Pacifism, which implies that no war is or could be just, has in recent years received considerable attention from academics and war theorists as the world seems to reel from one armed conflict to another. The doctrine, however, has received loads of disparagements from critics, who advance lopsided discourses and justifications of going to war under the tenets of the just war theories (Charles 336).
Although there are diverse conceptions of pacifism which seems to ignite diverse reactions from professionals and the general public, ranging from outright impracticability to differences in geopolitical realities, this paper will argue from the standpoint that pacifism is indeed a viable alternative in the modern international realm.
Although some nations have been noted to progress unorthodox activities such as state-sponsored terrorism and actions of sabotage, the kind of violence and killing that armed confrontations instigate in the name of military interventions is insurmountably objectionable (Alexandra 590).
When war is evaluated against the backdrop of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction currently in the hands of state actors as well as non-state operatives, it will dawn on many that searching for peaceful means to resolve the conflicts that continue to affect the modern world is the only way to go as doing otherwise, especially engaging the military to use such weapons on civilian populations, is intrinsically immoral (Charles 336).
One of the strong areas of pacifism is its “…commitment to peace-building and to finding alternatives to war and violence as responses to social and political conflict” (Atack 1). On this account, according to this author, pacifism strives to abolish armed conflicts through the employment of absolutely nonviolent methodologies to decisively deal with social and political conflict, whether arising internally or between nations.
Peace-building is an inherent good, while war is seen in the eyes of many as not only unfair, but also costly in terms financial, emotional, demographic, and practical variables (Alexandra 595). What’s more, peace is more conducive to the welfare of people than the employment of any violence or forceful means under the disguise of promoting world peace. In consequence, major players on the world scene must look for peaceful mechanisms, including arbitration and sanctions, to tame the aggressors of peace, and in no time should human interactions be governed by violent or belligerent relations.
Arguing from a consequentialist or utilitarian perspective of pacifism, it is clear that the world should embrace nonviolent means to deal with conflicts by virtue of the fact that the benefits brought by engaging in violence, force or war are far much less than evils that such engagements may bring to the participants as well as to the civilian population (Mosley para. 25).
The lessons learnt from the U.S. invasion of Iraq under President Bush preemption and prevention strategy are still fresh, and the consequences of using such strategies will go down the annals of history as one of the most inhumane by virtue of the fact that the war has shattered many families, not mentioning the casualties involved.
Exercising peaceful means to solve the Iraq problem, if there was any, could have prevented such odious bloodshed. Today, many political analysts are of the opinion that America is now less safe than it was before the invasion, courtesy of using a conflict resolution approach that occasioned more harm than good. This observation demonstrates why world players must employ pacifism as a moral alternative so as to maintain and safeguard world peace.
Works Cited
Alexandra, A. Political Pacifism. Social Theory & Practice 29.4 (2003): 589-606. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Atack, I. Pacifism and Nonviolence: Complementary or Contradictory? 2008. Web.
Charles, J.D. Presumption against War or Presumption against Injustice?: The Just War Tradition Reconsidered. Journal of Church & State 47.2 (2005): 335-369. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Mosley, A. Pacifism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. Web.
In life, everyone has memories or events that they hold dear to their hearts. These memories normally build and define who a person is and define their inner selves. People also tend to use these memories to have a purpose and goals in life. “How to tell a true war story” by Tim O’Brien is a story told about the encounters and experiences of war veterans during the Vietnam War. In the essay, we try and look at some self-defining moments for these soldiers and how they use their experiences to define themselves. We also look at some important events that the soldiers find definitive.
In the story, the writer brings out the value attached to memories; memories that define people and give them sound emotions. Some memories are so unforgettable that they can almost be re-lived. This is demonstrated when Rat Kiley describes his friendship with Curt Lemon. He describes Curt as a great buddy, a daredevil, and ‘crazy’.Emphasis must however be put on how he describes the craziest things he thinks Curt ever did. He tells of how Curt went fishing with a crate of hand grenades and goes on to say it’s one of the funniest things in the world. Rat also describes vividly how they used to play a game they had invented in the shed of quadruple canopy trees. He even remembers the smell of moss. They used to call each other names ascertaining how good their friendship must have been. He stresses on by saying “it’s all true”. The aspect of memory here entails a cognitive process, reflective thinking, and processes of reasoning focused on making a decision on what memories to hold dear and how to speak our truths as we reminisce. It is a tool of inquiry used for interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and making inferences on past occurrences. Through the selection and the interpretation of certain memories, people can give a story and express feelings. In the scientific perspective, the process of thinking critically and reminiscing includes acquiring the information and evaluating it to arrive at well-justified conclusions. Rat remembers most of these details because they must have been really special to him.
The ability to define who we are has to embrace skills for critical thinking and perfecting the art of suspending a judgment. If for example one is reading a story like the one being told by O’Brien, they are bound to adopt a perception and suspend a judgment. Acquiring the skills also requires that one accepts that everybody can have subconscious bias. It is therefore normal to doubt and question any tale that might be told. From the story, it is clear and is submitted by O’Brien that it’s hard to tell a war story (O’Brien 517). Sometimes the tales may look too awesome to be true. Take Curts’ death, for example, one minute he is alive and well playing and goofing, the next he is dead.
In the story told by Mitchell, many things are brought out regarding being a soldier. Mitchell exposes the hardships soldiers have to endure while at war. Mitchell describes how the soldiers stayed for a few days without saying a word, chatting, or making jokes. Later they started hearing imaginary sounds that culminated into sounds of choirs and partying. Of course, these turned out to be imaginary sounds. This story is dear to Mitchell because he started the story by stating that it is” God’s truth”. As he tells the story, he also kept reminding O’Brien that he might not believe the story. He told it anyway, not caring whether O’Brien believed it or not. Mitchells’ story is an indication that soldiers want their stories heard and believed. The memories they bring from wars are close to their hearts and they will do anything to have you listen to the whole story. Mitchell made up things as he told the story so that O’Brien could believe. O’Brien also expressed that he could see it in Mitchells’ eyes that he was desperate for him to believe the story. Mitchell confessed to making up the glee club but insisted that the story was still true. He understood that a true war story was hard to believe. This shows how important the events at the war are to soldiers. They offer great memories both good and bad but also give them some form of pride, belonging, and identity. They choose to be part of the group that lived the story. They pride themselves in identifying with this group. This clearly brings out the fact that identity is a product of choice.
As stated by O’Brien, a war story cannot be told and looked at plainly. It has to be looked into with a deeper perception. The experiences of soldiers during war sometimes get to them but the difference in their stories is how they choose to vent out their frustrations. Many stories have been told of soldiers who have committed suicide while on the battlefield or even long after returning from war (Chamberlain, Long, Vincent 141). In the story, Rat Kiley is greatly disturbed by the death of his colleague and close friend, Curt Lemon. Rat chose to let out his pain by torturing a baby buffalo. He tried to feed the baby buffalo beans and pork. When the buffalo seemed disinterested, Rat finally let out his anger by shooting and torturing it to death. Behavioral changes are fueled by one’s values and morality. It is good to build your values since they determine your behavior. Your actions lean towards achieving your immediate needs and less on long-term goals. Personal values illustrate what people are individual, while morals define their society. Different societies have different morals at any given time. Ethics and morals through the incorporation of memory can be portrayed as fundamental for self-improvement or destruction. It is essential to adopt reasonable ethics in whatever environment and Rat portrayed the soldier fraternity as lacking in compassion when he butchered the baby buffalo. Events like that are bound to have some effect on the soldiers in terms of building their character, values, and hearts.
The war experience also has moments that totally change the soldiers’ perception of life. Mitchell expresses that after a gunfight is when you truly appreciate being alive. You appreciate every piece of life including trees and grass. These experiences can change the person in the soldier and help them appreciate life more. The story also illustrates how much commitment it takes to be a soldier and how many situations can define who you are. The soldiers leave for the battlefield even though at the back of their minds they know that they could be hurt, they could die or lose a colleague but still have to go on. It is therefore imperative that the soldiers have a clear sense of meaning as they anticipate the near future that is war.
In conclusion, it is clear that in life, everyone has memories or events that they hold dear to their hearts. These memories normally build and define who a person is and mold them into what their inner selves are. People also tend to use these memories to have a purpose, a goal in life, and a form of identity. The occurrences in war are awesome and even obscene sometimes, making them very difficult to narrate. Soldiers have quite an experience and this definitely shapes them into different people in terms of character, values, and emotions. The memories brought from the wars are many and remain in the minds of the veterans for the rest of their lives. They love to tell their story and be believed because wars are truly life-changing.
Works Cited
Chamberlain Kerry, Long Nigel, Vincent Carol. “Effect of the Gulf war on reactivation of adverse combat-related memories in Vietnam veterans.”Journal of Clinical Psychology 50 (1994): 138-144
O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York: Houghton Mifflin Press. 1990.
The war between Iraq and Kuwait began in the year 1990. This war started after Iraq’s forces entered Kuwait by force. During the conflict, Iraq’s soldiers raped, robbed, and shot at the resisting Kuwaitis (King, 1991). In the attacks, some Kuwaitis managed to escape to the neighbouring countries unharmed.
Before the war started, the US was no longer engaged in foreign military affairs after its devastating loss in the Vietnam War (King, 1991). However, the events of the war between Kuwait and Iraq forced the US to come to the defence of Kuwait in an operation named Operation Desert Shield. This operation involved several countries. Among those who supported this operation were some of the Arab countries who believed that the Iraqis expansion was a threat in the Middle East (King, 1991).
Before the war started, UAE’s actions in the Middle East contributed to the Iraq-Kuwait conflicts during the early 1990s (Grossman, 1995). As such, Kuwait and UAE were disregarding OPEC’s regulations by flooding the world markets with cheap oil. By doing so, the two countries lowered the oil prices in the world markets.
During this time, the Iraq’s economy was still unstable following the Iraq- Iran War. Therefore, Iraq needed to sell its oil in the world markets at a higher price to sustain its economy. However, UAE and Kuwait’s actions prevented Iraq from selling its oil at a higher price hence worsened their economic situations.
Following this, Saddam Hussein was forced to attack Kuwait. Hussein hoped that by attacking Kuwait it could lead to a drop in UAE and Kuwait’s oil exports in the world markets. Through this, the UAE is said to have contributed to the Iraq and Kuwait War (Grossman, 1995).
During the Iraq and Iran War, UAE did not participate in the conflicts. However, the Kuwait and Iraq War forced the UAE to join the allied forces in setting free the Kuwaitis from the Iraqis. Before the onset of the war, UAE was among the first Arab countries to oppose the plans by President Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait.
Its defence forces officials together with American forces designed a plan, which were to prevent Hussein’s forces from attacking Kuwaitis. Two weeks before the operation, UAE and the US conducted an air refuelling preparation program in an effort to warn Hussein’s government against its military desires. During this period, the UAE defence forces provided its military members to play active roles in the Operation Desert Storm.
Through this, the country contributed its air force personnel as pilots. Notably, UAE pilots joined the allied forces in major air attacks across Iraq. Through this effort, Iraq’s infrastructure, communication facilities, military bases, and naval bases were destroyed. Correspondingly, through the combined effort by the UAE forces, American forces, and their allied forces, Iraq’s aircraft and air force facilities were destroyed within the first few weeks of Operation Shield Desert.
Apart from contributing its forces as pilots to the operation, UAE provided more than 2000 forces to fight on the ground. With the effort of these individuals, the allied forces managed to defeat the Iraqi forces on the ground as air raids were being carried out. Most of the ground forces were situated in Kuwait. They were required to prevent Iraqis from returning to Iraq with Kuwait’s properties.
Another way in which UAE contributed to the war was by providing the Americans with military bases. Before this war, the US military bases in the Middle East region were few and ill equipped.
However, during the war between the Kuwait and Iraq the US military presence in the region increased with the setting up of more bases in UAE, Saudi Arabia and other American allied countries in the region (Metz, 1994). From the UAE’s bases, American forces could destroy Iraqis positions very easily. The US and the allied forces’ aircrafts, warships and other military facilities were stationed in the UAE and other US allied nations within the gulf region.
In addition to the above contributions, the UAE government provided the allied forces with financial support during the Kuwait and Iraqi War. According to the country’s defense reports, UAE contributed $3.3 billion towards the liberation of Kuwait during the onset of the war (Metz, 1994). By mid 1991, the country had promised to support countries who were involved in the operation.
Through this, their defense spending reached $6 billion on November 1991. The country initiated this move to help the involved countries recover their economic losses resulting from this operation. To meet these huge military spending, the country increased its oil exports and prices during the period.
When the war ended, UAE had played a very important role in ending the Iraqi and Kuwait War. Similarly, after the war, the country realized that its military defense system was weak. The events of the war enabled the country’s defense department to evaluate their abilities to defend themselves from external attacks.
It was noted that the country needed extra military resources to defend themselves and their member states from external military attacks (Rugh, 2002). As a result, the UAE entered into an agreement with the US and the French governments to support its military with skills and equipments.
References
Grossman, M. (1995). Encyclopedia of the Persian Gulf War. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
King, J. (1991). The Gulf War. New York: Dillon Press.
Metz, H. C. (1994). Persian Gulf states: country studies (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
Rugh, W. A. (2002). Diplomacy and defense policy of the United Arab Emirates. Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.: Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research.
FLQ group has existed in Canada for several years. In October, FLQ was linked in kidnapping Mr. James Cross, a British trade minister for Canada in his Westmount home, some days later; they abducted Mr. Pierre Laporte, the Quebec minister for labor. Prior to these kidnaps, the law enforcers in Quebec had collected secret information on the group’s unaccomplished activities in the region.
The law enforcer’s reveals that the group was in the middle of executing a kidnap mission on Israel and American diplomatic missions in Montreal (Pike). These criminal actions associated with FLQ group suggest that if left unchecked, Quebec is likely to plunge into a lawlessness region in the country.
The Prime Minister is alarmed by these criminal activities of the group. Hence, as a member of his cabinet, he has informed me to give suggestions whether the cabinet can implement War Measures Act and send troops to Quebec to thwart the organization’s criminal activities.
In this memo, I outline several reasons why the Prime Minister should implement the War Measures Act so that the FLQ criminal activities can be prevented. I believe that once implemented, the Act will help restore calm, renew Canadians confidence and prevent future occurrences of similar criminal activities, not only in Quebec but also in the rest of the country.
Why War Measures Act and sending troops to Quebec is justified
I believe the Prime Minister should implement the War Measures Act to help restore calm and return the rule of law in Quebec province. The act is critical because it will allow the Federal government to renew the confidence of the Canadian people (Fisher). The Act, besides dealing directly with the FLQ group, it will also help repress other criminal groups in the province that are involved in lawlessness activities.
Similarly, Jenish indicates that the Act will confer powers to the police and the army to search, detain and arrest individuals (leaders) commanding the terror group (Jenish). This will eventually weaken the group’s participation in terror activities and restore peace and stability in Quebec.
Also, by implementing the War Measures Act, the law will prevent repeat of similar crisis in the future. Jenish claims that kidnapping diplomatic and government officials are acts of treason; it tarnishes the integrity of the host country. Besides, the criminals may utilize the gaps available in the law to commit more crime. Thus, the cabinet initiative to support Prime Minister’s direction will help deter the group from destabilizing the region in the future (Jenish).
The historical background of FLQ is rooted in its quest to have a pro-independence state. Thus, Borovoy (110) claims that at some point in Quebec history, the group wanted to make Quebec a sovereign state specifically for English speaking Canadians (Borovoy, 110). To reinforce their threats, they used violence and enhanced unlawful practices in the province. Owing to their criminal history, I believe that by implementing the War Measures Act, the province will liberate itself from the criminal activities of this group.
Why the War Measures Act, and sending troops to Quebec is not a solution
Despite the War Measures Act being significant in restoring peace and calm in the region, I feel its implementation by the Prime Minister will have negative impact on the population living in Quebec province. This is because the War Measures Act will inspire fear in the population.
Similarly, the Act will empower the police and the army, making them target innocent people through a mistaken identity (Borovoy, 119). Thus, the War Measures Act will create more unrest leading to non -cooperation between the citizens and the authority in regard to provision of vital information.
Also, Lévesque (167) cites that the War Measures Act is meant to be implemented when Canada is facing imminent threat or aggression from other nations. Thus, in this context, Canada is not at war with any country. Therefore, by implementing the Act, the Prime Minister will be seen as a misusing his powers as provided in the Canadian constitution (Lévesque, 165).
It is also feared that by implementing the Act, the cabinet will be tramping on the Civil Rights of its people (Tetley, 98). This is because the War Measures Act allows police and the army to use use force when conducting search in residential places. Similarly, Vault and William (113) indicates that the Act empowers the police and the army to carry out unjustified arrests without giving explanations.
Moreover, Vault and William (115) also indicate the Act gives law enforcers powers to expel or exclude individuals when suspected as members of illegal organization. Hence, the Act will be exploited by the police and the army to suppress the rights of ordinary people. Besides these arguments, Vault and William (112) also point out that the law will not distinguish the FLQ members and other innocent groups/organizations; hence, this justification will complicate its smooth application in the province.
Moreover, Vault and William (109) allege that more issues will arise as a result of implementing the War Measures Act. He opines that “in tumultuous times, it is easy for a person to create speculative thoughts” (Vault and William, 109). This is done in order to gain a mileage in politics.
In this case, I believe that the Canadians will view the Prime Minister benefiting from the law. Similarly, Tetley (131) points out that the Prime Minister’s government will be viewed as obstructing nationalism and quelling separatism as advocated by the FLQ in some of their demand.
Conclusion
The activities of FLQ need to be condemned by all peace lovers. The wicked acts they have committed such as kidnapping innocent people should not be tolerated. They should use official avenues to voice their concerns. Hence, having a hidden agenda and expressing it through acts of terror and violence is not the best way to do.
As a member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, I support the government decision of implementing War Measures Act. I believe when this Act is implemented a clear and swift action will taken against the FLQ group. The Prime minister’s government will be able to contain the group quickly before its criminal activities spread across the country.
By implementing the War Measures Act in Quebec, the Federal government will help renew the Canadian confidence in matters of their security and protection. This is because the role of the government is to protect its people. Also, the Act will confer powers to the army and police to search and detain individuals spearheading unrests in the province. This will ultimately contribute to peace and stability in the region.
Moreover, the War Measures Act will prevent future repeat of similar crisis. This is because individuals and other groups will fear being caught on the wrong side of the law. Also, by assessing the group’s historical roots, we can deduce that it is linked to history of violence. This fact, therefore, reinforces the assertion that the Prime Minister should move ahead and implement the Act. If not implemented, the province will continue to witness a series of violence (Lévesque, 249).
On the other hand, by implementing the Act, and ultimately sending troops to Quebec, the local people will live in fear. This is because the army and the police will use brutal approach in their attempt of flushing out FLQ members and fail to recognize the real culprits.
Moreover, the Act is only meant to be implemented when Canada is facing external threat or aggression from other nations. Thus, in this context, Canada is not at war; hence, the Prime Minister will be misusing his powers while attempting to implement it. I would suggest that the Prime Minister should search for alternate strategies of containing the activities of this group rather than using the War Measures Act.
Lastly, the Act will create adverse effect on the citizens of the province. This is because it will withdraw their civil rights such as right of expression, movement, speech and association among others. And when these fundamental freedoms are taken away from the people, it is likely that more people will be motivated to join this group or other groups as a way of illustrating their anger. Besides, people will view the government has unfriendly to them and possibly fail to involve actively in its activities.
Works Cited
Borovoy, Alan. “Rebuilding a Free Society,” in Power Corrupted: The October Crisis and the Repression of Quebec, Abraham Rotstein, ed. Toronto: New Press, 1971. Print.
Fisher, Douglas. The October Crisis revisited, 2012. Web.
Henderson, R David. Trudeau’s War Measures Act: A Reminiscence, 2010. Web.
The greed for power and competition for resources has resulted in many deaths of innocent civilian. This has been quite notable in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Oil has been the main reason for attach in Iraq and also the potential invasion in Islamic republic of Iran. Americans has always made efforts to have its interests dominate in the two countries due to their possession of great oil reserves. They have used all means even in complete disregard of human rights to have their say.
This is evident when they attacked Iraq despite disapproval from united nation. This was after the fact that United Nations was not able to get evidence of production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Despite this fact they stood by their allegations and invaded Iraq. Even through their attack on Afghanistan may have seemed justified after they were attacked by al-Qaeda whose basis was in Afghanistan they could have targeted individual terrorist group and not the entire country of Afghanistan.
Now it is evident that there is war in waiting in Iran. This is because of frequent threats by Americans Islamic republic of Iran. Here we are going to look at historical background to conflicts. Invasion of America in Afghanistan and Iraq will also be discussed. Finally, we will also look at theoretical construct explaining the possible invasion of Iran by America.
The overthrow of Mossadegh
Discovery of the potential for availability of oil reserves in Iran in 1908 has resulted to its great interest among other foreign countries (Knapp 1). It is also evident that the history and development of Iran has its roots in the discovery of oil reserves. The governance of Iran has not been a smooth one. This is because it has been associated with various leaders getting to power by acts of overthrowing the contemporary leadership.
For instance Reza Khana grabbed the leadership of Iran in 1921. Reza Khana went ahead and declared himself as a hereditary monarch of Iran (Knapp 1). This made him to bear the title of shah. He established a very strong dynasty and changed the former name of the country into presence name Iran. During the Second World War the other friends of Iran were not very comfortable with Shah (Pitney 1).
This was as a result of his close connection with Nazi of Germany. The relationship of Shah with Nazi of Germany was seen to pose a serious threat in the course of war since Germany was not a friend of Soviet Union. This was because Iran was a very instrumental member of Soviet Union in the Second World War.
This was due to the fact that Soviet Union was to rely on Iran in the major supply of the oil which was to be used as a source of energy. Iran was also supposed to provide major link to the supply of various items needed in the course of Second World War two Soviet Union (Simpson 1). This made the Soviet Union to occupy western region of Iran.
This invasion of western region of Iran made shah to give up on the leadership of Iran in the month of September in 1941. Immediately Mohammad Reza Pahlavi too over the throne after his father was forced to abdicate (Simpson 1).
The Soviet Union soldiers who had occupied the north western Iran declined to get out of the borders (Contreral 1). Instead they started supporting some parts of Iran to separate them from the larger Iran. Some of the regions were the northern province of the Azerbaljani and Kurdish. In these regions the Soviet Union troops facilitated the local peoples to become rebellious to the leadership (Cunningham 1). This made governance very hard for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The united states of America together with the united nation come to the rescue of Mohammad, the leader of Iran. This was done by the acts of United States of America putting a lot of pressure on the Soviet Union members to withdraw the soldiers across the borders of Iran. Also the United Nations put very strong force to the soviets to remove their troops in the borders of Iran (Maljoo 1). This successful and the troops were withdrawn from Iran.
The leadership started oppressing the revolts from Azerbaljani and Kurdish regions. This was seen as acts of punishing the local people who had joined efforts with the soviet troops to fight the leadership of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In around 1951 the then prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh become very popular. His name was also commonly pronounced as Mossadeq. He was a great nationalist but he was not a communist (Kuntzel 1).
He managed to nationalize anglo-iranian Oil Company. This company had been in the ownership hands of British government. Mossadeq gained very strong public support from the people of Iran. He was said to be the first democratically elected leader of Iran (Eston 1). This huge public support for Mossadeq made Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to flee to Rome. Even though
Mohammad Mossadegh was not a communist, United States of America uncomfortable with him. The other country which was not happy with Mohammad Mossadegh was United Kingdom.
These two countries felt too insecure with the presence of Mohammad Mossadegh as a leader of Iran. Despite the fact that Mohammad Mossadegh did not believe in communism the United States of America and the United Kingdom were afraid of him. This is because they thought that his connection to tudeh which was a communist party was good for their interests in Iran.
The main reason was that his links with communists will make Iran cooperate with eastern bloc (Iman 1). The eastern bloc was not allies of both United States of America and United Kingdom. This hatred towards Mohammad Mossadegh made United States of America and the United Kingdom organized for him to be overthrown. In 1953 a coup was organized against Mohammad Mossadegh leadership despite the fact that he was democratically elected by the people of Iran.
The prime minister was arrested by armed forces which was loyal to shah. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came back from Rome after Mossadegh had been overthrown (Eston 1). Since shah had been challenged by Mossadegh, he started practicing increased authoritarian leadership. This was highly motivated for his extreme fear of future opposition to his leadership.
American responses in the leadership of shah
The Americans were great hypocrites in their support for king Reza shah Pahlavi. Americans fought very hard for what they termed as independent Iran under governance of young king Reza shah Pahlavi (Stevenson 1).
They were hypocritical because they only feared for their interest. This made them to organize for ousting of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegn. They did so thinking that Mossadegn was going to take Iran closer to Moscow. This could have affected their personal interests in Iran. The United States provided military equipment to king Reza shah Pahlavi government (Mostowfi 1).
This equipment helped so much in the developmental posterity of in Iran. This was highly facilitated due to the fact that Iran had steady flow of oil in their soils. This was evident when President Carter of United States of America teased king Reza shah Pahlavi in Tehran where they were taking a state dinner, by calling him “an island of stability” in the violent Middle East.
This was a big ridicule to king Reza shah Pahlavi leadership. This was despite the fact that his governance was being face with a lot of internal opposition. A lot of local activists saw him as being against Islamic religion (Lewis 1). This made locals to have very little support and faith in his leadership. The worst happened in 1979 when he fled to Egypt after the opposition intensified.
He was diagnosed with cancer and American was very reluctant to allow for his entry in United States of America for treatment. This was despite the fact that they had shown a lot of support to his leadership. The then president of America president Carter feared for the lives of Americans who had been held hostage in Iran (Eston 1). This made him to reluctantly allow shah entry to America for treatment since he was no longer a priority to America.
The Islamic revolution
The Islamic revolution began in the early 1978. Islamic revolution basically means the events which led to the ousting of king shah Reza Pahlavi (Noll 1). This also involves the activities leading to the entire collapse of the Iran’s monarch leadership. Also this Islamic revolution is associated with replacement of monarchy with Islamic republic.
This leadership was to be under cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was in January 1978 when mass demonstrations began (Lewis 1). These demonstrations were directed against the leadership of shah. The continued strikes and frequent demonstrations which occurred in between august and December in 1978 destabilized the operations of the entire country. This marked the end of shah rule and his Pahlavi dynasty in Iran.
The main reason for these demonstrations was the fact that shah leadership had focused more on the westernization and modernization. This made him to face a lot of opposition from the cleric leaders who felt that he was against Islam. Also the Iranians felt that shah was introducing some cultural values which were foreign to them. In some instances shah the first is said to have instructed his private police to tear down cloths of women (Martsching 1).
This was allegedly because they were on religious cloths which shah objected very strongly. Things become worse for shah and this made him to run in exile in Egypt. This happened in the mid January of 1979. His departure to exile left leadership vacuum in the country. This vacuum was immediately filled after the lapse of two weeks by Ayatollah Khomeini.
It was said that his return from exile attracted millions of Iranians who were very happy that their true leader had come back. This huge gathering was in Tehran where people received him back. The troops who were loyal to shah were strongly fought by rebels and guerrillas (Lewis 1). The loyal troops were defeated and the entire royal regimes came to an abrupt end.
This occurred in the month of February in the year 1979. In April 1979 there was an election and also referendum. In the election they voted for Iran to become an Islamic republic. They also concurrently endorsed theocratic constitution in which the supreme leader of Iran was established constitution endorsed by Iranians (Eston 1). This supreme leadership was awarded to cleric Khomeini in December of 1979. This was a happy moment for the people of Iran.
Rise of mullahs
Mullahs regime started as a result of the war between Iran and Iraq which begun in 1980. Soldiers of Iraqi broke in to Iran for the part which had the oil refinery and the war between Iraq and Iran was started (Simpson 1). Mullahs developed extra ordinary weapons to fight the Iraq army which had invaded.
Examples of such weapons were nuclear weapons and atomic bombs. In 1989 some of the Iranians raised complains and criticized the Mullahs’ leadership. They emphasized on the powers of the supreme leader as they were stipulated in the constitution of the mullahs regime that one must not go against them. The supreme leader should not be placed above the law because this will affect the stability of the country’s politics.
Due to the poor leadership there were empty promises, small monopolies, unlawful prohibition, misuse and mismanagement of properties and funds of the government, expensive cerebrations and nepotism while on the other hand the basic needs of the society which are very important were ignored (Pitney 1).
This led to break down of mullahs in three factions led by different leaders. This made the factions to start competing for ministerial positions in the cabinet which was to be announced soon. Some people called for riots and demonstrations because of the oppression by mullahs and poor leadership.
They went on to influence the education sector on the first day of the academic year in order for them to oppose the mullahs’ regime. This included professors, teachers and students in both university and schools who were influenced to strike. The bombs which were used by the terrorists in Iraq were produced by Iran mullah regime and exploded on a daily basis leaving innocent people dead.
The leader of the mullah regime sworn that the powers of the world would not end their atomic and nuclear processes. Iranian people called for more demonstrations and riots because they wanted improved standards of living and freedom. After the United States of America attacked Iraq the Iranian agents immediately moved to Iraq.
Another organization was formed to fight against mullah regime. This organization was called people’s mojahedin organization of Iran (PMOI) or Mojahedin-e khalq (MEK). The Iraq people wanted Iran to be stopped from interfering with its government and to end the fight (Pitney 1). MEK wants to make Iran a democratic country and is supported by more than half of Iraq people. The challenge it’s facing is because it’s blacklisted by European Union as having connections with terrorism.
Although the European court had disqualified this blacklisting and ordered the secretary of Britain to strike it out because they found it incorrect it has not yet been removed from the blacklist. United States of America is requested to intervene so as to stop violence in Iraq and push Iran and its agent out of Iraq (Eston 1). The people of Iran want the west a regime to change and stop entertaining the mullahs.
Contemporary Iran under Ahmadinejad
It was in the month of June 2005 when Mahmud Ahamadinejad was voted as the president of Islamic republic of Iran (Eston 1). This came as a big surprise to many people within Iran and the international community. The fact was that many people did not expect him to win the election. Despite this fact many saw him as among the survivors of basiji.
This it was seen that the real fighter for Iran was now governing Iran. Mahmud Ahamadinejad was elected during the hard times when there were mass strikes and demonstrations against the then government. During this era workers were demonstrating on various grounds.
The most critical for striking by the workers was poor salaries and wages (Eston 1). Also the working conditions were very unfriendly to most of Iran people. During this campaign Mahmud Ahamadinejad managed to portray himself as an advocate for the poor and working class.
This worked very well to the advantage of his election. The reason was that the working class wanted somebody who could listen to the problems. This was because the employers were mistreating the workers and also offering them poor salaries and wages. The entire scenario was evident in the mere fact that workers could not be allowed to form their independent workers unions who could in return protect them from exploitative employers.
The poor also voted for Mahmud Ahamadinejad with hope of better lives under his leadership (Eston 1). After his election as the president of Islamic republic of Iran the mass workers protests reduced. But after sometime there have been a lot of issues with the teachers’ strikes. In this case the teachers are protesting against poor salaries and poor working condition.
The teachers want the government to harmonize the salaries in the public service and also the private sector. The president has also had a lot of problems with the United States of America and also the Israel. The recent debate which is the main issue is the project on nuclear energy and weapons. This is causing sleepless nights to United States of America and their entire governance.
American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
The United States of America began war with Afghanistan on the month of October 2001. This was after invasion of United States of America. The historical attach on Americans occurred on the month of September 11, 2001. The main suspect was identified. This made president George w bush to declare Osama bin laden as the main suspect for the bombing which occurred on the aforementioned date in American soils (Eston 1).
By then, the aforementioned main suspect was being hosted in the comfort of Afghanistan nation. The ruling regime was given orders by United States to hand over Osama bin laden for trial along with other key Taliban official members. This move was highly desisted by the ruling leadership because they argued that American was not able to provide evidence linking Osama bin laden with the said attach.
The bush administration in response to the position of taken by Afghanistan argued that they were not able to differentiate the terrorists and the government which supported and protected terrorist groups like Taliban. And above all Afghanistan were treating Osama bin laden as their quest hence need to accord him hospitality and asylum. They also went further and suggested that if evidence was provided then Osama bin laden should be tried in an Islam court in Afghanistan and not handing him to the hands of Americans.
Then, the bush administration decided that Afghanistan should suffer the fate of protecting Osama bin laden and his allies (Pitney 1). The Americans initiated an operation enduring freedom. This operation was also undertaken alongside with United Kingdom who came in the aid of Americans. The main reason for invading Afghanistan was to destroy al-Qaeda and their affiliate Taliban sympathizers and above all to bring Osama bin laden in to book.
The operation carried aerial bombing in order to accord support to the forces on the ground. They managed to kill some high ranging officials who were working very close with Osama bin laden. At first they also managed to overthrow the Taliban regime but since then they have regained in strength. The most unfortunate thing was that they did not succeed in capturing Osama bin laden (Martsching 1).
The invasion of Iraq by United States of America was mainly through allegation of possession of weapons of mass destruction (Eston 1). This claim was highly denounced by president Hussein of Iraq. The debate on whether Iraq was producing weapons of mass distraction became an international debate. This made United Nations to send their inspector to find out whether the allegations were true or not. The report from this United Nations inspector suggested that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (Pitney 1).
This was the main reason why the United Nations did not give a go ahead to United States of America to invade Iraq. Despite the lack of evidence for mass destruction in Iraq America went ahead and attached Iraq. There were also other reasons which were giving for the said attach. One of them was the allegation that Iraq used to offer financial compensation to the families of suicide bomber of Palestine (Badeeb 1).
Also the Americans argued that the president Hussein administration had no respect for human rights. It was said that the democracy was not there, thus United States of America was trying to instill democracy in Iraq. The invasion succeeded in capturing President Hussein. He was tried in the court of law in Iraq by the already set transition government by United States of America (Badeeb 1). Later he was hanged.
Theoretical construct to conflict
The origin of conflict can be explained by use of various theories. In our case, the most appropriate theory will be the political theory. In this theory, power is the central figure in the conflict formation (Cunningham 1). Here the main focus is placed on the entire usage and exercise of power by different states and countries.
The power is said to have its origin in various forms. The forms taken by power may be economic, political, cultural and military (Contreral 1). Conflict in this case will originate in the process of various groups and states competing for power with one another.
Here various groups will be in pursuit for power and the resources. It can be generally said that the main motivation for conflict in this there is entirely material oriented. This theory is very significant in predicting the possible war between Iran and United States of America. Historically it is well understood that America has always used all means to have its interests taken care of in Iran (Cunningham 1). United States of America has always struggled to control the oil exploitation in Iran.
It is said that in the leadership of shah United States of America had taken full control of oil companies in Iran. This was the main reason why they always defended the shah leadership because he was taking care of their interests. The main differences started after the overthrow of shah leadership in 1979 (Cunningham 1). This was the historic Islamic revolution. The regime which got in to the power had little regard for America up to date.
United States of America has continued to place sanctions against the Islamic republic of Iran. The worst is happening recently with the proposed plan to start nuclear energy production by the Islamic republic of Iran (Contreral 1). This is very enough pretence of Americans to invade Iran any time soon. This is because it has happened with Iraq and Iran is not in any way an exception.
Conclusion
From the above, it is evident that United States of American will very soon than expected invade Islamic republic of Iran. This is because the very same circumstances in which they invaded Iraq have shown in Iran. The proposed plan by Islamic republic of Iran to enter into nuclear energy is enough reason for Americans to attach.
This is because United States for their selfish desire to control all economies of the world cannot allow any other nation to come to self reliance. Their main mission is to ensure that no single country exist comfortably without begging for their aid.
In most cases they use this strategy to get their interests addressed and thus they cannot succeed in a country that is self sufficient. In this case we have generally seen historical background to conflict. The invasion of America on Afghanistan and Iraq has also been outlined. Finally we have also seen the theoretical explanation for possible invasion of Islamic republic of Iran by United States of America.
The Gaza War which was started by the Israeli forces on 27 December 2008 was actively discussed in the media during three weeks of the conflict because of the controversial character of the Israeli attacks against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. There are two opinions in relation to the appropriateness of the actions of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
In 2008, the Israeli media concentrated on the terroristic activities of Hamas and on the necessity to prevent the Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel with the help of the definite military operation. The US media reflected the vision of the US President’s administration regarding the support of the IDF actions.
However, the Arab world was shocked by the Israeli military forces’ activities and presented their condemning of the situation. To analyze the reasons of presenting the opposite positions in the media, it is necessary to focus on the visions provided in the Haaretz, the Gulf News, and the Washington Post.
On 27 December 2008, Ravid presented his reaction to the IDF actions against Hamas in the Haaretz. The accents were made on the necessity to stop Hamas in their terroristic activities against Israel. The violent attacks could be justified with references to the need to set the peace within the region that is why the international community could support the Israeli authorities in their intentions to fight with Hamas (Ravid, 2008). The further discussions of the conflict presented in the Haaretz, the popular Israeli newspaper, were built round justifying the actions of Israel (Burston, 2010).
It is important to pay attention to the fact the position of the US observers has many similarities with the reaction of the Israeli reporters to IDF activities. The US support of the Israeli forces’ violent actions presented in the media can be explained with references to the position of the US President’s administration.
It was stated that the USA demanded Hamas to stop their terroristic activities against Israel after December 27, 2008. To justify the Israeli actions, Witte and Raghavan concentrate on Israel’s goals. It is stated that “Israel’s strategy appears to be to weaken Hamas enough that the group has no choice but to sign a truce on Israel’s terms” (Witte & Raghavan, 2008).
On 15 November 2012, the analysis of the Gaza War’s results was provided in the Washington Post. In spite of the fact the conflict was started because of the Israel’s actions on 27 December, the US media continues “blaming Hamas for starting the conflict” with references to the rocket fire and Hamas’s terroristic activity (Heading off full-blown war, 2012).
The reaction of the Arab world was more negative and directed against Israel’s actions. The opinions presented in the Gulf News can be explained with the focus on the fact the Arab world discusses Hamas’s activities from the other perspective than the Westerners because of the Hamas’s ideology.
In 2008, the authors of the Gulf News stated that “the attacks shocked the Arab world. The UAE on Saturday condemned the Israeli aggression” (Israeli air force attacks Gaza, 2008). The accents were made on the mass killings of the Palestinians, and the conflict was presented as ‘the Israeli massacre’.
Thus, the differences in approaches to presenting the aspects of the Gaza War (2008-2009) in the media are based on the countries’ positions in relation to Israel and Palestine. The authors of the articles in the Haaretz and the Washington Post concentrated on the causes of Israel to start the military operation against Hamas when the authors of the Gulf News criticized the activities of IDF reflecting the reaction of the whole Arab world.
A number of challenges, ranging from economic, political to social, characterize the 21st century. The main problems that confront all states in the global system are the preservation of sovereignty and promotion of national interests. In fact, states are concerned more with the promotion of national security.
Research shows that states would do everything within their power to protect their national borders. The emergence of global problems is indeed the main issue that threatens human life. The security of many states is at stake due to terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Powerful states are threatened just as the weak states because terrorism does not spare any state. Moreover, there is always tension between the developed and the developing countries because of issues surrounding resource distribution.This article looks at some of the factors that have contributed to the prevalence of problems in the 21st century. The article invokes a number of theories and incorporates the views of international relations scholars.
Terrorism
In the current international system, terrorism is the major threat facing all states. Countries are faced with both internal and external threats, but terrorism remains the major threat. Terrorism is a problem that cannot be resolved unless states delve into its origins.
Terrorists use violence to frustrate governments, irrespective of whether the country is developed or poor. In other words, no country or individual is spared by the heinous acts of terrorists. In the modern international system, there are various categories of terrorists, each with its own mode of operation.
Some terrorists threaten to use weapons of mass destruction while others resort to suicide bombing1. Scholars argue that terrorism is a result of depression, melancholy, hopelessness, helplessness, and defeat. Before the Cold War era, terrorism was not a big issue in the international system because extremist organizations were under the control of the US and the Soviet Union.
The hostilities between the US and the Soviet Union could not give room to terrorism. In fact, countries that were suspected to support terrorism were constantly frustrated.
It should be noted that there is no Leviathan in the international system, which is compared to the centralized government. This gives state and non-state actors an opportunity to act in a manner that is beneficial to them.
Moreover, there are weak and powerful states in the international system. Powerful states are well off in terms of military technology and development. In this regard, weak states feel threatened, which inspires them to develop some of the sophisticated weapons to counter the influence of powerful states.
Weapons and Mass Destruction
Availability of weapons of mass destruction is another threat to the world security in the current international system, which has made the 21st century the most disordered century in the human history. It is upon this that the Atomic Agency was created to supervise the production and distribution of weapons of mass destruction.
Before the Cold War, only powerful states, such as Russia and the US, had the capability of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. However, these weapons could not be used to destroy life and property. In fact, the superpowers wanted to prove to each other that they were technologically competent.
They could not engage in war because they were mutually assured of destruction. Currently, a number of states have the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. For instance, countries such as India and Pakistan have the ability to produce nuclear energy. This is very dangerous to the world security, especially when such weapons get into the hands of terrorism.
The ideas of Mearsheimer support the fact that the international system exists according to the Hobbestian state of nature meaning that life is short-lived, anarchic, brutal, and nasty2. This implies that each state is concerned with its national security. States would do everything to ensure that they achieve their national interests.
The Gap between the South and the North
The third problem facing the world in the 21st century is the increasing economic gap between poor and rich states. Studies show that the gap between the south and the north is always in the increase. The problems facing countries of the south is how to initiate development projects.
However, scholars blame colonialism for the problems that are currently facing developing countries, particularly in Africa. The effects of neocolonialism are severe in the 21st century meaning that even the few available solutions are inapplicable. For instance, the issue of anger and insecurity cannot be resolved through provision of aid and monetary assistance.
Neocolonialists focus so much on establishing a cash economy by emphasizing on cash crops such as coffee and tea. This has always affected the agricultural policies of developing countries. Moreover, the infrastructural development was tempered with during colonialism, which is now haunting poor states in the 21st century3.
This explains the reasons why weak states attempt to acquire nuclear energy. In the third assumption, Mearsheimer was of the view that states would always suspect the actions of each other because one state will never understand the intentions of the other. Due to this, states try as much as possible to match the policies of their counterparts in terms of economic and military development.
Since powerful states struggle to maintain their influence globally, they always apply repressive rules, which force weak states to repel. This has even complicated the situation in the 21st century because weak states are forced to adopt policies that do not support their domestic economic policies.
Conclusion
Mearsheimer seems to agree with the ideas of liberalist scholars such as Aart Scholte and Brent Steele because actors in the international system are rational actors meaning that they understand the external environment. This view is misplaced because states cooperate only to achieve their national interests.
Steele suggests that states respect the internationally recognized laws. This view is actually inaccurate because powerful states are not even members of the internationally established organizations such as the International Criminal Court4. Scholte analyzed the role of global civil societies in the 21st century.
Similarly, his analysis was misplaced because the activities of the civil groups are not always similar in all societies. Globalization is a political concept that is used to suppress and dictate policies to the poor states in the international system. This means that globalization benefits only the rich states.
Bibliography
Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton & Company, 2001.
Scholte, Aart. The Political Economy of Globalization. London: Macmillan, 2000.
Sciolino, Elaine. Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Steele, Brent. “Liberal-Idealism: A constructivist Critique.” International Studies Review 9.1 (2007): 23–52.
Footnotes
1 Elaine Sciolino, Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 98.
2John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton & Company, 2001), 26.
3Aart Scholte, The Political Economy of Globalization (London: Macmillan, 2000), 181.
4 Brent Steele, “Liberal-Idealism: A constructivist Critique,” International Studies Review 9.1 (2007): 29.
“The number of British soldiers killed on duty in Iraq is now 139” (BBC News 2009 para. 1), the headline of BBC Online News screamed on Thursday, 30th April 2009. This is after four British soldiers were killed by insurgent forces in Basra. Such headlines have become the norm in the United Kingdom today.
People, especially the civilians and those not well versed on warfare, can not understand how a formidable, albeit under-funded army, like that of the United Kingdom, can suffer so many casualties under the onslaught of ill equipped guerrillas.
This is especially so when the cause of death for the score of soldiers is made clear. Roadside detonations of IED’s (Improvised Explosive Device) are the major cause of death. Battesti (2010) holds the view that over 40 percent of fatalities among allied forces, especially in Iraq, are directly attributable to these devices.
Rupert Smith, in his book The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (2007) perhaps gives the best explanation for this development. He is of the view that the wars in which armies engage in currently are a sharp contrast of wars fought in the past. In the past, most of the wars involved a conflict between armed forces of nations in battle fields over territories. This is for example most of the wars before and immediately after the two world wars. This was war between nations.
However, things have changed in the recent past. Armies are now fighting what Smith (2007) refers to as “war among the people”. This is war fought away from the battle field, and as the name implies, among the civilians.
This is the kind of war that the British army in Afghanistan and Iraq found themselves engaged in. They were not fighting clearly defined enemies in battalions; but instead, insurgents who were fighting among the civilians. The aim now is not merely to protect territories; rather, it has extended to include fight over the goodwill of the locals.
The problem is that the British army, just like the American forces, is optimized for industrialized war (Evans 2009). This is the kind of war that involves use of brutal force in the battle field. They were ill equipped to engage the insurgents, and hence the rising fatalities.
This essay is an effort by the author to explore whether latter day’s armed forces, optimized for industrialized war, are obsolete in the new battle field of wars among the people (Betz 2007). It is the opinion of the author that any modern armed force worth its name should be able to adapt and operate within any environment within which they engage their enemies.
This is given the fact that, as Smith (2007) aptly puts it, the future of conflicts is characterized by a combination of wars among the people and industrialized war. The fate of Her Majesty’s army in Iraq and Afghanistan will be used as the case study for this essay.
From Wars between Nations to Wars among the People: The Great Transition
According to war and armed conflict scholars, there has been a major shift of paradigm in this field. The last half of the 20th century, after the two world wars, was characterized by wars between nations (Battesti 2010).
This involved industrialized war fare, whereby armies relied heavily on advancements in technology and numbers to outdo one another in the battle field. The Persian Gulf War, for example, exhibited that forces could win wars if they could take total control of the air space while using heavy artilleries on the enemy forces.
However, this has changed with the onset of the twenty first century. As earlier indicated, the enemy, perhaps sensing their disadvantaged position in terms of forces and other resources have shifted the frontiers from the conventional battlefields to fight among the people (Evans 2009).
Latter day’s enemy is not adorned with the army fatigues; they are dressed in civilian attire, and they mingle with the civilians in the streets. Instead of using drones to deliver bombs, they use suicide bombers. This is the enemy that the British army is up against on the streets of Iraq and the ragged mountains of Kabul’s outskirts.
In the year 2001, immediately after the infamous September eleventh attack on United States of American soil, Britain agreed to help the vengeful Americans settle a score with the Taliban (Betz 2007). To this end, the country has so far deployed more than 9,000 fighters (Evans 2009).
In 2003, her Majesty’s Army again went to the rescue of the American armed forces. This is as the latter was preparing to invade Iraq in efforts to ouster Saddam Hussein, the infamous dictator of the oil rich country. 46,000 soldiers were effectively deployed to Iraq (Evans 2009). In both instances (Afghan and Iraq invasions), the United Kingdom’s army was second only to the United States’ the chief aggressor.
In both the Iraqi and Afghan incursions, both the American and British armies went to the battle psyched for high intensity engagements with an equal or similar enemy (Battesti 2010). However, they found themselves face to face with unfamiliar threats. Road side bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers and other guerrilla war techniques were some of the threats that they faced.
Their technological and numerical advantage could not be utilized in such situations. The army could not bomb a whole village in Basra to kill insurgents dressed as civilians. Neither could they effectively conduct a door to door search for the insurgents, given that the latter enjoyed protection from the local citizens.
To survive in such circumstances, the army needs to adopt new strategies to engage the enemy. The soldiers have to be weaned out of reliance on industrialized war engagements, and trained on war among the people techniques. However, this does not mean that industrialized war tactics should be totally abandoned. To the contrary, the soldiers must learn how to combine the two.
Modern Armed Forces and the Changing War Terrain: The Need to Adapt
To some extent, the modern armed forces that are optimized to operate in industrialized war fare are obsolete (Smith 2007). This is given the fact that the techniques that they have been inducted with are not competitive within the war among the people. There is need for them to be able to adapt to the new environment within which they are engaging their enemy.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been described by Battesti (2010) as asymmetrical engagements. These are types of wars whereby the strengths of the enemies are not equal.
One party is disadvantaged in form of resources and expertise, while the other party has these attributes in abundance (Evans 2009). For example, the American and Her Majesty’s army in Afghanistan and Iraq far outnumbers the number of guerrillas in these countries. The same goes to their technology and expertise; the allied forces have armored cars and advanced artilleries.
Betz (2007) opines that when the enemy in an asymmetrical engagement senses their disadvantaged position, they change their tactics. For example, they may use the terrain, which they know better than their enemies, to their advantage (Battesti 2010). The Taliban fights from caves that the allied forces know nothing or little about. The weaker enemy may also try to influence the populace so that they gain their support. The Islamic extremists in Basra and other Iraqi cities use the guise of jihad to win the support of the Muslim populace.
The American and allied forces should realize that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just over territories and the security of the allied nations. Rather, it is a war for the approval of the Iraqi and Afghan citizens (Betz 2007). This is all about the war among the people. The armies fight over the souls of the people. This fight can not be won by bombings civilian villages and cities. Instead, propaganda and dissemination of other forms of messages is necessary as one of the strategies to influence public opinion.
The necessity to win over the approval of the people is the major reason why armies have changed their engagement techniques with their enemies. The British army is aware of the fact that bombing of guerilla hideouts must be precise. The bombs must wreck maximum damage on the enemy infrastructure while at the same time minimizing civilian casualties (Evans 2009). New technology makes it possible for the British armies to bomb with metric accuracy (Smith 2007).
The need to adapt within diverse environments has necessitated the change of tact that is evidenced among the allied forces. It is a fact that technology such as drones and other forms of advanced weapons are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But intelligence, and especially human intelligence, has become the buzzword in these territories (Evans 2009). Armies should make sure that they infiltrate the enemy who is camouflaged by the cover of civility. Spies must be deployed within communities in Basra and Afghanistan to collect information regarding the operations of the enemy.
Conclusion
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided the British armed forces with invaluable lessons regarding modern warfare. Her Majesty’s army, despite advantages in technology and manpower, recorded a lackluster performance in Iraqi tour. The withdrawal from Basra late 2009 was a subtle admission of defeat.
The poor performance was despite the fact that the enemy was using low quality assault rifles and other crude techniques such as roadside bombs. But these were the exact engagement tactics that British army was not prepared for. They were prepared to fight organized armies with organized tactics.
Smith (2007) holds that the American and British armies are still trained on techniques to fight past wars. The new wars, according to Smith (2007), will be fought among the people and away from the battle field. There is need for the armed forces to be trained on how to adapt to war among the people. This is the only way that they will avoid been relegated to oblivion.
Bibliography
Battesti, JY 2010, War Between Nations and War Among the People. Web.
This assignment is a discussion on the topic of international institutions’ role in prevention of war. The discussion is based on question four “Major war will not occur in the future because the international community has created a set of international institutions that make it impossible “.
Some of the institutions and concepts that have been developed by the international community to avert a major war in the future include the United Nations (UN), pursuit of global justice, the concept of globalization, idealism, liberalism, constructivism, international law and the universal declarations of human rights.
Discussion
United Nations and Prevention of War
The UN is an international organization which brings member states together in a cooperation to achieve economic, social and political progress as well as respect for human rights through adherence to internal law. The UN is also concerned with maintenance of peace in the world. The UN was formed in 1945 after the Second World War, to replace its predecessor, the League of Nations, which was unable to prevent the Second World War. The UN was therefore formed with the main objective of preventing wars between states through negotiations, dialogue and sometimes military force. The current UN secretary general is Ban Ki- Moon from South Korea.
The UN is governed by what is referred to as the UN charter. The charter contains various provisions and guidelines regarding economy, politics, human rights, international law and justice system. The Security Council is the organ of UN which deals with issues of maintenance of peace and prevention of wars in the world.
It ensures that any threat to peace is identified as early as possible, so that the international community may intervene to bring dialogue between the conflicting parties. Once there is a war, the UN deploys its troops in the affected nation(s), as the last option to restore peace.
The UN also focuses on the factors which may compromise peace within a country or between nations. For instance, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) was formed mainly to promote development in poor countries, with the philosophy that poverty and lack of development are potential sources of ethnic or political violence within a nation or between nations.
Other organizations affiliated to the UN are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). All these institutions and programs are aimed at empowering people with education and the civilization needed to respect each other as well as to take care of the environment.
The United Nations also adopted the universal declaration of human rights in 1948, which outlines human rights which must be respected by any government in the world. Any government which violates these rights may be subjected to international law and international justice system, based on the Rome statute which forms the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is mandated with dealing with cases of genocide or massive abuse of human rights.
Examples of some trials which have taken place in the court are the cases for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Liberia. The international law and the ICC therefore act as a check against acts of aggression or mass atrocities within nation(s). UN also addresses the issue of smuggling of firearms, which may result to armed conflict within a nation or between nations. Countries which violate the UN charter or those which do not promote disarmament may be slapped with economic sanctions.
Pursuit of Global Justice
This is a politically derived philosophy which is formed on the assumption that the world is generally unjust and unfair. What this means is that the world is full of biases when it comes to matters of justice in the distribution of power, economic resources and opportunities. Generally, the injustice is fuelled by the politics of domination between nations of the world whereby the rich deny the poor justice in various sectors.
In terms of social relationships, the rich people are known to manipulate the process of justice in their favor thus making the poor unable to get justice because they cannot afford to purchase it. The pursuance of global justice by the international community has ensured that nations of the world are treated with the respect they deserve. Nations also are able to resolve disagreements through international law and institutions.
The Concept of Globalization
Globalization can be defined as the minimization of the differences between people of the world and the maximization of their similarities through interactions, cooperation and communication. During the pre-world war period, the world was characterized by minimal interaction, communication, cross-border movements and language homogeneity.
However, after the world war, this situation changed. The changes were mainly triggered by the desire for nations of the world to unite in various spheres of development mainly the economy, education, employment, the environment and governance (Beck 45).
Idealism
In international relations and foreign policy, idealism is a political philosophy which entails the advancement of a particular ideology (political, social or economic) both at home and abroad, with a view of promoting and safeguarding the interests of citizens of a county and those of citizens in other countries in regard to that issue. Examples include the fight against poverty, HIV/AIDS and advocacy for democracy instead of dictatorship or authoritarianism as well as safeguarding of human rights.
Liberalism
This is the idea that nations of the world relate not only for political power and economic purposes but also for cultural purposes. With liberalism therefore, the relationship between states is characterised by a lot of cooperation in various aspects like in trade and cultural exchange. Liberalism also claims that nations which interact in trade and cultural exchange rarely make war and these acts as an incentive to international peace.
Constructivism
This is the augment that international relations are based on ideas but not on material things like wealth creation or cultural exchange. Countries which have similar ideologies are therefore more likely to relate or interact with each other than those which have different ideologies.
According to constructivists, the interaction between states is influenced by collective values, social identities and culture. The constructivist approach therefore does not see any anarchy between nations and also blames realism and liberalism for failing to predict the end of the cold war.
International Law
International law refers to the set of laws or principles which govern the relationships between sovereign states (Fichtelberg 41). It was initially formed to govern the manner in which nation states related to each other with a view of improving their relationships in regard to specific issues. International law initially took the form of treaties and agreements between states, which were either bilateral or multilateral.
The treaties were on issues like trade, agriculture and other forms of cooperation between the signatories of the treaties. The world has been changing which has led to the emergence of a new international system whereby states interact more frequently than before. Globalization, terrorism and ethnic conflicts have been on the rise in the recent years (Scott 214). This has led to the adjustment of international law to take care of the issues in the new international system and how states treat their own citizens.
One of the ways in which international law has been changed is in regard to the issue of human rights. International law initially did not interfere with internal affairs of sovereign states and how states treated their own citizens.
But with the rising cases of atrocities committed by governments to their citizens, international law has been widened in scope to address the issue of crime against humanity based on the universal declaration of human rights, which makes it illegal for any government to violate the so called civil and political liberties of its citizens (Darraj 92).
The issue of environment has also made international law to be widened in scope to include environmental protection. This is mainly due to climate change which leads to global warming. Several treaties have been formed to address the issue of climate change. Examples include the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the United Nations convention to combat desertification and the Copenhagen talks (Deke 76).
Universal Declarations of Human Rights
Every human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights and entitlements. These rights and entitlements exist as shared norms of human moralities and natural rights. The rights and entitlements underscore the importance of treating all human beings with dignity, fairness and equality irrespective of their cultural backgrounds.
These rights and entitlements are supported by strong reasons and legal basis at national and international levels. Human rights ideas emerged after the Second World War when the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. Human rights laws to some extend remain credible as a reflection of a global commitment to human rights. Each state has the obligation to protect human rights for its citizens (Paul 8).
Works Cited
Beck, Ulrich. What is globalization? Oxford: Polity Press, 2000.45.Print.
Darraj, Sussan. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris: Infobase Publishing, 2010.92.Print.
Deke, Oliver. Environmental Policy Instruments for Conserving Global Biodiversity Volume 339 of Kieler Studien. Heidelberg: Springer, 2008.76.Print.
Fichtelberg, Aaron. Law at the Vanishing Point: A Philosophical Analysis of International Law. Farnham GU9 7PT: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.41.Print.
Paul, Guchteneire. Democracy and Human Rights in Multicultural Societies. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing., 2007. 8. Print.
Scott, Gregory. 21 Debated: Issues in World Politics. Kingsway: Longman Publishers, 2002.214.Print.
Nuclear weapons are among the weapons of mass destruction, which were first detonated in1945 during the Second World War. Primarily, the United States of America is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in wars, having detonated two atomic bombs in two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on 6th and 9th August 1945 respectively.
The destruction of these two acts was immense and the effects of the same can still be felt to date. In the recent past, the possession and production of nuclear weapons has brought much tension in the world. From the time of these two bombings, nuclear weapons are closely monitored and supervised. This paper will discuss whether nuclear weapons brought the world to edge of war, as well as their role in ensuring peace.
The nations that have acknowledged that they possess nuclear weapons are United States of America, China, North Korea, France, Russia, United Kingdom, Pakistan, and India. Israel is suspected to possess this ammunition but has not acknowledged or denied the claim. However, the numbers of nations yearning to have nuclear power for either military or economic are many.
Due to this, nations that already possess these weapons use this as a bargaining point, however, there are restrictions on who can produce or buy these weapons. Moreover, governments believe that nuclear weapons advance their national security, provide insurance against future risks and uncertainties (Paone, 2009).
Other reasons why a country may want to acquire nuclear powers are if one of its aggressors owns these weapons, to advance its international standings, running of economy through nuclear energy.
International relations are soaring since the invention of nuclear weapons. It is clear that with increase of nuclear, there is high risk of a nuclear war (Karp and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 1992); indeed, nuclear weapons have brought the world to the verge of war.
The ability of a nation to destroy another population and environment with these weapons launched from far has increased the risk of military conflict. In addition, the risk of nuclear terrorism is real, in the wake of increased terror attacks in the world. Although up until now terrorists have not used nuclear weapons in their attacks, there is a fear that, terrorist could access and use these weapons.
In the event that terror groups cannot access nuclear weapons, they can choose to attack nuclear power plants, leading to catastrophic situations. Nuclear weapons are beyond reach by small terror groups; however, in the era where some states are exporting terror, these states can facilitate terror organization to obtain nuclear weapons.
Even with restrictions and regulation on states intending to acquire nuclear weapon, some states have been able to obtain weapons of mass destruction illegally. With technological advancement, terrorists would not face any hitches in manufacture of nuclear weapons. In addition, some irresponsible states could possibly sell nuclear weapons to terror groups in the black market. The other risk is unstable and poorly governed nations acquiring nuclear weapons and using them irresponsibly against its people or other nations.
Nuclear weapons have not ensured peace since there is fear and uncertainty of what could happen next. It is likely that one nation will use their weapons offensively. In addition, there is also the risk of accidents in the nuclear plants; nations in the nuclear club are able to interfere with lesser nations affairs because of their military strength, a case in example being the invasion of Iraq by United States.
Lesser countries are made to feel like subjects to the larger nations because of their military powers. This has led superpower nations to meddle with smaller nations’ affairs, as they are defenseless.
One of the major reasons why Iraq was invaded and occupied by the foreign forces was suspicion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; thus, the more superior nations joined and set to destroy and disarm him. It was largely believed that Saddam had large amounts of chemical and biological weapons; however, it is still not clear whether Saddam possessed or intended to reopen nuclear plants.
This conflict has caused other wars and terrorism acts, given that some nations cannot trust others handling nuclear warheads. A report indicates that Mr. Hussein had ambitions of building a science hub and weapons of mass destruction but his capacity had gone down since 1991 (Holdstock and Barnaby, 2003).
Due to this invasion, some people became radicalized and continued to wage wars against other people and nations. One case study is the bombing of the twin tower in the United States of America. These acts of terror can directly be traced and linked to nuclear weapons; indeed, “the acts of terror have come in to being neither by accidents nor by deliberate international arrangement; it has resulted from a combination of both political tension and technological advancement of weaponry” (Edwards, 1986, p. 14)
India and Pakistan conflicts could escalate to nuclear war. These two neighboring states have had conflicts since decolonization, as they both claim a disputed territory among other issues. India acquired nuclear warheads and hence Pakistan with the aid China. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by both countries continues to raise fear that their conflict could escalate to nuclear conflict. Indeed, since India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, the level of conflict has considerately risen.
There is animosity among nations in the nuclear club and the rest, whereby the nations in the nuclear club use their authority to cartel the hopes of other nations of acquiring nuclear energy. The hostility has grown to a level that these nations can wedge or sponsor terror attacks to nuclear states. In addition, religious states as Islamic could use force in their crusades in attempt to convert people into their religion.
The errant nations who defile orders and continue to produce their own weapons are dealt with militarily as was the case with Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. Other nations like North Korea and Iran receive a lot of condemnation and the United States of America has been requesting these nations to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in their territories (Holdstock and Barnaby, 2003).
The nuclear club wants to reserve all the rights to them; however, members of the club can go an extra mile to protect their ‘privileges’ even if it means warfare. Moreover, the reasons that they give why some nations should not have weapons of mass destruction are instability and poor governance.
There have been treaties signed by nations with nuclear arsenals to either reduce, or stop the production. However, there are nations who are not complying, hence leading to tensions among members of the nuclear club. The result of this is the likelihood of eruption of war due to some disgruntled nations (Holdstock and Barnaby, 2003, p. 54).
Another conflict being fueled by nuclear weapons is Israel and Middle East conflict. Israel does not confirm or denies its possession of nuclear weapons; it has been difficult to settle its conflict with nations in the Middle East. Since Israel owns weapons of mass destruction and hence more superior to its enemies, it has always been provoking and defying fire agreements. In the past, Israel has used un-proportional fire in short war encounters.
Moreover, Israel may in the future use its chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Protesting against this, Iran has been condemning and requesting the UN to warn Israel against its proliferation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, Israel’s nuclear arsenals have just led to an increase of conflicts with its enemies, who are also likely to seek for nuclear weapons for offensive purposes (Karsh, 2000).
In the quest for knowing what nations in the nuclear club are developing, nations have resulted in spying, leaving the world on the edge of a war. For instance, the US is suspected to have spies in Iran, Iraq and china, while the Russians are also engaged in this vice. In an effort of deterring nations from obtaining nuclear weapons, nations are arresting scientists believed or linked to aiding in the proliferation of nuclear arsenals; for instance, in a recent case, the US abducted a nuclear scientist from Iran causing tension between the two nations.
According to Anon (1982), “the existence of nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence has been the most important mechanism in keeping the world in peace for the last 40 years.” Peace is described as absence of war; and in this case, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the world has not gone into a large war except local conflicts after 1945 especially in Africa and Asia though none of these has escalated to the use of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons have led to sustainable peace in the world since 1945. There is control and monitoring of nations with these weapons hence avoiding a state of war. Nuclear weapons have also deterred aggressor nation from provoking others in fear of attack.
There is a notion that nuclear weapons prevent armed conflicts due to undesired risks that pose to both parties. On the other hand, the existence of nuclear deterrence has promoted peace in the world. Nuclear deterrence is the refraining of an enemy from using nuclear weapons since he could be destroyed as a consequence.
For instance, if two nations choose to engage in nuclear conflict the consequences could be mutual destruction. Governments and leaders are less likely to engage or provoke nations with nuclear weapons, while nations who have strong friends in the nuclear club are respected. Thus, peace has prevailed in the world due to fear. Nevertheless, the bottom line of peace is that nations in the nuclear club could support and defend their weaker allies if need be.
Before the invention of nuclear arsenals, warfare was used by governments as a means of achieving political mileage but not any longer. The nation in the nuclear club relationship is based on mistrust; there are always speculations that other nations are advancing technologically more than the other is, reducing the tendency of aggravation of each other.
Having witnessed the massive destruction that nuclear weapons caused during the 1945 bombing, fewer nations are willing to engage in wars that could lead to nuclear war. After the use of these weapons, a body was formed that controls the affairs of the world, with the United Nations being a peace organization. It was formed during the Second World War, came into being officially in October 1945, with the main duties being to maintain international peace, security, and to develop friendly relations among nations
Since many sovereign nations are signatories to the UN, they are limited or governed and deterred from engaging in wars. The UN has promoted the peace to some level as it creates a platform for dialogue for countries with disputes.
In extreme cases, the UN also intervenes in areas where there is conflict through it peacekeeping programmes to stop the conflict from escalating. Since the UN is a neutral party, it has helped in solving and stopping many wars as well as advocating for non-proliferation of nuclear warheads. Moreover, the UN has its special forces that work alongside other military to maintain peace.
In conclusion, nuclear weapons have helped to ensure peace in the world given that the world has not suffered a major war since the first use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence is one of the ways nuclear weapons have aided to guarantee peace.
Many leaders and governments are not quick to engage in warfare; indeed, the possession of these weapons by government provides national security of their nations and those of their allies. The understanding of the destruction caused by nuclear weapons has promoted peace. These weapons usually cause immense destruction and can affect the mutual parties. However, it is still not clear whether the balance of terror can continue to sustain the peace prevailing presently.
Due to the events leading to first use of nuclear weapon, a peace organization was formed, the UN, a body that has been instrumental in ensuring peace in the world. In addition, the body has played a major role in deterring the use of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, this body has some limitation, since it is funded by the super powers, who are also permanent members of the Security Council, hence the UN sometimes cannot have a great influence over them. A case in mind is the invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction have brought the world to the edge of war. The nations with these weapons boast of superior military strength, and due to this, they can meddle and provoke other smaller nations. In the attempt of controlling of perforation of weapons of mass destruction, smaller nations have been invaded.
There is always spying of other nations to check what they are doing. Acts of terror in the world are largely linked to nuclear weapons and the way members of the nuclear weapon club treat their nations. Even in the nuclear club, there is mistrust among members, as they are trying to outdo one another with development of new weapons.
However, due to the catastrophic consequence of chemical and biological weapons, the world should consider unilateral nuclear weapons disarments programmes. Moreover, the reduction of amount of weapons in the world could certainly reduce risks and tensions in the world.
Reference List
Anon.1982. The Economist, Volume 284, Issues 7244-7256. London: Charles Reynell Publisher.
Edwards, J. C., 1986. Nuclear weapons, the balance of terror, the quest for peace. Surrey: Sunny press.
Holdstock, D and Barnaby, F., 2003. The British nuclear weapons programme, 1952-2002. London: Routledge.
Karp, R. C. and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 1992. Security without nuclear weapons? Different perspectives on non-nuclear security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karsh, E., 2000. Israel: From war to peace? London: Routledge.
Paone, R. M., 2001. Evolving New World order/disorder: China-Russia-United States-NATO. Oxford: University Press of America.
Segell, G., 2005. Axis of evil and rogue states: the Bush administration. London: Glenn Segell publishers.