, socially, and politically. In order to improve the situation and help my country, I have taken part in many significant actions so I could contribute to a faster recovery after the influence of the war.

The first thing we did was we have tried to educate the Armenian public and raise awareness among people about the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh due to attacks by Turkey and Azerbaijan. There was a Saint Gregory of Narek Armenian Church on Richmond Road, where I was a part of the effort. I think that educating people on the adverse effects of the situation happening in different parts of the world and communities is one of the most important things in modern society. Once people are aware of the conflicts and sufferings taking place on Earth, they will be more sympathetic to support each other in difficult situations.

Next, I went on demonstrations in Cleveland and Columbus, supporting people in expressing their concerns and urging people to care about the happening situation. For this, I had even driven my family (mom, dad, brother, and sister) to Washington. We have created Flags, shirts, and posters to educate the public and involve the American nation in helping end the war. People organize such demonstrations in order to show their indifference and raise the indifference of other people. It is possible that others simply are not aware enough of the situation happening in Armenia or other parts of the world. In order to increase my chances of gathering attention to the essence of helping Armenian people, I have participated in such events.

Finally, I was a part of the Armenia Fund, which is an organization that facilitates raising awareness and collecting money in support of Armenia. The fund organizes various awareness-raising campaigns around the world and realizes many projects, events, and awards to help the Armenian community. $12,351,000 was raised in support of the homeland by this non-profit organization (Hayastan All Armenian Fund, n.d.). The sum was raised during 2020-2021 from different countries and communities around the world, including the US, Canada, France, and other Armenian communities internationally. I helped to donate clothing, medical supplies, wheelchairs, food, and money. With my uncle, who lives in Philadelphia, we strived for the community to invest their time to educate the public and donate.

I am still doing everything possible to help our people. I am a proud Armenian who is always ready to help my community. The incident with the Nagorno-Karabakh war has taught me to step out of my comfort zone and take action. I have understood that only this way I can make my contribution to the situation. I have challenged myself to dedicate all the time, effort, and money that I could to improve the status of the Armenian community and to encourage other non-indifferent people to make a contribution.

Reference

Hayastan All Armenian Fund (n.d.). Web.

Mearsheimer justifies the reasons for Modern European war by the existence and disposition of poles of power, which affect the determination of states to engage in hostilities. He considers the multipolar system the most conducive to rivalry because states’ authority is not distributed evenly (Mearsheimer, 2014). Furthermore, it is most predisposed to instability, as relations between countries change from hostile to sociable and vice versa. Such frequent transformations contribute to the constant emergence of wars. Moreover, they prevent a rational assessment of the capabilities and intentions of adversaries.

An unbalanced multipolarity is the most unbalanced form because it is characterized by a hegemon pursuing as much power as feasible. Other states are fearful of such urges, and therefore their policies can be more aggressive. Mearsheimer (2014) argues that wars in modern Europe under a bipolar order occurred with minimal frequency. This system is the most steady because there is a balance between the countries, contributing to their mutual understanding.

However, Mearsheimer’s concept cannot be applied nowadays because it is challenging to define the current world order. It is evident that multipolarity prevails and establishes the course of action. Still, it is closely intertwined with bipolarity, which indicates that the modern world is a unique system with dissimilar approaches and impacts. This connection distinguishes the current state of the world structure from the previous one. Therefore, one cannot associate the reasons for military conflicts solely with a specific system.

Mearsheimer’s ideas regarding the grounds for wars are rational and reasonable. Nevertheless, the author doubts them because of the nuclear weapon, which existed when Europe was bipolar (Mearsheimer, 2014). It was not present in multipolar order, and therefore the arguments are not valid as the atomic weapon is one of the world’s most significant forces. Mearsheimer (2014) suggested that it, not the system, could be the foremost reason for the absence of war in bipolar Europe between 1990 and 1945. The balance of power cannot affect the outbreak of war as much as the fear of nuclear annihilation.

Reference

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics: Updated edition. WW Norton & Company.

Introduction

The Second World War erupted in tension and the need to acquire international supremacy in various countries. However, many countries played diverse role in promoting success of their allies. British holding territories in India with over six hundred autonomous princely states. The question is “What role did India play in the second world war?”. India played a diverse role such as military assistance and provision of autonomous refreshment base for Britain and Indian army. These roles had greater impact on the Britain maneuvers to overcome the Imperial Japanese and Germany troops.

Historiography

Indian Army fought in distinction worldwide; their idea was to create harmony and defend Indians against any external explosion by either Japanese or Germans. The Historical perspective of Indian engagements in World War II has been linked with the populace. The population of India was high such that men could easily engage in international welfare.¹ The political climate was the critical factor in Indian engagement in the Second World war. Viceroy Linlithgow avowed that India was at war with Germany with no further talks with the other politicians.² This fueled a lot of external pressure on the Indian administration, thus leading to the direct intervention measures to protect their country.

Indian consistently participated in the Allied campaign, which remained strong throughout the war. The British government and its associations focused on using Indians due to their strong financial and military capabilities. This was done to build a strong team against British enemies such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.³ The strategic position at the tip of the Indian Ocean and its extensive access to weaponry was the ideal factor the British Government considered while determining their strongholds.

Different historians have varied thoughts on the Indian engagement in World War II. The critical consideration is based on the colonial masters who forced Indian Army to engage in military welfare. Some believe that India was strategically located to quickly acquire an army weapon and easy access to the east African countries.⁴ British government consisted used India to access Africa for easy colonization. Historians also believe that India was a rich country in terms of human labor and raw materials. British tried to protect these items from foreign invasion from Imperial Japan and Germany. This ideally led to conflict amongst the three governments, thus creating an avenue for the British to use Indians to secure their resources.

The tremendous armed force played a crucial role in faltering the military advancement of Imperial Japan in the south-East Asian region. The Indian Army was the most significant population; more than 2 million Indian troops were directly engaged in the second world war.⁵ As a result, by the end of the war, India became one of the major industrial powers, and its financial and military inspiration paved the way for the United Kingdom. In its efforts to overcome Japan, the British formed military personnel known as British Indian Army. This campaign was used to effectively provide an avenue for British leadership to win the second war II. Britain lacked enough personnel; they only focused on their colonies to provide personnel for war.

As a colony of Britain, India fought with the allies. Indian Army lost more than 35000 military men in the war, while 34000 were seriously wounded and 67000 were caught as prisoners of war.⁶ The critical operating base for the Indian Army was in the Asian theatre, mainly fighting Japan in South East Asia. The other action areas were based on north and east Africa.

The increase in colonialism forced valorous Indian freedom fight Subash Chandra Bose to form a resistance movement that sided the axis to help Indian get out of the British domain. The division across the Indian community led to massive death and defeat during the second world war.⁷ This delimited a fast movement to secure the country’s independence from the British colonies. Indian Army gathered a lot of effort to help allied parties and create an avenue to the liberation of their country. This ideal circumstance motivated many Indians to engage in the military welfare guided by both freedom fighters and the British Army.

The factual circumstances surrounding the contributory factors for Indians in World War II are based on various achievements made during this period. The Indian armed forces received 15 % of the Victoria Cross award in the second world war.⁸ This reflects the outstanding contribution to World War II. Most of the Indian Army was engaged in voluntary activities. The Indian Armed Forces had under 200,000 men in 1939, yet more than 2 million people were directly involved in the war against the Axis Powers. The massive voluntary expansion of the Indian Army resulted in an end to the tradition of a majority Punjabi army, thus leading to military intelligence and loyalty.

The engagement of the British Army in Indian activities forced many Indian to consider various production activities to improve their livelihood.⁹ This created a trust between Indians and their colonial master Britain since there was an improved lifestyle. Indian Army served in all theatres of the Second World War. Various divisions were operating in different localities in which the Indian Army was directly engaged.

Indian forces fought abroad and were instrumental factors in the victories in their home country. For example, the victory at Imphal and Kohima, when the Japanese imperial tide was stemmed, the invasion of India was prevented¹⁰. This denotes their critical role in protecting their country from external invasion during the war. The Second World War helped Indians achieve their independence. The engagement of Indian troops in World War II helped them realize the importance of their country’s independence. In 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill signed an agreement setting out the common ideals for the after-world war.¹¹ The charter highlighted the need to ensure Indians enjoy sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.

The Indian contribution to World War II went beyond soldiers; Indian men and women from all walks of life supported the war effort to end fascism. Men and women worked closely by supplying food and medical attention to the soldiers. Merchants and business people provided material and food for soldiers in Europe and Africa. The nation contributed by collecting food and other essential material to support the war at home. For example, Kolkata was the Allies’ recreation center, which British soldiers stopped and recuperated before returning to the battlefield.

Conclusion

India’s engagement in World War II had a lot of impact on the welfare outcomes. Many Indians were involved in World War II, most semi-skilled. Their contribution activities were linked to the large population willing to engage in the war actively. Indian Army was amongst the most significant troops involved in the war; others provided moral and physical support, such as food and medics. As a result, India actively achieved success by assisting Britain to fight its enemies such as Imperial Japan and Germany.

Bibliography

1. Kamtekar, Indivar. “A different war dance: state and class in India 1939-1945.” Past & present 176 (2002): 187-221
2. Churchill, Winston S. The second world war. A&C Black, 2013
3. Katoch, Hemant Singh. The Battlefields of Imphal: The Second World War and North East India. Routledge India, 2016.
4. Khan, Yasmin. India at war: The subcontinent and the Second World War. Oxford University Press, 2015
5. Killingray, David, and Martin Plaut. Fighting for Britain: African Soldiers in the Second World War. Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2012.
6. Mukerjee, Madhusree. Churchill’s secret war: The British Empire and the ravaging of India during World War II. Basic Books, 2011.
7. Pati, Budheswar. India and the First World War. Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1996
8. Pullin, Eric D. “Noise and Flutter”: American Propaganda Strategy and Operation in India during World War II.” Diplomatic History 34, no. 2 (2010): 275-298.
9. Raghavan, Srinath. India’s war: World War II and the making of modern South Asia. Hachette UK, 2016.
10. Stone, James H., ed. Crisis fleeting: Original reports on military medicine in India and Burma in World War II. Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, 1999
11. Weigold, A. (2010). Churchill, Roosevelt, and India: Propaganda During World War II. Routledge.

Introduction

The invasion of Iraq by the American US army was intended to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial regime. The best way to succeed in the invasion was to attack the biggest urban center in the region despite the cost associated with such a mission. Since time immemorial, the role of armies globally has been the defending or attacking of cities. The cost and level of difficulty of urban city attacks have contributed to the development of tactical strategies that emphasize on avoidance of attacks of cities. However, the army continues to attacking cities with the intention of controlling the center of operations of a targeted country.

Main body

In 2017 an updated Field Manual named operation was developed by the US Army and the National Security Strategy. This strategy emphasized the significance of defending or seizing cities to take control of regions that determine the global connectivity of countries and the regions with the greatest dominance of power, resources, and people. Attacking or defending big cities requires a huge muscle of field artillery and the impacts are usually catastrophic resulting in massive deaths and destruction of property (Coteț, 2019). This essay discusses how field artillery played a significant role in enhancing the success of seizing Baghdad during the 2003 war between the US Army and Iraq.

Baghdad is the second biggest city in the world after Cairo with a population of around 4 million people (Coteț, 2019; Wong, 2003). During the attack, the city was systematically important in enhancing the win because it controlled the global energy economy with numerous modern physical structures and well-connected interstitial systems. Additionally, the defending Iraqis were well equipped with weapons and could easily hide in the regions they were well conversant unlike the incoming American Army (Wong, 2003). To win the battle, The US Army required in-depth analysis of the city and the use of superior field artillery that ensured the defendants were outnumbered and overpowered. The execution of the battle was also critical since the intention was to reduce the number of casualties and to ensure that the war took the shortest time possible.

The defending Iraqis utilized both land and air forces and demonstrated great prowess until they started being overpowered due to the lack of superior and sufficient artillery. The battle took an overall seven days with the defendants using irregular forces that incorporated a hybrid tactic methodology. Other than the numerous infrastructures, the city of Baghdad was divided by the Tigris River into halves and the roads were of a radial pattern. To be able to win the war quickly and efficiently, the operations strategy required effective utilization of artillery to win the western region of Baghdad that had key government headquarters (Cordesman, 2003). This strategy presented with the advantage of reducing the need of the forces to get rid of every city block. Success was further facilitated by a multidimensional attack on Baghdad.

Efforts to stop the attack by Iraq defendants included the use of couriers for defense development, construction of barriers in the streets as well as demolishing bridges specifically the ones located in eastern Diyala River. All this was intended at stopping the on-land attack. However, American artillery was good enough to go beyond these defense systems. The third infantry division of the US army conducted daily attacks on the defendants making them weak and depleted in stocks of weaponry. One of the remarkable attacks was the “Thunder Run” executed by the t-64 Armor task force. This task force utilized 29 tankers, and 14 Bradley armored war automobiles to get control of the Baghdad airport (Cordesman, 2003).

Despite the huge resistance from the defendants, the task force managed to utilize the artillery they had to reach the airport and take control. The Iraq defendants continued to inflict attacks on the brigade that was guarding the airport resulting in casualties. However, the US army counter-attacked them using air bombardment resulting in severe casualties of the defendants. Another brigade of the same division took control of the palace after it did massive attacks on the defendants in the downtown Baghdad region (Tuathail, 2003). This was one of the palaces that Saddam Hussein utilized in giving orders to his army.

Seizure of the palace resulted in fleeing and conceding of majority of the government officials in support of Hussein’s rule. The marine force of the US Army was greatly attacked by the Iraqi military as they tried to cross the river bridge but the artillery, they had allowed them to counter-attack and cross the bridge. Even after taking over the palace and demanding the Iraqi defendants to surrender, the war in other regions continued. The next mission was to reduce the wars in the regions as well as capture Saddam and his top aides.

The marine corps used intelligence to acquire information of residing of Sadam and his troop in a mosque. They headed there and utilized heavy propelled grenades, rifles, and mortars to ensure that Sadam aides did not compromise the mission. Unluckily, Sadam and his top aides were not in the mosque. The war in all of Baghdad ended on 12th April 2003 with a total of 34 Americans and 2330 Iraqi fighters killed in the attack (Bailey, 2003; Pirnie and O’Connell, 2008). This is an indicator that the Iraq fighters were overpowered by the US army due to the possession and utilization of modern artillery.

Conclusion

An overall analysis of the Baghdad war is that the war was conducted by two US special forces the 3rd Infantry Division as well as the US Marine Corps 1st Marine Division. These troops were well-equipped with weaponry which include M113 armored personnel carriers, Bradley fighting automobiles, and M1 Abrams tanks. The fight was also facilitated by the use of US and UK-owned aircraft like A10 Warthogs, B-52S, and Harrier GR7 attack jets. The defendants in Baghdad were also well equipped with weaponry that included Asad Babil tanks and other artillery. The initial phase involves the use of aircraft to bomb the defendant Iraqis as well as to warn civilians of the attack. Key successes in the winning of the war included the capture of the Baghdad airport and the “thunder runs” to test Iraqi forces and the capture of Tharthar Palace where Sadam Husein and his allies resided.

It is therefore evident that field artillery was quite instrumental in enhancing the winning of the battle. This was crucial considering that the city is well developed with numerous roads and other infrastructure that the defendants are well familiar with. Additionally, the defendants were also well supplemented with their own artillery but were overcome by the additional strategic planning employed by the US army and marine corps.

References

Bailey, J.B., 2003. Field artillery and fire power. Routledge.

Cordesman, A.H., 2003. The Iraq War: Strategy, tactics, and military lessons. CSIS.

Coteț, F., 2019. Aspects regarding the use of field artillery in contemporary operations. Bulletin of “Carol I” National Defence University (EN), 35–39.

Pirnie, B., O’Connell, E., 2008. Counterinsurgency in Iraq (2003-2006). Rand Corporation.

Tuathail, G.Ó., 2003. “Just out looking for a fight”: American affect and the invasion of Iraq. Antipode 35, 856–870.

Wong, L., 2003. Why they fight: combat motivation in the Iraq war. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.