Just war theory is the most prominent standpoint on peace and war ethics. The theory deals with the right to resort to war and proper conduct of war. This policy equips international policy makers with accurate criteria to use to allow them evaluate the morality of interventions of specific arms of the military.
Criteria like just means, fair treatment of wounded and captives and just cause are the standpoint of the theory. The theory determines whether it is just to suffer because of war. Interstate wars began back then in historical periods and they still exist today though the causes and the methods have changed with time[1].
Some examples of military interstate wars include Persian Gulf War and the Libyan War in which the United States participated. This essay highlights the Persian Gulf War and the Libyan Wars which the United States participated and it evaluates whether they were conducted for justness.
Persian Gulf War
The Persian Gulf War was waged by United Nations and it was endorsed by alliance force from 34countries led mainly by the U.S. to fight Iraq for invading and annexing Kuwait.
The Iraqi troops had invaded Kuwait at the beginning of 1990 and this action was condemned by international nations. The U.N. Security Council immediately declared economic sanctions on Iraq. U.S. forces were then deployed in Saudi Arabia to prevent them from conducting more harm. The U.S. urged other nations to send their armed forces to Iraq to help in the war.
The U.S led intervention made Iraq, in part of the peace terms, accepted to recognize the sovereignty of the Kuwait republic. Kuwait also became less prone to Iraq invasion as Iraq had been ordered to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. The no fly zone imposed over Iraq for a while ensured peace and stability in the region.
The United Nation invasion to fight the Iraq people was of significance; it offered a platform for Kuwait to reconstruct and develop its economy without the fear of invasion from Iraq[2]. This therefore means that the war was conducted for justness.
The Libyan war
Following the Arab uprising, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya was soon too caught up in the war wave. In the wave of the uprising, rebels organized attacks against Gadhafi’s government troops. In retaliation, Gadhafi responded by using military force on the opposition.
The amount of force used was too excessive in that civilian casualties were witnessed in large numbers. As a result the United Nations Security Council voted to impose a no fly zone over Libyan airspace. The Libyan rebels could not fight the Gadhafi’s troops alone and the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces were to help in the ousting of Muammar Gadhafi[3].
The U.S.A provided intelligence and technical assistance to the NATO forces. At the end of the operation, Muammar Gadhafi was ousted and executed, and that marked the end of his reign in Libya. There was a sense of ‘freedom’ among Libyan citizens. It had brought an end to the bloodshed and violence that had rocked the nation. This was another instance where U.S.A had gone to war and the outcome was positive.
Bibliography
Brough, Michael. Rethinking the Just War Tradition. New York: SUNY Press, 2007.
Freedman, Lawrence. & Karsh, Ephraim. The Gulf Conflict: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order. New York: Scribners, 2007.
Ronald, Bruce. Libya – Continuity and Change. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Footnotes
Michael, Brough. Rethinking the Just War Tradition. (New York: SUNY Press, 2007), 102.
Lawrence, Freedman. & Ephraim, Karsh. The Gulf Conflict: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order, 1990–1991. (New York: Scribners, 2007), 110.
Bruce, Ronald. Libya – Continuity and Change. (New York: Routledge, 2011), 122.
Since the invasion led by the United States in Afghanistan in the year 2001, the nation has suffered a lot of violence. The violence started with the September 11th attack on the U.S. by the Al-Qaida. Afghanistan was the origin of the attack and thus U.S. troops were deployed to Afghanistan after the attack. U.S. military then overthrew the Taliban government leading to retaliations by the Taliban which have hitherto resulted to high levels of violence in Afghanistan.
Besides involvement by the U.S., the British government also sent troops to Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaida have also had unending conflicts along the Pakistan-Afghan border. They both accuse each other of being unable to keep militants away from each other’s side. This is in spite of the fact that the two groups are unanimous about keeping U.S. troops away from the Pakistan border (Norton 1).
The Afghanistan war has had tremendous effects on the security strategies and policies of the countries involved. This has led to prioritization of war intervention by both the U.S. and Britain. Both governments, therefore, feel obliged to win the war (Borger 1). Recent events related to the war have raised serious need for intervention that has led to a number of suggestions for ending the war.
Taliban troops are increasing each day. This has raised a lot of concerns about the willingness of the Taliban to try diplomacy. In response to this, the U.S. has sent 30, 000 troops to Afghanistan this year. This has led to a number of bombings, killing of militants and innocent civilians, killings of American and British militants carried out by the Taliban, etc.
Specific examples include the killing of civilians by a bicycle-bomb while receiving relief food, the British soldier who died on March 15, 2010, from wounds he sustained in the Helmand bomb, the 35 people killed in the March 14th Kandahar bombing meant to be a warning to Nato etc. The Afghanistan war has, arguably, escalated in the recent past due to the relentless efforts by the U.S. and Britain to contain the situation (Norton 1).
The American-British strategy for fighting Taliban troops is, seemingly, the training of forces to take over Afghanistan. However, this strategy is faced by major challenges since a lot needs to be done to change the prevailing situation. The change includes rebuilding Afghanistan from scratch, controlling the Taliban and establishing forces (national army). These changes are challenging due to the presence of war, warlords and ethnic rivalries (Borger 1).
One of the rebel groups, Hezb-i-Islami, has suggested a diplomatic solution to the problem. With the condition that the U.S. withdraws troops from Afghanistan by July, the rebel group has offered to act as a mediator between the U.S. and the Taliban. However, the influence of the group on the Taliban is suspected to be limited.
The group has also been holding talks with Afghanistan’s president, Karzai about the same and it has suggested an interim government and elections after withdrawal of troops. However, the U.S. prefers to contain the situation slowly with the hope for flexible demands forced by the successes bound to be achieved by the 30, 000 troops (Borger 1).
The war in Afghanistan has claimed a lot of lives. It is the responsibility of the diplomatic community to find amicable solutions that will end the war for good. Britain and America should completely withdraw troops and exercise diplomatic controls on the Afghanistan to ensure their safety.
It is currently impossible to speak about the history of the twentieth century without referencing Fritz Fisher’s book Germany’s Aims in the First World War. This piece of historical investigation is necessary due to its effectiveness in presenting new information as well as the introduction of the author’s point of view on the entire situation. The main conclusion Fisher made was that at some time the aims of Germany were grandiose and were based on the differences in principles: “between political and military thinking, between moderate, non-annexationist war objectives and unlimited, annexationist ones.”
From the very beginning, ever since the appearance of Germany’s Aims in the First World War in 1961 in Germany, the book was subjected to heated debates and public controversy since Fischer’s arguments had an adverse impact on the German mythology, and his documentation of historical accounts was too substantial to ignore.
In general, the fact that there is controversy surrounding Fischer’s work is reasonable since the questions he raised in the book went against the traditional disputes prevalent in the academic history. Therefore, what is at stake regarding Germany’s Aims is not the reliability of concrete evidence that the author cited or the conclusions he drew. Rather, it was the character of the epoch that shaped the way Fischer presented his work.
Fischer’s Analysis
Fischer managed to offer readers an extensive analysis of the widest range of annexationist ideologies and their impact on every aspect of the First World War. With the help of skillfully demonstrating the consistency of aggrandizement program run by Germans, which took place regardless of the appearance of multiple possibilities of setting a conflict with the aid of negotiations. Despite these opportunities, Germany was convinced that it should acquire new territories in Western and Eastern Europe for securing its position to compete with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia.
Fischer raised a controversial question whether the German government had any attempts to withstand the commotions in the country that were leading towards a catastrophe, and he made a conclusion that no efforts took place, which spoke a lot about the intentions of the government during the war. Rather, the author wrote about the promotion of revolution, which was characterized by the mutual efforts of the general staff of the German government targeted at developing a revolutionary program against Russia and Britain.
Although, the program only had immediate success in Russia, where it contributed to the chain of events that later shaped the history of the war. The activities included in the program started at the war’s outbreak and were the primary strategic warfare tools for postponing the deployment of the Russian military on the eastern frontier of Germany and contributing to the internal unrest within the Russian Army. Thus, the promotion of revolution on the part of the German government was a warfare tool aimed at destroying the Russian and British empires.
Another point that was vital to Fisher’s discussion was associated with the connections he made between the mentioned promotion of revolution and Germany’s aims to expand its territory. The debate about war aims began with the introduction of the context, which placed both war objectives and the promotion of revolution on the same analytical scale. Nevertheless, Fischer recognized that the broader scope of the development of revolution program was in may cases simplified in order to only refer to the case of the Russian Empire.
Furthermore, the author pointed to the lack of clarity regarding the role of national policies of Germany as well as its international connection. Thus, Fischer insisted on the acceptance of the revolution as a means of warfare and the aim of Germany in the First World War. According to him, the members of the German government openly acknowledged revolution. For instance, the instructions formulated by the Chancellor addressing the German embassy in Vienna defined the country’s aims to “produce a revolution, not only in Poland but also in Ukraine, seems to us very important as a means of warfare against Russia.”
Thus, a broader political terrain can be traced throughout the entire Fischer’s work. While later studies and discussions of revolutionary activities of other authors missed such a vast terrain, Germany’s Aims in the First World War gave an introduction to a broad range of revolutionary programs ranging from the enthusiasm of the Kaiser for the activity of jihad in the Islamic world and moving to attempts to destabilize the borders of the Russian Empire, Georgia, Finland, and reaching as far as the West Coast of the United States. Later, it was found that Germany accounted for the local specificities of each country, which also supported the view regarding a unified revolutionary program.
It is crucial to mention that despite the fact that the argument about the revolutionary program was central to Fischer’s work, it did not play any role in the debates over Germany’s Aims. Moreover, it gradually left the conversation, which is surprising, although predetermined. Early assessments of Fischer’s work validated the importance of the revolutionary program ideology. For instance, in his work World Politics, Klaus Epstein assigned a key importance of the revolutionary program in any discussion about war, which supported the assessment made by Fischer that it had to be placed in the center of any analysis associated with the policies of War in Germany.
In this respect, the research conducted by Fischer possesses a special “merit” of analyzing German policies in their complete configuration. Such a special merit included the war aims, strategies, as well as a focus o the imperial character of official policies.
Disagreements With Fischer’s Views
When it comes to disagreements with Fischer’s work, a discussion occurred with regards to the responsibility of Germany in influencing other countries to go to war. In Fischer’s opinion, Germany played a significant role in pressuring Austria to revive the Balkan conflict. Also, Fischer wrote that Germany wanted to place responsibility on Russia for causing war because it mobilized first.
Another point of the radical view expressed by Fischer was associated with the view that Germany implemented aggressive policies on the basis of their economic interest. According to Fischer, Germany was invested in pursuing aggressive policies from 1900 to 1939, accusing the government of having a September program targeted at achieving global power, and that the country had been in a long preparation for war.
Despite Fischer’s radical views, the more contemporary approach towards the intentions of Germany was different. For instance, the question about war guilt that many historians discussed was regarded as a consequence of the country’s plans. The German historian Erich Brandenburg stated that Germany was only to blame for the short-sightedness, lack of method consistency, and the underestimation of the implications their policy could have had.
Moreover, the French’s retrieval of Alsace-Lorraine and the desire of Russia to control the Balkans were regarded as more direct causes of the First World War than the aggressive policies of Germany or its revolutionary program. For historians such as Brandenburg, the mobilization of the Russian military was the direct cause of the war, and not the attempts of Germany to gain new territories. The rivalry between France and Germany regarding Alsace-Lorraine and the opposition between Austria and Russia to get a leading position in the Balkans contributed to the political tensions between government, which meant that each player had made a contribution to starting the war, and Germany was not the only one to blame.
Additionally, the ideas of national self-determination played a significant role in the debate against the views laid out by Fischer. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand along with his wife presented an opportunity for Austria-Hungary to reopen the discussion about the Balkan question with the help of its principle ally, Germany. The murder of Ferdinand was a chance for Austria to express its public opinion about war and to at least subdue the nationalistic ideologies. The proclamation of war against Serbia was not spontaneous, and the next events followed from that.
However, Fischer painted a picture of Austrian policies being oriented in a peaceful direction, and that only because of the pressure from Berlin the country decided to go into war, while many other historians stated that Austria was also responsible for its contribution. As mentioned by Joachim Remark, “this was Austria’s war,” and the historian also held a view that the ultimatum was an “appalling document – tardy, incompetent, deceptive, and designed to be rejected.”
Contrast to Fischer’s approach, American historians predominantly focused on intelligence, weaponry, and war plans. The latest trends regarding the exploration of the reasons for the First World War starting went as far as looking into topics such as nationalist ideologies, cultural determination of power politics, and economic integration. Others wanted to invest into exploring the domestic causes and investigate internal disturbances within countries that had an impact on governments’ decisions. For instance, in his article The Third Balkan War, Remak put the majority of guilt for the declaration of war on Austria rather than Germany, which goes against the views laid out by Fischer.
Concluding Remarks
Historians that studied the intentions of Germany in the First World War have not reached a consistent conclusion. If to speak from a personal perspective, it is important to state that both World Wars left a dark spot in the global history, and there is nothing can be done now to avoid the devastating implications.
Nevertheless, blaming one side or the other is ineffective; although Fischer provided substantial evidence to support his ideas and although the notion of the revolutionary program developed by Germany is solid, the radical anti-German stance can only hinder the examination of the real reasons for the start of the First World War. While Germany was indeed the dominant force that desired to expand its territories, each player in the war had some national interests in the war, so no one can say for certain whether it was Germany and only Germany responsible for everything.
Bibliography
Barraclough, Geoffrey. “Place in the Sun.” The New York Review, 1968.
Brandenburg, Erich. From Bismarch to the World War: A History of German Foreign Policy 1870-1914. New York: Oxford University Press, 1927.
Fischer, Fritz. Germany’s Aims in the First World War. New York: W.W.Norton & Company, 1967.
Gordon, Craig. “Germany’s Aims in the First World War by Fritz Fischer, Hajo Holborn and James Joll.” Political Science Quarterly 84, no. 4 (1969): 700-702.
Jenkins, Jennifer. “Fritz Fischer’s ‘Programme for Revolution’: Implications for a Global History of Germany in the First World War,” Journal of Contemporary History 48, no. 2 (2013): 397-417.
Konzett, Melanie. “Critically Assess Why Historians Disagreed on the Causes of the First World War.” BA Literature and History.
Remak, Joachim. “1914 – The Third Balkan War: Origins Reconsidered.” Journal of Modern History 43 (1971): 353-366.
One of the major results of the Second World War was the emergence of two world super powers; the United States of America and the Soviet Union. These two powers appeared to be pitted against each other from an ideological point of view resulting in high polarization. The United States favored communism while the Soviet Union was pro communism and aimed to spread this ideology to its spheres of influence.
The Soviet Union was keen on spreading communism while the United States was equally keen on advancing capitalism or at least curbing the spread of communism. One of the fronts on which this ideological war was fought was along the North and South Korea since North Korea was a communism sphere of influence while the south was a capitalism sphere.
However, this ideological war escalated into a fully fledged military operation making it the first major war after the Second World War. Historians agree that the Korean War had a strong influence on US policy and the international history. Bearing the huge significance of the Korean War, this paper shall conduct a concise yet informative research on the impacts of the Korean War on the US.
Events Leading up to the Korean War
The Korean peninsula prior to the end of the Second World War was under the control of the Japanese. Following the defeat of the Japanese and the subsequent end of World War II in 1945, the Korean Peninsula had an opportunity to regain its full sovereignty. However, this was not to be the case.
Henneka documents that this “liberation” of the Korean Peninsula was started by the Soviet troops from the north which the American troops advanced from the South[1]. The two liberators, The US and the Soviets agreed to demarcate the Korean Peninsula at the thirty-eighth parallel line.
This demarcation was meant to be a temporal one but over time, the Korean Peninsula became a front for the rivalry between the two world powers with the North being a Soviet sphere of influence and the South being an American sphere of influence. The political influence of the two rivals (Soviets and the US) on the Korean society was monumental and Henneka states that “the two Koreas started their new life in dependence of their military and political protectors; the US and the Soviet Union”[2].
The war was sparked by the North Korea who invaded the South in 1950 with the sole goal of reunifying the two Koreas by force. Following the defeat of the Japanese, the US had taken up control of the political and administrational structures of South Korea therefore assuming the role of the hated Japanese Imperialists.
The North therefore viewed the US as an imperialist taking over from Japan and the invasion was meant to liberate the South. The Korean War was devastating to both the North and the South and it is deemed to be one of the world’s most destructive wars in terms of the proportion of the population that was affected.
Hang Shin documents that the war resulted in the decline of the South Korean population by approximately 2million and the creation of over half a million refugees[3]. The War ended in a stalemate with the North being a communist state and the South being a capital state under the protection of the US. However, the war which lasted from 1950 to 1953 had huge significances to the United States.
Impacts of the War
A major impact of the war was the radical change of the United States’ perception of the communist threat. Before the war, officials in the US held mixed feelings about the Soviet Union and while some perceived them as a real danger, the Soviets were seen as weak and incapable of carrying out war.
Following the Korean War, Jervis records that the US now viewed communism as a force that was not only willing but also intent on attacking free nations so as to expand their influence[4]. The Korean War was seen as direct evidence that communism was willing to resort to armed aggression whenever it perceived that it could win the war.
The Korean War resulted in a monumental increase of the US defense budget. These increases could not have been possible without the new policies that came about as a result of the Korean conflict.
Before the Korean way, the US government faced budgetary restrictions that prevented it from enhancing its defense or even offering foreign assistance on the high levels that it wanted to. As a result of the Korean War, there was large public support for a stronger military since the communist threat was more real to the Americans and they were therefore willing to be taxed more to fund the military[5].
Daggett when talking about the costs of the Korean War for the United States notes that the US engaged in a large buildup of forces not just for the Korean war but in readiness for deployment elsewhere in the world should the need arise[6].
Before the Korean War, the US was involved in helping the war-torn European nations rebuild themselves through the European Recovery Program (commonly known as the Marshall plan) which began in 1948-1951. This plan which is still hailed as the most successful aid plan ever implemented by the US was mostly aimed at economic recovery of the European nations.
However, this plan also touched on security issues by establishing a military alliance in the form of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trachtenberg notes that NATO was not militarized and it was hugely a symbol of the long-term American commitment to Europe and it aimed towards a greater degree of military integration[7].
The Korean War resulted in the militarization of NATO since the US saw the need to have a strong conventional defense force capable of countering the communist threat in Europe. Following the Korean War, the US was also keen to develop a large NATO army whose troops would come from the US and great contributions from Britain, France and German. The rearmament of Germany (which had been disarmed following the end of the Second World War) was also precipitated by the Korean War.
Before the Korean War, there was fear that any war between the West and the Communism forces would result in a Third World War. This was a scenario that was viewed as hugely undesirable and for this reason, the US went into great troubles to ensure that diplomatic means were used to quell disputes between capitalism and communism before they erupted into full scale wars.
Prior to the Korean War, the US had held the assumption that war in any part of the world against communism would be unrestrained. The Korean War showed that it was possible to take part in limited wars where the dispute was limited to conventional forces at a particular geographical position[8].
The Korean War proved that the idea of limited war could be realized without posing a threat to the world. The US was from then on more willing to engage in limited wars as is demonstrated from the Vietnam Wars.
The Korean War also resulted in deterioration in Chinese-American relationships. While the relationship between the US and China were bad even before the war, China’s entry into the Korean War in support of North Korea and her Russian allies reinforced the notion to the US that China was a hostile nation. Jervis notes that while China joined the war as a result of its own personal interests in protecting itself from the perceived aggression by the United Nations forces, the US saw China as acting under the instructions of the Soviet Union[9].
The war therefore resulted in the change of China policy since now China was seen to be on the same side as the Soviet Union. The Chinese entity in the war therefore resulted in a solidification of the perception of a Sino-Soviet bloc.
The US henceforth sought to strengthen her allies in the region (South Korea and Japan) by stationing military bases in the region as well as funding military spending for the countries so as to counter the perceived threat. In addition to this, the US became visibly anti-Chinese following the Korean War since China had in the eyes of the US proven herself to be an enemy.
Another impact of the Korean War is that it resulted in the profound change of US policy by globalizing the U.S. commitment. The war led to the adoption of a belief by the US that any communist victory would greatly threaten vital American interests. The US role in Indochina where the US offered economic and military aid was as a direct result of the policy changes that resulted from the Korean War.
Jervis states that following the Korean War, the US worked under the assumption that “the whole of Southeast Asia is in danger of falling under Communist domination”[10]. While prior to the Korean War the US would have been reluctant to commit her troops and resources to reverse such a situation, the Korean War led to the preference of military intervention by the US to prevent a communist victory.
Another impact of the Korean War is that it placed North Korea as a major security risk to the Unite States. The direct attack initiated on South Korean by the North against supposed American imperialism demonstrated that North Korea was willing to undertake provocative actions against the US. This is a stance that is still held to the present day where the acquisition of nuclear warheads by the North is a major concern for the US which views Pyongyang as being willing to perpetrate acts of war from a historical view[11].
The Korean War enhanced the commitment of the US to the containment policy. The containment policy was proposed by United States diplomat George Kennan and it was primarily a policy designed to curb Soviet expansionism that seemed eminent following the end of the Second World War[12].
The containment policy was deemed necessary in light of the increasing influence of communism ideology in Eastern Europe and parts of Asia. In the cause of the Korean War, the US was tempted to endorse the rollback policy which would in essence have seen the destruction of North Koreas government and a take over by the US led UN forces.
The failure of this policy during the Korean War resulted in the US reverting back to the containment policy which was summed up by the Truman Doctrine in which the US pledged to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures”[13].
This containment policy was hugely successful in that it kept Soviet aggression at Bay. Kang authoritatively states that the relative peace and stability on the Korean peninsula even in the face of predictions of war by many scholars has been proof that deterrence works[14].
Conclusion
This paper set out to examine one of the major wars in which the US was involved in; the Korean War or 1950. The paper has proceeded to highlight the events that led to the way and gone on to examine the various impacts that the Korean War had on the United States. The consequences that the war had on US policy as well as her relationship with other countries have been articulated.
From this paper, it is clear that the Korean War had immense impacts on the United States. It is this war more than any other single factor that resulted in the significant increase in the United State’s military spending. In addition to this, the war led to the globalization of the United States commitments as it viewed any local conflict as a test of strength between itself and the Soviet Union.
Bibliography
Daggett, Stephen. “Costs of Major U.S. Wars”. Congressional Research Service. 2010.
Eui Hang Shin. “Effects of the Korean War on Social Structures of the Republic of Korea”. International Journal of Korean Studies, 2001.
Henneka, Andreas. “Reflections on Korean History and its Impacts on the US-North Korean Conflict”. Journal on Science and World Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2006 19-27.
Jervis, Robert. The Impact of the Korean War on the Cold War. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 563-592
Kang, David. International Relations Theory and the Second Korean War. International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, 301–324
Richard Abrams, “America Transformed: Sixty Years of Revolutionary Change, 1941-2001.” (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 69.
Trachtenberg, Marc. “A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement 1945-1963”. Princeton University Press, 1999.
Watson, Cynthia. “U.S. National Security: a Reference Handbook.” ABC-CLIO, 2002.
Footnotes
Andreas Henneka, “Reflections on Korean history and its impacts on the US-North Korean conflict” (Journal on Science and World Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2006), 21.
Andreas, 22.
Eui Hang Shin, “Effects of the Korean War on Social Structures of the Republic of Korea”, (International Journal of Korean Studies, 2001), 133.
Robert Jervis, “The Impact of the Korean War on the Cold War” (The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, No. 4 Dec., 1980), 579.
Jervis, 580.
Stephen Daggett, “Costs of Major U.S. Wars” (Congressional Research Service, 2010), 4.
Marc Trachtenberg, “A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement 1945-1963” (Princeton University Press, 1999), 120.
Jervis, 581.
Jervis, 583.
Jervis, 587.
David Kang, “International Relations Theory and the Second Korean War”, (International Studies Quarterly, 2003), 302.
Cynthia Watson, “U.S. National Security: a Reference Handbook” (ABC-CLIO, 2002), 44
Richard Abrams, “America Transformed: Sixty Years of Revolutionary Change, 1941-2001.” (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 69.
On the surface, the Korean War seemed like a normal war between North and South Korea; however, there was more to it than what met the eye. This was a war between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Critics and adherents alike have come up with many hypotheses as to why and how the US government got involved in the Korean War.
Why
According to Park, America got involved because of the “Domino Theory; a political theory that if one nation comes under communist control then neighboring nations will also come under communist control” (96).
In 1949, China had become one such a victim of communism and Truman knew if Korea went the same way, Japan would follow suit, something that would cripple America’s economy. “Before the tide turned, the U.S. established very high war aims of seeking the destruction of the Communist regime in North Korea” (Reiter 63).
It is evident that Truman never liked communism for he believed that it would undermine capitalism and freedom, important elements of American life. Cotton and Neary posit that, “the bombing as purely a military operation…as a means of applying pressure on the communists… (107). Truman acted on the 1950 National Security Council report (NCS 68), which called for abolishment of communism.
On the other hand, some scholars believe that America was competing against the USSR for world domination; consequently, Truman did not want to attack Russia directly so he opted to support South Korea as a way of fighting communism without involving the USSR directly.
Other compelling reasons include the fact that after America lost its bid to control China from becoming a communist state coupled with the USSR’s acquiring atomic bomb, a preserve for the Americans; many people believed that the American government was becoming weak. Therefore, to prove that the American government was not weak, therefore, Truman acted to prove that the US government was as strong as ever.
Other unusual interpreters claim, “Both sides wanted to unite but could not agree on what type of government, so the North tried to unite it forcefully by crossing the 38th parallel on June 25th 1950” (Park 99). By crossing over to the South, the North was angering the USA for it controlled the South region. Finally, America got involved in this war to honor her pledge contained in Truman’s document that stated that America would help any country that was willing to root out communism.
How
The USA sent her troops to the Southern Korea government under the pretext of United Nation’s peacekeeping mission; however, “…the UN forces of the free world, with the United States as its key participant joined the conflict to aid South Korea” (Millet 1).
It is true that the North began the war by invading the South; something that led the UN; which was only five years old then, to ask ally nations to offer military support to the South region. Nevertheless, as aforementioned, Jenkins and Fredrick observe that, “To Kim’s surprise, however, the United States rose to action immediately” (xxiii). Therefore, it was an American exercise under the guise of the UN.
Conclusion
The Korean War was not just a normal war between the Southern and the Northern region; no, it was war between the US and the USSR as they contested for world supremacy among other reasons. Particularly, America wanted to protect her trade with Japan and lifestyles; these elements were under threat of communism.
The sources used here are helpful for they offer different reasons behind America’s involvement in the Korean War. Without these different sources, one would think America went to this war for one reason; fortunately, these sources are peer-reviewed materials hence offering credible information.
Works Cited
Cotton, James, & Neary, Ian. “The Korean War in History.” Manchester; Manchester University Press, 1989.
Jenkins, Charles, & Frederick, Jim. “The Reluctant Communist: My Desertion, Court-Martial, And Forty-Year Imprisonment in North Korea.” California; University of California Press, 2008.
Millett, Allan. “The Korean War.” The Korea Institute of Military History, 1999.
Park, Hong-Kyu. “America Involvement in the Korean War.” Society for History Education, 1983. 16(2); 96-103.
Reiter, Dan. “How Wars End.” New Jersey; Princeton University Press, 2009.
Aldrich, G. (2002). The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants
The American Journal of International Law, 96 ( 4), 891-898. This article gives an in depth description of the causes of the war in Afghanistan. The war had been caused by the September 11 bomb attacks in the U.S which had been conducted by Al Qaeda.
There terrorists had a base in Afghanistan and it was established that they had a link with political government in power in that country at that time. The author highlights the reasons for the invasion and why the U.S government had to get involved. The journal article also highlights on a few difficulties at that time on how the terrorists captured will be treated according to international law.
Justification and Criticisms of the War
Franck, T. (2001). Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense. The American Journal of International Law, 95(4), 839-843. This highlights the causes of the war and Justifies the United States Action to invade Iraq on the argument of self-defense based on the UN Charter. The author begins by highlighting the reasons certain experts have given on the illegality of the US invasion.
He goes ahead to address these criticisms one by one. He also gives the arguments supporting the invasion. The author has dissected the controversial Article 51 in the US charter which the US gave to the public as the reasons supporting its actions throughout that period.
O’Connell, M. (2002). The myth of preemptive self defense. The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism. Web. This paper discusses United States justification invading Afghanistan. The author highlights the reason why the invasion was wrong and unnecessary.
The author interprets the United Nations Charter Article 51 which allows a country to arise in self-defense when it has faced an armed attack. The article analyses the Article 15 and gives examples in history on the application of the guideline. It concludes that the United States should not invade a country based on the expected future actions of the country rather it should be on the armed attacks that have occurred.
Positive Effects of the War
Dunn, D. (2005). Bush, 11 September and the Conflicting Strategies of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Irish Studies in International Affairs 16, 11-33.
The Journal article discusses the different strategies the US government has taken in dealing with terrorism. The author shows the changes in approach since September 11 attacks. He highlights three main strategies, the counter-terrorism, pre-emptive and pre-eminence and the democratization of the Middle East.
The paper shows the positive effects of the war in Afghanistan in the region and the enhancement of security in the region and the US. The journal also highlights the tensions and arguments that have arisen over time concerning the use of the three strategies.
Negative Effects of the War
Belasco, A. (2006). The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
This paper discusses the costs effects of the wars the United States government has engaged in including Afghanistan. The high spending on defense has had a high impact on the budget of the country. The money could have been used in other critical sectors of the economy such as health, education and social security. The paper highlights the actual and opportunity costs of the wars. The paper goes into details showing the actual item costs of the wars and the trend in the costs both in the past and in the future.
References
Aldrich, G. (2002). The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants The American Journal of International Law, 96 ( 4), 891-898.
Belasco, A. (2006). The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Dunn, D. (2005). Bush, 11 September and the Conflicting Strategies of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Irish Studies in International Affairs 16, 11-33.
Franck, T. (2001). Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense. The American Journal of International Law, 95(4), 839-843.
O’Connell, M. (2002). The myth of preemptive self defense. The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism. Web.
Whenever the name Afghanistan comes up in a news item, print or electronic, stories of war always follow with notoriety. Audiences across the world normally brace themselves for news of suicide bombings, shootings, and drone attacks. The intensity and duration of the war in Afghanistan has made people all over the world accustomed to the attendant carnage (Goodson, 2001). Should this be so? The aim of this paper is to look into the contextual issues surrounding the war in Afghanistan.
By looking at these issues, it will be possible to uncover the critical issues that have caused Afghanistan to remain in a state of perpetual war since time immemorial. Is there any justification for the current war playing out in Afghanistan? What historical factors caused its outbreak and what contemporary issues fuel its perpetuation? This war remains a very significant contemporary issue that warrants a critical examination.
Description of the War in Afghanistan
The Parties To The War
War is a complex enterprise. Wherever there is a war, there is always an intricate web of interests. Wars bring together parties whose conflicts surpass the threshold for resolution leading to the picking up of arms in order to inflict pain and to suppress the will of opponents (Gagliardi & Tzu, 2005).
The war in Afghanistan is not an exception. In fact, it is a contemporary case study in just how intricate the webs of interest fuel war. All wars require a trigger. The trigger is not normally the real reason for the war, but the last thread of restraint. The trigger for the current war in Afghanistan was the September 11 attacks in the United States in the year 2001. This attack, blamed on the Al Qaeda terror network, invited the wrath of the United States and soon opened up Afghanistan to a full-scale war (Fiscus, 2004).
The United States rallied other NATO countries to fight the Taliban regime, which played host to Osama Bin Laden who was the Al Qaeda leader. This was not the first time the United States had a significant role to play in the historical wars in Afghanistan. During the cold war, United States operatives were deeply involved in the prevailing war against Soviet operatives. In the prevailing war, it is a major party.
The Taliban, a radical Islam regime, remains a central player in the current war in Afghanistan. This regime implemented a very strict version of Sharia law that among other things banned women from attending school after attaining the age of eight, and banned women from walking the streets alone without the company of a male relative (Fiscus, 2004).
The Taliban allied forces deposed the Taliban from Kabul early in the war but they still plan and execute attacks against government and NATO positions. They are an important party to the war in Afghanistan
The third party to this war is the Afghan government, under the leadership of President Hamid Karzai. Karzai took power early in the war through consensus and was re-elected subsequently. The Afghan government remains in a tight position because of the presence of international forces in the country, and the perpetual threat from the Taliban and other fighting tribes. This government is the internationally recognized legitimate authority in Afghanistan. Hence, it holds a very important place in the war.
Other parties to this was include Pakistan which shares a large border with Afghanistan, and the United Nations that still tries to provide direction to the situation to help bring about the peace that the country direly needs. Apart from these players, there are also other players such as humanitarian organizations including Oxfam and the Red Crescent, the military industrial complex providing supplies for the war, and the Afghan people.
Historical and Contemporary Causes of the War in Afghanistan
The Regimes in Afghanistan Since Independence
Afghanistan has played host to so many wars since the times of Alexander the great. The prelude to the current war goes back to the three Anglo-Afghan wars fought between 1839 and 1919. The modern Afghan state emerged at the end of the First World War as an independent country and started out on its career civil wars with interludes of revolutionary rule occasioned by extremism.
In 1919, Amanullah khan took over the leadership of the country, which had just received international recognition as an independent nation (Goodson, 2001). In ten years time, a civil war broke out forcing Amanullah to exile. This war came about because Amanullah alienated the old guard in his term of leadership and seemed to warm too much to European powers.
This went against the Afghan tradition of fierce rejection of external interference. Amanullah’s cousin, Nadir Khan, managed to restore order but also died from an assassin’s bullet in 1933. His son, Zahir Shah took over power at the age of nineteen and ruled for the next forty years. Together with the Prime Minister, Daud Khan, Zahir managed to maintain a non-aligned stance as a nation during the Second World War and in the end he reaped many rewards from both sides of the cold war.
The Americans and the Russians competed for Afghans attention and used the country as a place to show their might. While this worked out well at that moment, it planted the seeds for future wars in a country that knew more about war in its long history, than any other thing (Goodson, 2001).
However, differences between Zahir and Daud caused Daud to resign. He came back to power through a military coup a few years later and started on reforms. His reforms attracted the anger of some leftwing members of the military who then organized for his assassination.
A new regime, led by Nur Muhammad Taraki took power and began a rapid process of reform along communist lines, which ended up in disaster.
The country lost cohesion and the USSR, which by then had amassed troops in the country, found itself in a situation where it had to play a very active role in the internal issues of Afghanistan. The imposition of puppet leaders did not help, and the consequence was the Soviet war in Afghanistan that lasted ten years, from 1979.
Towards the end of this period, America began providing arms for the Mujahedeen in their resistance against Soviet occupation. In 1989, the USSR completed the phased withdrawal of its armies from Afghanistan leaving the country to its internal forces. The reigning leader, Mohammad Najibullah retained power for another three years but eventually the Mujahedeen ousted him. He went to the relative safety of the UN compound in Kabul.
While the Mujahedeen ruled Afghanistan in its factious ways, a new force emerged that remains a significant party to the current war in Afghanistan. A Mullah, named Mohammad Omar Akhund, formed a group called the Taliban.
Mullah Omar brought together students from various Madrassa and armed them in an effort to rid the country of corruption that became rife under warlord rule of the Mujahedeen. By 1996, most of Afghanistan was under Taliban rule. They provided a base for Al Qaeda to operate and this is what brought about their earmarking for international intervention after the September 11 bombings.
The Afghani Society
The events in Afghanistan since its independence provide the ingredients for the current war. One of them is tribalism (Goodson, 2001). The Afghan society remains divided along tribal lines. While Islam is the undisputed religious force, the groupings such as the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance have a distinctive tribal face. This nature of the nation’s face predisposed it to the current war.
Secondly, the perpetual interference in the internal affairs of the country due to its strategic geographical position in south and central Asia also helped to bring about the conditions for the current war. Afghanistan since time immemorial attracted kings, rulers, and empires seeking to control the geopolitical forces of South and central Asia. The British, the Russians, and now the Americans have had a stab at war in the country in the modern era.
The third major cause of the current war is international terror. September 11 was a crescendo in the rising threat of international terror. The Bush administration identified Afghanistan as the frontline in the fight against terrorism since the Al Qaeda terror network operated from there. Another cause of war is the long period of instability since the country’s independence. While the country has enjoyed certain periods of relative calm and consistent leadership, its leadership transitions have been violent and have led to radical ideological changes.
Analysis of the Different Historical Interpretations of the War
There are at least four ways of looking at the war in Afghanistan from a historical perspective. The first perspective is that the war is a fight for freedom from foreign occupation. The second one is that the war is ideological, a struggle between western ideals of democracy versus the eastern communist agenda. The third view is that the war is a religious war, against infidels. In the modern military view, it is an international war against terror.
Fighting for Freedom
The Afghanis fought three wars against the British. Each time it was in response to diplomatic disputes caused by the tense relations between the Russians and the British (Page, 2003). In these cases, the Afghanis were fighting to stamp their authority in their territory in order to be free from foreign interests in the country. This theme repeats itself with the assassination of Daud because he seemed to lean too closely to the European agenda for the country.
In the recent past, the war against the Soviets lead by the Mujahedeen came about as a response to Soviet occupation of the country. In the prevailing war, the Taliban justify their actions as an effort rid the country of foreign occupation led by the United States. They continue to bomb NATO positions as a means towards frustrating the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
Ideological War
When we look at the war from an ideological view, it appears to be a war geared towards the promotion of democracy and liberty. These are western ideals. The Afghanis traditionally did not have democratically elected leaders. They had royal families from where they drew their leadership.
While this model also had traditional problems, the war currently has been about democratizing Afghanistan because there is widespread belief that a democratic country is inherently more stable than any other form of government. As a country that experimented with socialism in a region that is home to the two leading communist lights, China and Russia, the West is keen to implement a democratic agenda for the country so that the global influence of communism remains under check.
Religious War
It is impossible to separate religion from this war. At least, this is the perspective of the Taliban and their sympathizers. According to them, this war is about the will of Allah, and ridding the country of infidels who have occupied it. The stated vision for Al Qaeda is the destruction of the United States.
Their motivation is not just rivalry or jealous, but a self-assigned divine duty for which many of its members are willing to give their lives. In Afghanistan, Islam is a basic part of the national identity. In its many names ascribed over the last century, most include a reference to Islam. Patriots in that country essentially fight for Islamic ideals.
War on Terror
In the international stage, the war in Afghanistan is simply one of the frontlines in the international war against terror. This war includes the efforts in Iraq, Libya, and Northern Pakistan. This is the popular international view of the war based on the stance popularized by President Bush after the September 11 attacks.
All these perspectives remain justified depending on the viewpoint of the person who subscribes to it. To the Taliban, they are doing the work of God to rid the land of the foreign infidels. To the national psyche of the Afghanis, the war is about getting their country back from foreign occupation and ridding it of social ills. To the International community, this war is about the getting rid of terrorism threat that groups such as the Al Qaeda network portends.
Evaluation of the Outcomes of the War
The outcomes of this war span several aspects and have ramifications at both the local and international level. The four key aspects of these outcomes include the social outcomes, the political outcomes, the economic outcomes, and the technological outcomes.
Social Outcomes
In the social sphere, the war has made possible the restoration of some civilian liberties such as the right to attend school by women. However, many problems attend to the social life of ordinary Afghanis because of the war. They live in a perpetual state of fear from both the Taliban and the international forces present in their soil.
Civilian casualties from the war are a sore point in the war. Both sides have had their share in maiming and killing innocent citizens. The war has led to the breaking down of healthcare services, education, and community development. Malnutrition and high infant mortality are serious concerns. These services heavily rely on the assistance of international organizations.
In addition, trading in narcotics has increased internationally since there is no proper way to police the poppy growing in Afghanistan that provides better rewards for farmers compared to conventional crops. This also has led to the increase in the number of drug addicts among the Afghani youth. The lack of jobs and low skills level leave many youths vulnerable and are easy targets for radicalization (Page, 2003). Mullah Omar took advantage of this in the nineties hence it is a proven threat.
Political Outcomes
Politically, the key outcome is that Afghanistan is now a fledgling democratic state, which should have more stability in the end, compared to the previous modes of governance in the country.
This will induce greater regional stability by counterbalancing the communist forces in the region. The key bottleneck to this process is that historically, Afghanis have not had this kind of government, which can pose a threat to the sustainability of the model. The emergence of an Islamic Democratic state puts two tense ideological stances in the same spot (Fiscus, 2004).
The swing from radical Islam under the Taliban to a fully functional democracy will remain a work in progress for a number of years. It is very expensive for other countries to operate consulates in Afghanistan because of the security issues. This limits Afghanistan’s ability to engage with the international community. In fact, it weakens the position of the Karzai government especially in the eyes of local radicals who believe that their country lacks all form of sovereign control.
Economic Consequences
The most devastating consequences of this war probably lie in the economy of the country. War always slows down economic growth if not out rightly reversing it (Page, 2003). Roads, bridges, and other vital communication facilities fall to disrepair and new ones cannot come online. The existing ones face destruction from bombs and have to carry heavy armored vehicles, which further destroy them.
On the positive side, Afghanistan has received vast sums of development assistance and corresponding international attention, which may promote its development faster than if it was on its own.
With the international attention, Afghanistan can quickly rise from the ashes of war as a strong brand provided they take advantage of the opportunities the war has left (Harvard Business School, 2005). Military bases in the country will remain after the foreign troops leave. These can become schools and offices, freeing up the resources the country may have used to construct them.
Technological Outcomes
The war in Afghanistan has led to technological developments in military technology. Arguably, there has been more drone attacks in Afghanistan than in any other one place. Drones are a new addition to military warfare, which until a few years back, were experimental technologies.
The war has made possible the improvement of precision guided weapons thus helping to reduce civilian casualties and the extent of infrastructural damage from bombs. Previously, it was necessary to utilize a lot of explosive power to attack targets to account for imprecision. This ended up producing a lot of infrastructural damage and a high number of casualties.
In other fronts such as communication, the military and international organizations have installed new and robust communication networks that will provide the country with the basis of a robust communication network. Leveraging on these developments is the best strategy for Afghanistan as it struggles to emerge from the ashes of war.
References
Fiscus, J. W. (2004). America’s War in Afghanistan. New York NY: Rosen Publishing.
Gagliardi, G., & Tzu, S. (2005). The Art of War Plus the Art of Management: Strategy for Leadership. Seattle, WA: Science of Strategy: Clearbridge Publishing.
Goodson, L. P. (2001). Afghanistan’s Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban. Washington DC: University of Washington Press.
Harvard Business School. (2005). Strategy: Create and Implement the Best Strategy for Your Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Page, M. E. (2003). Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encylopeadia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
The World War I began when Austria-Hungary declared war against Serbia. However, it later spread all over Europe, especially in Germany, Russia, The Great Britain, and France due to the fact that these countries had formed alliances to defend each other in times of war. Over eight million people died in this Great War.
Factors that led to World War I
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the main cause of the outbreak of the war. Ferdinand was assassinated together with his wife by a Serbian nationalist in Sajarevo. He is believed to have been assassinated because Serbia wanted to take control of Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, Austria-Hungary had already taken control of the region.
The assassination led to the war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary and with Russia trying to defend Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia and it spread all over with the formation of alliances.
Militarism
Tension between the European nations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted into an arms race. Germany and The Great Britain had a large military buildup by having a large number of navies which had a great influence on the public. The increase in militarism between the states pushed the countries into war.
Imperialism
The development of intricate alliances and counter alliances among European nations ignited war among them. The European nations increased their wealth by acquiring additional territories. These European nations were interested in Africa and some parts of Asia due to the availability of raw materials.
The increased competition and the aspiration of greater emperors led to confrontations which later led to World War I. Nations like the United Kingdom and France amassed great wealth in the 19th century through their command of trade in foreign resources, colonies and slaves. Since Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia wanted to achieve the same growth as France and the UK, an Anglo-German rivalry developed as each nation sought more territories, especially in Africa. Rivalry also occurred in trade routes.
Nationalism
Nationalism among different countries all through Europe led not only to the start of the war but also to the extension of the war all over Europe. Each nation was convinced that their country was the most superior and this resulted into hostilities among them. For instance, France turned against Germany while Russian turned against Austrian.
Strong feelings of nationalism created hatred and hostilities among the European nations. The hostilities were mainly felt in the Balkans after Archduke Frank Ferdinand’s assassination. The tension seemed to have been resolved but one month later Germany supported Austria to cut off relations with Serbia whereas Russia defended Serbia.
Mutual defense Alliances
All countries throughout Europe had mutual defense agreements that were intended to bring protection. When Austria- Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia came in to defend Serbia and this move irked Germany which later declared war on Russia. France joined the war to fight against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Consequently, France was attacked by Germany through Belgium and this dragged Britain into the war. The war continued spreading and soon, Japan joined the war followed by Italy and the United States.
U.S. involvement in the War
The US had remained neutral in the war until April 1917 when it declared war on Germany. The introduction of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans made President Wilson to ask congress to join the war against Germany. Prior to this request, shipd belonging to the US had been attacked in the Atlantic Ocean by German forces. The sinking of the Lusitania resulted in the death of 128 Americans on board and this pushed the US on the wall, ultimately, they decided to wage war on Germany.
Alfred Zimmerman’s attempt to provoke Mexico and Japan to attack the US with A promise of help from Germans also made the U.S. into joining the world war because they had to intercept the Germans’ proposal to Mexico. The United States’ entry into the war was inevitable because they had to support their allies. Besides, it had to protect its economy and also to keep peace in Europe.
Conclusion
Despite the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, successor to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife being the main reason for the war in Europe, there are other reasons that led to WW1. These include nationalism, materialism, imperialism and defense alliances and so on. These factors led to hostilities between the European nations and ultimately led to the world’s deadliest war in history. The US was not initially involved in the war, but in the latter stages, it got involved to protect its allies and interests.
Bibliography
Bass, Herbert, America’s Entry into World War I. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1964.
Cipriano, Anne, The United States in the First World War. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1995.
Pope, Steven, and Elizabeth-Anne Wheal, The Dictionary of The First World War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
One reason why I believe the Iraq invasion was not justified is because it resulted in an escalation of violence in Iraq. Prior to the 2003 invasion in Iraq, the country had a functioning government in place and not many incidents of violence were witnessed. The war in Iraq resulted to the ousting of Saddam Husain, the then president, and caused a major destabilization in the country.
While it is true that Iraq was plagued by human rights abuses under the reign of Saddam, the country was stable and somewhat affluent before the invasion. It was after these that the country has become turbulent with numerous incidents of gun battles and suicide bomb attacks. These insurrections that are rampant in Iraq are as a direct result of US occupation of Iraq. At the present, the security situation in Iraq is indeed stark and the country remains very insecure.
Kahl, Katulis and Lynch reveal that sectarian violence has erupted in many parts of the country and incidents of sectarian cleansing have followed leading to many deaths (86). Despite addition US forces being deployed to the country and negotiations being held, the violence in Iraq is still prevalent. Kahl, Katulis and Lynch note that there is little hope of national reconciliation or the formation of a stable environment in Iraq in the foreseeable future (83).
The second reason for my belief that the war was unjustified is because war badly affects the economy and natural resources of the countries engaged in war. Both the US and Iraq have suffered economically as a result of the War. Before the war, the infrastructure in Iraq was in good conditions and the citizens enjoyed peace and stability with the availability of basic amenities.
The war was accompanied by aggressive military campaigns on strategic targets in Iraq. These targets included military facilities, government buildings and major industries. After the overthrow of Saddam, loses continue to occur as suicide bombings destroying buildings and roads (Hicks 911). Recovering from these devastating effects of war is going to be a very expensive endeavor.
For the US, the war on Iraq led to large amounts of money being taken from the federal reserves to finance the war. As of 2007, the war efforts had cost the US an estimated $1 trillion with most of the money going to military activities and reconstruction efforts (Kahl, Katulis and Lynch 92). These colossal sums of money could have been better used on more development oriented activities in the country rather than war efforts that lasted for years.
The final reason why I believe that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified is because the war has led to an increased suffering for the civilian population in Iraq. At the very onset of the war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled to the neighboring countries to seek refuge from the war. Kahl, Katulis and Lynch document that since the beginning of the war, an excess of four million Iraqis have fled the country or become internally displaced (86).
These group of civilians continue to live as refugees almost a decade after the war was begun. Research by Hicks et al. revealed that the Iraqi civilian population was the primary target for suicide bombers (913). Muggah notes that the impacts of warfare extend well beyond the number of combatants and civilians killed on the battlefield; a vast proportion of deaths occur indirectly owing to easily preventable diseases such as measles and dysentery (2).
The war in Iraq has led to a collapse of basic health infrastructure, clean water and food which has led to death and suffering for the population. Considering the fact that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was to oust a tyrant who brought suffering to his people, the reality that the people of Iraq are suffering than they did during his reign as a result of the war shows that the war was unjustifiable.
Warfare has been in existence all through the history of human civilization. The reasons for engaging in war have included: ideological differences, competition for natural resources, and protecting a countries territory to name but a few. While wars have inevitably led to death and suffering, most of them have resulted in some positive measures which has made them justifiable.
The US invasion of Iraq is one of the wars whose costs far outweigh the benefits and it can therefore be seen as unjustifiable. This paper has demonstrated that the invasion of Iraq was an ill-advised undertaking which has mostly achieved negative results for both the US and Iraq.
As long as this invasion continues, human lives will continue to be lost and the economic cost will escalate even higher. It would therefore be in the best interest of both parties if the US withdrew its forces from Iraq and stopped the invasion. Such a move would result to reduced violence in Iraq since the violence is mostly in protest to the invasion. The huge financial burden that American taxpayers have been forced to bear as a result of the war would also be lifted if the war was ended.
Works Cited
Kahl, Colin, Katulis Brian, and Lynch Marc. “Thinking strategically about Iraq: report from a symposium.” Middle East Policy 15.1 (2008): 82-110.
Muggah, Robert. “Measuring the True Costs of War: Consensus and Controversy.” PLoS Med 8.2 (2011): 1-3.
Hicks, Madelyn et al. “Casualties in civilians and coalition soldiers from suicide bombings in Iraq, 2003–10: a descriptive study.” Lancet 378 (2011): 906–914.
About sixteen million people served in the American military at the period of World War II events; three million faced the start of the war in the Pacific serving there at that time. It is necessary to stress that the analysis of war causes and consequences gives an opportunity to evaluate the reasons for war start and underline the power of international forces and their impact on war events in the Pacific. It should be noted that before Pearl Harbor, the US was on the way to filling the nation’s demand for qualified naval officers. Inadequate and slow military actions on the part of the USA before the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese army were characterized by poor advancement for officers and personnel. This fact influenced the flow of war events. Nevertheless, it is necessary to dive into the depth of Pacific War causes analysis in order to understand its relation to the events in Europe and outline the basic effects it brought to the countries; the paper will concentrate on the investigation of war causes between the USA and Japan on the basis of documents and scientific analysis.
Pacific War Start, its Causes
The beginning of World War II is referred to as 1939, the period when France and Britain started the war on Germany. It is necessary to underline the fact that the true causes of the Pacific War have no relation to these events; it should be noted that the period is connected with the rivalry between Japan and the United States of America. One should underline the idea that both countries had strong beliefs in their rights to impact Pacific region events, looking for military power as the principal way to establish control within the region. The countries appeared to be in opposition striving to gain as much influence on the territory as possible; the USA and Japan were eager to invest in China in order to get desired profits from their investments.
Military strategies began with the development of Japanese campaign by Manchuria occupation; as a result the US military expressed reaction through Chinese armies’ support in their fight against enemies. The events were followed by trade restrictions on the part of the USA. It is necessary to underline the fact that in 1941 the territory of Japan suffered significant shortages of essential materials; military planning was concentrated on land expansion on the basis of European war events advantages. Japan prevention from controlling the territory was impossible for the France; as a result Americans managed to freeze all the Japanese funds and stop their oil supply. It should be stressed that Japanese attempts to be a modernized country faced difficult position on the international level and within internal structure. It was impossible to survive through the lack of oil; so, it was necessary to invade the Asian territory to use oil fields, leading to the burst of war with the USA.
Hull Note
Hull Note is considered to be characterized as the US proposal for Japanese Empire introduced before the Pearl Harbor attack and war declaration. It is necessary to stress that the note was treated as the ultimatum presented by American nation to Japan; it disclosed the conditions of their future cooperation underlining the necessity to withdraw all the troops of Japan from the territory of China and French Indochina. It should be stated that the document was presented as provocative issue; the scientists believe that the note appeared to have the format and style of sharp ultimatum stimulating Japanese to war actions.
According to Akira Iriye, the professor of Harvard University, ‘Japanese officials in Washington and Tokyo took the Hull Note as an indication of the wide cleavage between the two countries, and they were of course right’ (Iriye, p. 124) Nevertheless, some historians consider that this note was perceived as an ultimatum by mistake; the document was considered to be the restated position of America as to China, the Dutch and Britain. Hull Note was just the invitation presented to Japan for it to become the part of new re-established order within Asian-Pacific region. Some documents state, that through the note the representatives of American nation strived to demonstrate their desire living in peace. On the other hand, the note was also interpreted as the demonstration of Japan’s intention to fight, rather than the one of Washington. However, the point is considered to be arguable; the documents express different fact which can be interpreted from various angles. It is a questionable issue whether the Americans strived for peace or expressed a provocative offer; it was said, ‘It was Tokyo that intended to attack if the negotiations failed’ (Spector, p. 128) It is necessary to underline the fact that the interpretation of the note was based on the nation’s desire to get the power and control over the territory of Pacific region, even through war battles.
The Hull Note message is perceived as an intricate intention of Americans to demonstrate their power and influence on the situation faced by both countries. It was found out that the peace expectations could be realistic, in case of agreement reaching through the modus Vivendi, and the delay of opening hostilities; the emphasis of Hull Note’s invitation to join common strategic plan without the modus Vivendi appeared to be treated as ultimatum for Japanese nation, and resulted in a number of invasions.
Turning points in War
The turning points in the Pacific war were concentrated on industrial conflict between two strong nations, and their desire to fight for power. The war between the United States and Japan is considered to have controversial causes being discussed by different critics and historians; it is necessary to stress that the origin of conflict and the turning points in war causes appeared to be based on the Japanese past, economic weakness and the USA strive for power and control over the large territory. The analysis of war event and cooperation between the nations demonstrated the idea that the Battle of Midway appeared to be the turning point in relations between America and Japan.
The Battle of Midway is considered to be treated as the turning point in the Pacific War in 1942. It should be stressed that after suffering the humiliating defeats, the USA was eager to reach the aircraft carriers completion and battleships for the purpose of turning the war in their favor; while the Japanese firmly believed in their complete control over Pacific region after the victory in Midway Battle. It is necessary to stress that Japan had no idea of US Navy’s codes breakages and planning counter operations. The battle appeared to be Japanese navy’s disastrous defeat leading to the lack of any prospect to defeat the America. The Japanese over confidence in their victory resulted in making fatal mistakes. The documents prove the fact that the Battle of Midway can be interpreted as the rare occasion when the nation’s fate was determined by several spontaneous and decisive steps.
The balance of power between the USA and Japan was ruined by American bomber squadrons and Japanese weak decision-making resulting in benefits for American nation. It should be stressed that Japan was deprived of any industrial capacity to perform the replacement of aircraft carriers in the battle which led to the nation’s decline. (Cook, and Cook, 2005)
The turning point in the Pacific War can be characterized through the US victory in the Battle of Midway bringing the nation initiatives following future war events. It should be stressed that the Japan weak position and internal breakage of the nation because of the heavy losses suffered during the battle, managed to influence the country’s further actions and strategic planning. Though the turning point brought power and confidence to American nation, the Pacific War made the USA to cover vast distances for liberation of the countries being conquered by Japan.
Taking into account the documents and facts reflected through them, it is necessary to underline the idea that Pacific War was based predominantly on cultural and social conflict between the nations. It should be noted that industrial interactions and obstacles were closely related to cultural position and social environment of both countries striving to prove their power and ability to win the control over Pacific region. (Spector, 1985)
Conclusion
The paper disclosed the nature of the principle conflict between the USA and Japan underlining central caused for the World War II events promotion. It is necessary to stress that the period appeared to be characterized by sharpened relationships between two strong nations based on industrial, social and cultural misunderstandings.
Hull Note document analysis proved its arguable nature through various interpretations by scientists and historians; it should be stressed that it is difficult to identify true intention expressed on the part of both nations, though one should note that the countries were united by common desire to invade and get the territory of Pacific region.
References
Cook, H. and Cook, Th. Japan at War: An Oral History. DIANE Publishing Company, 2005.
Iriye, A. Pearl Harbor and the coming of the Pacific War: a brief history with documents and essays. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999.
Spector, R. Eagle against the sun: the American war with Japan. Free Press. 589 pp. 1985.