Steered by Steven Spielberg and composed by Robert Rodat, the 1998 celluloid, Saving Private Ryan, is a ‘must watch’ chef-d’oeuvre, set in the 20th century and relatable to those who claim to be devotees of the history of World Wars. Saving Private Ryan unfolds the events of 20th century, covering countries like England, France, as well as Ireland, all of which participated in World War II.
Steven, in this captivating masterpiece, takes the viewer through a historical voyage, showing the events as they really occurred during the Second World War specifically in 1944, a year before the war ended. Some characters in the film once existed in history, for instance, Captain Miller, once lived because his tombstone still exists. The director highlights the respective contributions of these people in the making of the present ‘history of World Wars.’
He wants to show that what people call history is no more than a past real life story experienced by people. A good number of instances in the film are historically accurate. However, Steven intentionally infixes some scenarios, which contradict the reality as unfolded by history, to meet dramatic effects as well as to imprison the attention of the viewers. However, some historically inaccurate episodes arise from Steven’s sloppiness.
Historically Accurate and Inaccurate Instances
In Saving Private Ryan film, the way Steven pictures the intrusion of Normandy concurs with history. The movie unfolds the events as they really occurred when this French province was invaded on 6th June 1944. The actual plan was to make sure that the Ranger companies were attacked first, so that the main objective of securing Pointe-de-Hoc and some other ‘higher grounds’ may be easily achieved.
As the movie unfolds, Omaha beach is stormed arousing the horrors of the battle, which agrees with history. In addition, the way the men match towards the LCPVs to storm the beach is historically accurate because the way they suffer casualties thereafter, matches the exact happening of 1944.
Moreover, as Custin points out, “The scenes from the Invasion of Normandy were correct in showing the shore just as it was on June 6, 1944” (22). The image of the shore in the movie resembles the real picture as it was then. For instance, the evident blood covering the sands on the shore matches the real picture as it stood in 1944. More so, just as the dead bodies lie scattered besides the shore with the bloody waters of the ocean passes for the real scenario. The boats employed in the movie matches with the ones used then.
The movie pictures a cemetery at the Normandy province, which resembles the exact one in France, referred to as the ‘Normandy American Cemetery.’ The names of some characters and places used by Steven, match with the real names of those who fought the war. Finnigan proves the existence of Miller when he says, “…and I do believe Captain Miller were real people…there are tombstones to prove it” (Para. 7) However, as aforementioned, some scenarios in the movie are historically inaccurate.
History has it that Omaha beach was swept away by the third wave but not the first as the movie insinuates. Private Ryan is no more than a fictional character that never existed in history, though he plays the role of Frederick Niland, a real person from the 101st airborne section.
There is no sufficient historical information concerning this person as the movie depicts. However, he was among the four men, whose three brothers died at various places during World War II, with his mother receiving the death information at ago. Historically, there lacks evidence of any attempts to search for him as Steven pictures in his film. In addition, during the last battle, the soldiers did not use the phrase, ‘Lets rock and roll’ the movie shows; the phrase used then is ‘Lets lock and load.’
Many people have commented on the reasons behind the inaccuracies portrayed by the filmmakers. The inclusion of names and places that did not exist then makes the movie somewhat intriguing hence captures the viewers’ attention. In addition, they appear in order to meet the movie’s objectives. For instance, Frederick’s history had to be modified for the purpose of ‘narrative expediency’. On the other hand, mistaking the words as they were really used is a sign of carelessness of the filmmakers.
Lessons from the Specific Period
The viewer learns a lot about a specific time in history. Firstly, the picture of the World War II becomes clear. The war stands as a real life experience, rather than a mere fiction.
The viewer learns a good deal of the entire period of 1939-1945. It is a period when people went through severely hard time, following the many fights that saw the death of their beloved parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, and friends as well as enemies. This period stands as one when peace was the cry of all, but the deed of few. It is a period when all people, men and women, young and old participated in the fight.
Just as the viewer is driven to tears by the events in the movie, it is a lesson that, 1944 was no more than a year dominated by tears. It depicts the price of the peace that people enjoy nowadays. Freedom is not the yearning of the liberals, but of the captives, just like the biblical story of the children of Israel. It comes through a lot of pains, sacrifices and sufferings. Therefore, it suffices to infer that, today’s freedom is a result of yesterday’s painful experiences such as those of 1944.
A Propaganda Film
Critics declare the film a complete propaganda where the director wants to sway people to a particular way of thinking. For instance,” A prime example of American Propaganda occurs after a group of Germans kill one American soldier near what looks to be a communications area with a huge satellite.
One German soldier remains alive, and in a plea to no be killed he says, ‘I love America’” (Hurst 4). Therefore, it suffices to infer that the movie glorifies the role of America in the War and not any other country, hence propaganda.
Steven, in a technical way, uses it to convince a nation, stricken by war, that sacrificing to fight back can help restore peace. This does not regard whether one dies, or is injured in the process. Symbolically, he gives powerful countries like America, a mandate to give orders to other countries. For instance, the movie talks about saving Private Ryan. This can be interpreted in a variety of ways, both negative and positive.
Firstly, one can conclude that Steven refers to America’s power to choose which or who to or who not to assist. Secondly, one can deduce that Steven wants to show the role that powerful people or countries, like America, ought to play in times of crises: to save rather than to kill, as it was during World War II. In addition, the movie passes for propaganda because, Steven can be mistaken for speaking in favour of wars, a case that can in turn induce the predicted third world war.
Stereotyping
The issue of stereotyping comes in handy in the film. For instance, it is a fact that the boats were steered by a British navy, but what the movie pictures is a Jerseyan stereotype that arises since a Jerseyan pilot seems quite entertaining compared to the British. Steven seems to favour the issue of stereotypes.
This stands in the way he strategically locates his characters. For instance, Tom Sizemore, acts as the deft sergeant, Edward Burns is the quick-tempered Private Raiben, among others. The employed stereotypes are not damaging. It is worth noting that the use of stereotypes in the movie has contributed to its evident strength and the excellent performance. When Steven employs these stereotypical characters, his message to the viewers stands better conveyed compared to the situation with non-stereotypical actors.
Parallels/Conclusion
In conclusion, building on the day-to-day happenings, there stands out events parallel to what Steven depicts in his work. For instance, just as America stands powerful, with a significant role to play in the film, so is the case today. It is a super power nation, whose role and significance outweighs that of the rest.
In addition, whenever any war strikes any country, America has to be involved in ‘saving’ or rather bringing the situation to normal. The Israel-Afghanistan conflicts serve as the best illustration of this. America comes out as the dominant peacemaker. In addition, the exclusion of the troops of other countries in any peace-building process stands today. If the American forces are incorporated, it is of less significance to involve others. All, these, among others, are in accord with what Steven brings out in his masterpiece.
Works Cited
Custin, Davis. Saving Private Ryan: Historical Accuracy. London: Word Press, 2004. P. 22. Print.
The topic of this book was the very first battle in the Viet Nam conflict, as fought by the American marines against the North Vietnamese. The actual thesis was that the Viet Cong’s underestimation of the United States military forces’ ability to rapidly and effectively deploy and fight, pretty much lost the North Vietnamese the battle, despite the fact that their intelligence was detailed and available early. The evidence that supported the book’s thesis was borne out by many eye-witness accounts, on both sides of the conflict.
The overall quality of this work was superior as it appeared very thorough and well-researched. It also was an interesting read. The value of this work could be considered to be of both historical and military benefit, in terms of actual recorded events and military tactics and strategy. Battle planners and historians may also enjoy and benefit from reading this book. Even, for those who lost family members in this battle, it could prove to be a worthwhile read.
Further, most exemplary was the author’s research, including evaluation and review of command logs, along with perusal and analysis of the various interrogation and after-action reports.
Then, too, the author spent much time on the actual battlefield, and also conducted interviews with various families and combatants on either side, from members of the Marine unit to the VC 1st Regiment. Lastly, his personal conversations with the participants at all levels, on both sides. Finally, his own Marine combat experience as an infantry company commander at that time speaks for itself. The quality of these sources were adequate and in some cases, superior. Everything appeared to corroborate the author’s writing.
This account is based upon actual primary and some secondary research but also personal experience, of course, as mentioned earlier. Thus, the author’s argument that the Viet Cong’s previous intelligence did not account for the rapid capability for the US marines to spearhead a most devastating and useful attack against them was quite creditable.
Lehrack’s writing style and ability was such that the book was written clearly, and easy to read and follow, with plenty of action included, and sufficient background knowledge as gleaned from himself and his sources. As compared to our class activities, this student has observed that this reading was easier to get through than some others, and appeared to have adequate primary sources, as well as being sufficiently documented.
A significant part of the appeal of this noteworthy book is due in part to its methodical “you are there” focus. The author places his audience right there in the geographical locale, at the particular time period, within the first two chapters. He therefore makes his point that the US slid right into this war, in increments, without much forethought, perhaps basing much action on current Cold War fears.
The highlights in the book’s account consist of the following events. A teen age North Vietnamese deserter informed the United States Marine commander that right near the village of Van Tuong, also located near another new US base, was in danger. For, encamped nearby was the 1st Viet Cong Regiment. Soon, intercepted radio chatter confirmed this fact.
Since this situation was a direct threat to the base and, also presented the chance to decimate this slippery VC organization. So Lt Gen Walt determined to take the battle right to the enemy. His subordinate leader was named and it was the notable Colonel Oscar F. Peatross. The battalions to be employed were those at Chu Lai, the 3d Bn, Third Marine Regiment, and the 2d Bn, 4th Marines. For reinforcements, Walt also requisitioned the amphibious 3d Bn, 7th Marines to join them, from the Philippines.
A combined helicopter and amphibious assault was then employed. Secrecy and speed were and proved vital for success. So, in just three days, Starlite commenced. The Viet Cong then hurried to catch up and deployed anti-personnel mines, but these had no measurable effect.
The battalions were able to land, leaving one unit in reserve. Tanks and UH-1 Huey gunships assisted in securing the hill off the beach, the first objective. Then, an enemy battalion had to be quickly routed, and additional assaults were launched.
Corporal Robert O’Malley, one of the primary heroes in the conflict, led his squad across a crucial trench and secured it, while fighting against scores of enemy. Although O’Malley suffered numerous wounds, refused to stop and leave the battle. He managed to retrieve a number of his wounded troops.
Then, the remainder of India Company secured the village of An Cuong 2, which had been aiding and abetting the enemy. At about the same time, in the Hotel, 2/4, 1stLt Jenkins’ Marines managed to overcome an attack coming from the village of Nam Yen 3. LCpl Ernie
Wallace cleverly and bravely discriminated the camouflaged enemy out from the local terrain, and dispatched at least 25 of them with his M60.
Another menacing machine gun nest was taken out by Cpl Dick Tonucci and one of his riflemen, PFC Ron Centers. They then proceeded to take out a second one, and also an enemy bunker. Then, a rifleman, LCpl J. C. Paul, provided covering fire for the wounded out in the open. He himself had been shot but had refused the medevac chopper. Unfortunately, he was hit with mortar rounds and small-arms fire, and eventually passed away, defending his men.
There was significant collateral damage on another assault on Nam Yen 3, although the enemy themselves suffered significant casualties. Further Marine casualties took place as a supply convoy was ambushed. This happened again with yet another convoy. Choppers came to the rescue, but also came under heavy fire. Some friendly air fire support proved to provide some valuable support.
With 200 or so wounded, the Marines suffered 54 mortal casualties. Nevertheless, all their forces- ground, air, ship, and artillery- managed to cause almost 700 dead Vietcong, the better part of several battalions.
Both aviation and ground personnel had managed to dig in adequately, although much damage was suffered. Certainly, there were many heroes and military honors that day, for this first momentous battle. Thus, these Marines ended the Starlite Operation successfully and proved that they could fight guerrilla style, on yet another type of terrain, that of the jungle-heavy and swamp-laden vista of Viet Nam. And so began that lengthy and controversial conflict.
Bibliography
Lehrack, Otto. First Battle: Operation Starlite and the Beginning of the Blood Debt in Vietnam Havertown, PA: Casemate, 2004.
Terrorism is the deliberate violent criminal activity of one person or group of people, endangering the lives of innocent people in order to achieve the personal goals of the criminal. Silva et al. (2020) note that, more often, terrorists prefer to act alone rather than in groups. However, even single terrorists often build networks with other criminals to achieve their goals more effectively. In addition, terrorist networks provide the exchange of financial and human resources necessary to carry out a terrorist act. Therefore, in order to ensure everyone’s safety, it is necessary to collect evidence confirming that the organization no longer poses a threat.
The primary evidence that the terrorist network is no longer a threat is its loss of operational capacity. In the course of identifying a terrorist organization, information should be obtained about all members of the network, their locations, and funding. Mir (2018) argues that the first sign that terrorists are no longer a threat will be the abbreviation “the places where armed groups choose to live, operate from, and establish their base of operations” (p. 49). Terrorist activity requires a high level of training, so networks need locations for practical cooperation. Consequently, the cessation of the activities of existing bases and the absence of the emergence of new ones testify to effective counter-terrorism activities.
In addition, terrorism requires funding and the involvement of people with special knowledge, especially when it comes to massive terrorist attacks using explosives. Therefore, further proof that the terrorist network is no longer a viable threat is the absence of financial transactions on the organization’s accounts or its members and their families (Mir, 2018). Once a terrorist organization is identified, its accounts are blocked, making it impossible to finance its activities. However, in the future, all financial transactions that could theoretically be related to terrorist activities should be monitored and assessed for the presence of a threat.
Thus, after identifying a terrorist network, it is necessary to identify all its members and conduct a thorough collection and analysis of all information. The indicators that the organization does not pose a threat are the elimination of the bases of operations and the lack of funding in the accounts of the network and its members. Therefore, there is a need to track these factors even after the identification of a terrorist network and the identification of its participants.
The strategies of terrorism and counterterrorism are primarily focused on influencing people’s behavior and the perception of authorities. In this regard, terrorist networks strive to shape human behavior that contradicts socially accepted patterns. At the same time, counterterrorism efforts by the authorities create behavior that maintains the perceived legitimacy of the population. Therefore, the influence of the government on people’s behavior is a necessary factor in preventing the emergence of terrorist groups. In general, the population’s behavior and perception of the authorities and society largely determine the possibility of the emergence of terrorist networks.
The influence on human behavior is necessary to convince people to follow specific ideas and perform corresponding actions. Terrorist networks emerge as a result of discontent of individual groups with the situation in a country or region. In this regard, terrorist groups tend to develop a pattern of behavior in their potential members aimed at opposing the established order. For instance, focusing on the specific values of justice in the group is a factor in modifying people’s behavior to create behavior against the legal system (Hartley, 2021). In the context of counterterrorism efforts, the authorities may primarily influence behavior by implementing a legal system that prevents the emergence of terrorist networks. For example, authorities can utilize laws that allow people to reclaim their needs to participate in society without radicalizing behavior (Shortland, 2020). In addition, maintaining a sufficient level of freedom in various spheres of activity, such as science and culture, is a factor in reducing the probability of the emergence of terrorist organizations. Overall, influencing the behavior of individuals and groups is the essential factor determining the effectiveness of terrorist groups and counterterrorist efforts by the authorities.
Perceived legitimacy reflects the population’s perception of the state’s ability to influence the domestic environment significantly. Legitimacy influences terrorist networks and counterterrorist efforts significantly because it interacts directly with these concepts. The formation of terrorist groups depends on the perception of state legitimacy and is an expression of the group’s disagreement with the state (Hartley, 2021). Hence, the lack of perceived legitimacy in society makes the emergence of terrorist networks possible. In this case, counterterrorism efforts determine the level of perceived legitimacy. The effectiveness of the state’s fight against terrorists is an indicator of the authorities’ ability to maintain the established order and ensure their perception of legitimacy by the population. In addition, the inability of the authorities to effectively confront terrorism harms perceived legitimacy because it indicates a lack of state capacity. The use of inappropriate profiling methods for potential terrorists by law enforcement agencies is also a factor that diminishes the perceived legitimacy of the authorities (McGuirk, 2021). Thus, perceived legitimacy is essential in terrorist networks and counterterrorist actions because it is mutually dependent on these concepts.
Terrorism and counterterrorism significantly influence society’s perception of the state as they affect people’s conduct. Terrorist groups appeal to the illegitimacy of government, thereby questioning the rationality of accepted social attitudes. At the same time, counterterrorism strategies predominantly use social norms of behavior to prevent the emergence of terrorist groups. Hence, terrorism and counterterrorism measures directly correlate with society’s perception of power and the behavior built around it. Furthermore, perceived legitimacy depends on the authorities’ ability to carry out counterterrorism measures and decreases when there are problems related to terrorism. In general, the nature of terrorism is significantly related to the population’s behavior regarding the perception of state legitimacy.
References
Hartley, J. (2021). Counter-terrorism community engagement: Pitfalls and opportunities. Routledge.
McGuirk, N. (2021). Terrorist profiling and law enforcement Detection, prevention, deterrence. Routledge.
Shortland, N. (2020). The psychology of terrorism. Routledge.
The Siege of Bastogne was a part of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. The former was significant for the outcome of the latter. Indeed, Bastogne was associated with important communications. The German forces decided to attack the Belgian town in the middle of December. In turn, the Allies chose to defend the strategically important location. They were outnumbered, and their forces were initially spread thinly, resulting in a crisis. The town and its defenders were encircled. However, the small groups managed to persevere as more troops were directed to help.
Some of the key forces that should be mentioned include the 10th Armored Division. It was led by Major General Troy Middleton. It was also among the first troops sent to help to defend Bastogne. Additionally, 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were important for the outcome of the battle. They were quickly directed to assist Middleton. Eventually, the Siege was ended by General George Patton’s Third Army.
The relief of Bastogne took place on the evening of December 26. The encirclement was broken. This outcome was the result of the actions of some commanders. However, General George Patton’s Third Army was the one to end the Siege. Furthermore, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was effectively coordinating the forces engaged in the operation. The present paper will focus on the two commanders. It will analyze their actions with the help of the principles of mission command.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower and Mission Command Principles
According to the Department of Army, six principles of mission command can be listed. They will be applied to the events of the Siege of Bastogne. At least four of them can help to understand the actions of Eisenhower. The first one is a disciplined initiative. It consists of taking the lead when existing orders are not applicable. The second one is the calculated risks. Good mission command can require taking risks as long as they are prudent. Risks can be described as prudent if the costs are worth the outcomes. Furthermore, the teamwork exhibited by the commander was notable. As a result, the third principle is the development of cohesive teams. Eventually, Eisenhower’s contribution to the development of a shared understanding is important.
One of the most applicable principles exhibited by Eisenhower was the disciplined initiative. It is noteworthy that during the Siege, Eisenhower essentially took group command. He did it because of the problematic leadership executed by General Omar Bradley. In the situation of a crisis, weak leadership was likely to make success unattainable. Consequently, Eisenhower decided to take the lead. His decisions proved to be effective. For example, he chose to rush additional forces to Bastogne. This action proved to be the solution to the crisis. As a result, Eisenhower proceeded to exert a disciplined initiative after the Siege. There were disagreements between Commanders at the time. Based on this knowledge, Eisenhower’s leadership can be described as a contribution to success. It was a sign of a good mission command on Eisenhower’s part.
Additionally, the decision to take calculated risks can be applied to Eisenhower’s actions. Reportedly, Eisenhower’s suggestions were sometimes not appreciated by commanders because they required quick decisions. In particular, they were not in line with the vision of General Bernard Montgomery. The latter was more in favor of delays. Admittedly, stalling for improved circumstances and better preparation has its merit. However, according to Eisenhower, a crisis demanded a different approach. This perspective was also supported by other commanders. Eisenhower’s actions during the Siege of Bastogne admittedly paid off despite being quick. Therefore, it can be suggested that Eisenhower was ready to take the required risks. His possibly risky but timely decisions were significant for the outcomes of the Siege. Thus, they can be viewed as an example of good mission command.
In connection with the above-described conflict, Eisenhower’s teamwork should be noted. The disagreement between the commanders prompted Eisenhower to find a compromise. This approach to conflict management illustrates Eisenhower’s interpersonal skills. In turn, interpersonal skills assist in building teams. Therefore, this example could be used to show Eisenhower’s application of this principle. His decision to find a compromise helped to build trust between the commanders.
Finally, the creation of shared understanding is also applicable to Eisenhower’s actions. The development of trust and human connections assists in this respect. The management of the conflicts that were mentioned is of importance to this principle. Eisenhower’s interpersonal skills must have been useful during the development of a shared understanding. Thus, Eisenhower applied multiple principles of mission command, including the four named ones. Their use seems to have contributed to the Allies’ success during the Siege. Consequently, they can be used to argue that Eisenhower’s command was good.
General George Patton and Mission Command Principles
General Patton’s actions can be analyzed using the same four principles of mission command. It is noteworthy that Patton was initially unsure about holding Bastogne. He was disappointed with the encirclement of the 101st Airborne Division. However, with time, he came to appreciate the decision to defend the city. In general, there were notable disagreements during the crisis between important commanders. However, they managed to create a shared understanding eventually. This outcome must have depended on Patton’s contribution and collaboration at least partially. His growing appreciation of the decision to defend Bastogne may have been a factor. The development of shared understanding was crucial for the outcome of the Siege. Indeed, Patton’s cooperation was instrumental in defending the town. Therefore, Patton’s willingness to change his viewpoint was a sign of good command.
In connection with this finding, team-building should be noted. Patton contributed to the process. As it was mentioned, there were disagreements between commanders, which endangered the mission. However, the situation was dire. The Siege of Bastogne was a true crisis that demanded solutions. The ability of the commanders to reach consensus was important for their success. Patton’s contribution to building the commanders’ team is noteworthy.
It should also be mentioned that Patton was reportedly a loner. He was a rather conservative person with a hot temper. As a result, it may have been difficult for him to communicate with others. However, he has managed to build working relationships with other commanders. This fact makes Patton’s ability to collaborate with a team even more noteworthy. He made an effort to build relationships and ensure success through them.
For example, with Eisenhower, Patton had a mutual trust based on the few things that they had in common. Additionally, they complemented each other’s’ strengths and faults. For instance, Patton was known for his bravado and temper. They could be problematic at times, but they also resulted in optimism. The latter could help during dire events. On the other hand, Eisenhower was less optimistic and more restrained. He could prevent Patton from making rash decisions. Healthy interpersonal relationships are important for building trust. Thus, the interactions between commanders were based on trust and willingness to overcome differences.
Additionally, Patton’s interaction with his forces is noteworthy. He regularly visited his units. For example, he did so before the relief of Bastogne on Christmas Eve. The action was not safe. On the way, he had to hide in a ditch from a fighter plane. However, he found it important to visit his units in person. This way, he could communicate relevant messages and improve morale. This act could also be viewed as sharing danger with the team. The Department of Army suggests that it is good for inspiring trust. Thus, Patton appears to have had an understanding of the importance of team-building. Also, he seems to have had his approach to doing so. The ability of Patton to apply this principle was important for his success. It is a sign of good mission command.
The principle of the disciplined initiative was also important for Patton. The significance of discipline should be pointed out here. As it was mentioned, Patton did not initially appreciate the choice to hold Bastogne. Still, he agreed with the arguments of other commanders, including Eisenhower. As a result, his introduction to the mission led to victory. However, his mission demanded some of Patton’s decisions as well. The resourcefulness of Patton and his forces ensured the breach of the encirclement. Thus, the disciplined initiative was also of significance to Patton’s success.
As for prudent risks, Patton reportedly believed in “spontaneous” inspiration. Admittedly, he attempted to balance it out with preparation and knowledge, including military theory. However, it can be suggested that he viewed prudent risks as a possibility. As noted, the actions of the Allies during the Siege could be considered risky. The movement of Patton’s Third Army was also associated with risks. However, Patton prepared for varied eventualities and took weighted decisions. The risks and their management were prudent. As a result, Patton’s actions resulted in the breach of the encirclement.
It should be pointed out that not all of Patton’s decisions were successful. An example is his directive to Millikin to use columns of regiments. Millikin realized that the approach would not be effective. He changed the formation to a broad front. As a result, the attack was more successful than it could have been. However, it is noteworthy that Patton did not enforce his decision. Thus, his ability to form working teams can be cited here as well. Not all his initiatives were appropriate, but they could be rectified. The solution was him using another principle. In that case, it was his contribution to building teams.
In summary, the above-mentioned principles were important for Patton as well as for Eisenhower. Predominantly, they contributed to the positive outcome of the battle. However, some of them, especially initiatives, could also result in issues. Said issues could be resolved in some cases with the help of teamwork. This fact brings out the importance of building teams as a mission command principle. Still, based on the above-presented information, Patton’s command seems to be relatively good.
Conclusion
Eisenhower and Patton played different parts in the Siege of Bastogne. However, they were both very important for its outcome. Eisenhower took many of the most significant decisions. Patton led the Army that essentially breached the Siege. According to the analysis presented above, they followed several mission command principles. For instance, Eisenhower’s leadership was a good example of a disciplined initiative. Similarly, he took the risks that paid off. On the other hand, Patton put effort into achieving a shared understanding and teamwork. The commanders illustrate the significance of the principles of the Department of the Army.
It should be noted that Eisenhower and Patton are commonly associated with the Siege. However, the victory was not the result of their efforts only. Consequently, their ability to build teams despite the conflicts and individual differences is commendable. Without an agreement, the Allies would not be able to succeed. Therefore, the commanders’ work with their teams assisted in breaking the encirclement. Furthermore, the example of Patton shows that this principle could rectify important issues. The cooperation of the commanders was crucial for the outcomes of the Siege.
Thus, the mentioned principles helped the commanders to achieve the outcomes of the Siege. Different principles were significant to them to different extents. Still, the attention to the team shared understanding, initiative, and prudent risks were crucial. These principles were not the only ones used by the commanders. However, their analysis helps to gain insights into their actions and related consequences. The found features also determine the quality of the mission command during the Siege. Based on the above-presented analysis, it can be described as not flawless but good.
Bibliography
Ambrose, Stephen. Eisenhower. Riverside: Simon & Schuster, 2014.
Department of the Army. “ADRP 6-0 Mission Command.” ArmyPubs.us, 2012. Web.
Forty, George. Patton’s Third Army at War. Havertown: Casemate, 2015.
Jones, Grant. “Education of the Supreme Commander: The Theoretical Underpinnings of Eisenhower’s Strategy in Europe, 1944–45.” War & Society 30, no. 2 (2011): 108-133. Web.
Morelock, Jerry. Generals of the Bulge. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 2015.
Winton, Harold. “An Imperfect Jewel: Military Theory and the Military Profession.” Journal of Strategic Studies 34, no. 6 (2011): 853-877. Web.
Although it is rather sad fact to admit, the modern world is highly preoccupied with the threat of terrorism which has recently emerged in the modern society. Such is the situation that the numerous terrorist acts have caused people to panic over their endangered future. Since everyone can remember the tragic events of 2001 and less known but nonetheless terrible accidents that have been caused by terrorists, it is quite understood why the modern world has frozen in anticipation of the inevitable to happen.
Because of the growing anxiety of the uncertain future, people started making assumptions of what the terrorist acts could lead to and if the safety is at high risks now. Instead of looking for the facts carefully, people start believing rumors and the suppositions that were not based either on logic, or on the events that did take place.
As a result, the population of Europe and the USA has been scared stiff and cannot think of the Arabic world in other way than of a world where cool-blooded murders and troublemakers live. Still such statements have nothing to do with the reality. One of the chief goals of the government must be the one of clarifying the issues of terrorism with people to help them to know more about the danger that they are exposed to, because those forewarned are forearmed.
The Roots of the Terrorism: Where the Evil Began
Because of the fact that the modern world has faced the danger of being involved into a terrorist act accidentally, there has been a major concern about the phenomenon and its roots. Although the issue does not suggest broad discussion, it is still important to know what the grounds of the terrorists are.
The research on the reasons for terrorism, the people who commit it and the events that trigger this splash of violence are important fro the further preventive measures which have to be taken in order to save the lives of thousands of people. In case these measures are successful, there is hope that people will no longer suffer from the fear of a dreadful death.
The Reasons for the Savage Actions
As a rule, nothing happens out of a sudden, and every single event in a human’s life is triggered by the action that has been undertaken before. The same goes for terrorism, as the actions of the people who have been given a reason to act against the rest of the world. It would be a useful practice to trace the events that lead to the aggression from the Muslim world with its dangerous idea of revenge.
It cannot be doubted that the dangerous people have been influenced by the by the growing power of the leading countries. The influence of theirs, together with the economical and military power have added to the uncertainty of the world of the Muslim people, and the most daring ones started showing their protests to the actions of the world leaders, yet in their own way.
The terrorist acts that have occurred so far seem to have been inspired by the threat that the East thought the world leaders to pose to the eastern well-being and their traditions and customs. Te ingenuity of their life was the clue of the Eastern culture and the idea that it is so vulnerable and subjected to the influence of the West was unbearable for the Islamic people.
The Prerequisites of the Terrorism
Like many other historical tragedies, terrorist acts did not appear out of nowhere, but had certain prerequisites which could have been foreseen. Since the political reasons for the terrorist acts to occur are predominating, it seems that those responsible for the tragic events are the people who are in charge of the political safety of the country. Indeed, there are no other pretexts but the economical and cultural ones that can trigger such calamity and result in a bloodbath.
However, it cannot be stated that the leaders of the countries that are suffering from the terrorist acts occurring constantly have nothing to be blamed fro. The recent survey shows that there have been the elements of malpractice in the politics of the state during the recent years. Such political issues of rather doubtful nature have been emerging constantly over the past years. The politicians that do not compete fair for the parliament chair or the post of the president have proved o use the most indecent methods and means to achieve their goals:
So-called negative, or comparative, political advertising has been used increasingly in recent years. It conveys or seeks to evoke a basically unfavorable view of the opposing candidate or party, often by means of comparison with the sponsoring candidate. (Coleman 2000, p. 16)
The Right to Live – Or to Die?
According to the existing human rights, the right to live is one of the prior rights of a free person in the modern world. It is quite understood that the people all over the world cannot feel safe at the moment, regarding the international situation that is most tense nowadays. Together with the threat of terrorism, it makes people’s lives unbearable. However, the UNO has recently come up with something that can be considered an attempt protect people, their freedom and their rights.
There has been also discovered the link between the threat of terrorism and the political instability of the country. Rooting from the people losing the trust in the government, this issue has a great impact on the further development on the country and can result in continuous regress. As Davis (2004) put it,
At low levels of trust in the government, those who have great concern about another terrorist attack differ little in their support for civil liberties from those who have little or no concern about another terrorist attack; but among those who have some or a lot of trust in the government, greater concern about another attack is associated with a sharply lower support for civil liberties. (p. 40)
The Most Notorious Terrorism Acts
Because of the dreadful consequences and the deaths that a terrorist act triggers, it is impossible to say which of them was the most terrible one; yet it is possible to calculate the damage that they have caused and to figure out which of the acts of terrorism has been the one of the biggest damage and the most desperate and mournful cries.
It can be said with certainty that the terrorist act that the whole wide world ahs seen and will probably remember for good is the accident that took place on September, 11 in 2000. The planes driven by the terrorists have taken hundreds of lives with them, and it was the most terrible event that the USA has ever witnessed since the day it was founded. The cruelty and the aggression of the terrorists was indescribable, since they aimed not on the government only, but also on the innocent people which did not do practically nothing bad.
It can be said that the terrorists have hit the head – the house of Pentagon – and the heart – the so-called Twins – of the United States. If the first act can be described as a political crime, an unlucky assassination the second is no doubt, the most cruel and inhumane action that could have ever be done to a country and the people that are living there.
Taking innocent lives with them has never bothered terrorists, but there is still something worth mentioning, namely that the idea of killing the other people for the sake of the idea can be a rather precise description of the terrorists’ military actions. The way Al-Qaeda operates leaves no room for mercy, but merely cool-blooded reflections on the results which the acts will trigger.
The 11th of September: They Hit U.S. in the Head and in the Heart
Although the tragedy occurred long time ago, there are still the things that remind of the tragic events. Because of the controversial facts that have been presented to the public, there are still heated debates concerning the question of the “authorship” of the crime. The most popular answer is that this is the deed of the Al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.
However, there are still certain doubts concerning this mysterious personality. There is no doubt that he exists, but the place where he is concealing from justice now is unidentified and it seem that it never will be, regarding what has been learned about his whereabouts at the moment.
The whereabouts of the headquarters of the terrorists are no secret to the international police and the governmental bodies, but the danger that the states will dispose themselves into as they approach the root of the terrorism is immense and thus the governments cannot risk the well-being and peace all over the world.
One of the main problems which the international police have encountered on its way to fighting terrorism is its unpredictability. Since walking the tightrope is not what the international police are fond of, they do not haste to take steps towards elimination of the headquarters.
According to the principle of transparency that Obama provided, nowadays people can find out more about the reasons that made the terrorists attack the U. S., yet there is a tint of some things unsaid, in order to keep the people calm and to hush down the fear of the terrorists assaulting the United States citizen once again:
Many of the Bush administration’s most controversial national security policies – the warrantless wiretapping program, the torture program, the rendition program – were conceived, developed, and authorized in secret. The American public found out about these policies long after they were put into place, and after a great deal of damage had already been done. (Establishing a New National Security, Establishing a New Normal, 2010, p. 4)
The Problem That Is Yet to Be Solved
The Residence of the Evil: Terrorists’ Headquarters
Nowadays probably everyone knows the way the terrorists’ headquarters is called and where it is situated. Al-Qaeda is considered one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations because of its being highly organized, which is posing a certain threat to the society. Disregarding the fact that this is t one and only terrorist organization that is known all over the world, it is still necessary to admit that it has certain power and it uses the power possessed aiming at the opponents’ life values.
It hits the most vulnerable spot on the body of a country that is straight against Al Qaeda, and there is no stopping to the awful acts of the people who are in charge of it. Formed by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1988 (Katzman 2005, 1), it is posing a deadly threat to the world safety.
Yet there is one more body of ever greater influence that has begun the continuous fight which is going on even at present, though the battle ahs been hushed down for a while. The name of the force that is ever greater than the one of the terrorists and their organization is the regime of Saudi Arabia. According to Yamani (2008), the abovementioned formation was the first to be blamed for the Islamic aggression that took place shortly after the regime began to take its toll over the political situation:
The Saudi Arabian regime, aided by oil money and custodianship of Islam’s holiest sites, has in recent years emerged as one of the most active and creative diplomatic players in the Middle East. It was a key covert supporter of the United States’ decision to invade Iraq, of efforts to achieve a comprehensive negotiated settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute, and especially of efforts to counter Iran’s hegemonic ambitions. (p. 143)
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, it can be suggested that the war that was started between the West and the terrorists was due to the political reasons, namely the reason of money and the economical profit. Since oil is rather valuable substance, there is no doubt that the battle was started only to obtain the right to behold the source of everlasting richness.
The case when the concern for their own future and the easy money have prevailed over the spirit of neighborliness is, unfortunately, not so rare. Anyway, the war was started and millions of innocent people were involved into the deadly process.
One of the most notorious questions is whether the people who were involved into the terrorist acts were persuading specifics goals or if the very act was the result of their inner tenseness and the desire to change things so that the country could live again without the invaders and the people who would make them get adjusted to the new ideas that were so foreign to their own ones.
Anyway, the day when Al-Qaeda officially started opposing the rest of the world is considered September, 1st (Leahy 2009) – the notorious and mournful day when hundreds of people perished in the building suddenly attacked by two planes.
The Way the Government Sees It
There is no need to tell that the government pursues the goals of the nation safety and the political stability. Unfortunately, it is not always that the two are compatible. However, in case when the government is threatened with an assault that has been successful and taken away several lives, there is a reason for a deep concern.
It might be useful to reconsider the means that the government uses to enhance its political strength and to find a way out of the complicated situation that the leaders have been trapped in. Whenever there are some political arguments, it is always better to listen to the opponent and to draw necessary conclusions rather than to oppose the rival directly and cause undesirable results.
In spite of the fact that the threat of terrorism is on of the most notorious ones in the modern world, the USA does not hesitate to take immigrants from the other countries. It is clear that the control in the airports has been enhanced, but that does not explain the carelessness of the U. S. government. As Chishti (2003) claimed,
The government’s major successes in apprehending terrorists have not come from post-Sept. 11 immigration initiatives but from other efforts, such as international intelligence activities, law enforcement cooperation and information provided by arrests made abroad (p. 7)
However, it must be admitted that the government did take the necessary precautions as they came to the conclusion that the safety of the nation must be the prior concern of the state:
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush authorized a highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) program to eavesdrop on electronic communications involving U.S. persons without a warrant and outside of the process set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). (Keiber, 2006)
Conclusion
In spite of the fact that the modern politics insist on the terrorist danger as something that has already been overcome and that has to be remembered as the tragic remainder of the past, there are still some roots of it left somewhere deep inside people’s minds, and in the politics’ craving for more influence and power.
Yet it must be understood that, despite the threat of terrorist acts occurring, there must be no prejudice against Muslims, as well as their culture, belief and traditions. It must be remembered that there are no right and wrong in the war and international conflict, for these are both opponents that are being misled. Wong (2006) was completely right saying:
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a challenge unprecedented in American history. It dictates a reexamination of the balance between national security and civil liberties to accomplish the dual goals of preventing future attacks and maintaining our commitment to the U.S. Constitution. (2)
It is necessary to understand that Wong is speaking about the war on terrorism, not on the people. Emphasizing the necessity to maintain peace, he admits that there must be some military actions undertaken, but the peaceful citizen must not suffer. Instead of constant conflicts between the nations, there must be some common decision that the nations must come to.
That concerns the Asian countries as well, since they cannot be called as the conflicting ones at all. A few people who are constantly causing calamity and making the government undertake military actions to calm down the rebellions are not the reason to judge the whole nation.
The reasons for the Asian countries to conflict with the rest must be understood as well. Taking into consideration the economical and political tenseness in the abovementioned countries, it can be easily understood why those people display such aggression towards the unknown world. What the western countries must do is to take time and wait until the leaders of these conflicting countries are ready for a constructive dialogue.
While military actions can only make the situation worse, a civilized approach can help the nations become friendlier to each other and build the relationship based on mutual trust and understanding. With a humane approach to the opponents, it is possible that the war will be won without a single shot. Yet the question of how much time it will take for the leaders of the Asian countries to build partner relationships wit the western states.
References
Chishti MA et al. American’s Challenge: Domestic Securities, Civil Liberties, and National Unity after September 11. Migration Policy Institute (MPI): Washington, DC, USA, 2003. 5-20. Print.
Davis DW et al. Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attack on America. American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), 48(1); 2004. 28-46. Print.
Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration; an 18 Months review. American Civil Liberty Union, 2010. 1-22. Print.
Katzman, K. CRS Report for Congress: Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment. Congressional Research Service, the Library of the Congress, 2005. 1-6. Print.
Keiber, J. National Security and Civil Liberties; Director of Studies Strategy. 2 (3) Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2006.
Leahy, P. J., and B. L. Cardin et al. Protecting National Security and Civil Liberties: Strategies for Terrorism Information Sharing; Hearing before Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security of the Committee of the Judiciary; United States Senate. One Hundred Eleven Congress, first session, 2009. 1-95. Print.
Wong, L. et al. Homeland Security and Civil Liberties. Strategic Studies Institute; Conference Brief, 2006. 1-4. Print.
Yamani, M. The Two Faces of Saudi Arabia. Survival: 50(1), 2008. 142-156. Print.
The Battle of Normandy, popularly referred to as Operation Overlord was the united attack of Normandy. It started on June 6 of 1944, nicknamed D-Day and its last part was June 30 of the same year. The end was known as Operation Cobra. The participants of the Normandy on D-Day came from the United Kingdom, The United States and Canada. Sizeable Free French and troops from Poland as well took part in the combat following the attack stage.
There were also other groups from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Norway and Netherland. Additional united countries took part in the seafaring and air troops.
As of today, Operation Overlord still is the leading seaborne assault in times gone by (D-Day, the Battle of Normandy). It entailed more than 156,000 forces crossing the English Channel from England to Normandy. The initial seafront attack Operation Overlord was nicknamed Operation Neptune, with its aim being to get a grip on the continent.
This battle was and still remains one of the most significant occurrences of contemporary history as the united forces shattered the core of the Nazi troops and as a result speeding up the devastation of Nazi Germany, attaining the triumph of democratic system(s) over absolutism.
The Normandy attack commenced with all night parachute and sailplane touchdowns, immense air assaults, nautical onslaughts and an early morning land and sea chapter commenced on June sixth. D-Day troops set out from establishments by the side of the south coastline of England with the most significant of these being Portsmouth.
Allied preparations
The intention of the act was to craft a lodgment that would be attached in the City of Caen and soon after that Cherbourg after its harbor would be secured. If Normandy could be held, the Western European movement and the collapse of Nazi Germany could set in motion.
Close to 6,900 watercrafts would be employed in the assault, under the leadership of Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay. There would be 4,100 landing vessels, with 12,000 airplanes in readiness to shore up the landings under the command of Air Marshal Sir Trafford Mallory (The main phases of the Battle of Normandy). 1,000 transfers were to be in place to fly in the parachute forces with 10,000 tons of bombs.
Among the more atypical united groundwork included toughened vehicles in particular adjusted for the attack. They were built up under the headship of Major General Percy Hobart.
The vehicles were nicknamed Hobart’s Funnies and consisted of Duplex Drive Sherman tanks able to ‘swim’, fire hurling tanks, mine-clearing tanks, bride construction tanks and road construction tanks equip endowed with mechanisms for tearing down solid placements.
Preceding trials had been carried out on these vehicles and found successful. The mass of them were to be operated by the British Armored Division attached to the assorted troops.
The troops went over their functions for D-Day months to the attack. On April 28, 1944, seven hundred and forty nine American armed forces and seafarers were murdered when German bomber liners surprised one of these rehearsal workouts.
A few months to the attack, the united forces carried out a trickery maneuver, it was called Operation Bodyguard and the trickery arrangement was referred to as Operation Fortitude. There occurred a number of seep outs just before or on D-Day. In the course of the Cicero event, Germans got hold of credentials bearing indications to Overlord.
However, these credentials did not contain all the aspects. Driving forces drawn from Double Cross like Juan Pujol played a vital function in talking into the German High Command that Normandy was at most excellence an indirect assault.
Another important seep out was General Charles de Gaulle’s radio communication following D-Day. Contrary to all the other persons in charge, he reiterated that this attack was the actual attack. This held the prospective to mess up the united trickeries Fortitude North and Fortitude South.
For instance, General Eisenhower made a reference to the touch downs as the opening attack. The Germans did not accept as true De Gaulle’s message and hang around for much time to budge in additional units in opposition to their attackers.
Order of battle
The advancement was from east to west and just about as follows. 6th Airborne Division was turned in using parachute and sailplanes to the east of River Orne and was meant to guard the left edge. The first Special Service Brigade then landed at Ouistreham. Number 41 Commando which was a section of 4th Special Service Brigade touched down on the outlying right of Sword Beach (Ford, 2002, p. 34). Other troops then came in covering the left beaches and river shores. All these were drawn from the British group and numbered over 80,000.
The US troops covered Omaha, Pointe du Hoc, Utah and Sainte-Mère-Église to guard the right edge. These troops numbered 73,000 with 15,500 of them above the ground.
Atlantic Wall
The Atlantic Wall stood in the way of the attacking troops in addition to the English Channel. The wall had been ordered by Hitler in the anticipation that any approaching touchdowns would be timed for high tide. This led to the touch downs being timed for low tide.
After the landings
After the beachheads had been ascertained, artificial Mulberry harbors were drawn across the English Channel and made operational. British troops put up one at Arromanches while the Americans put the other at Omaha Beach. Ruthless rainstorms disrupted the landing of supplies for some time but by then a good amount of personnel and supplies had been brought in.
Plans had been to the effect that Carentan, Saint-Lô, Caen, and Bayeux be captured on the first day (Whitlock, 2004, p.59). However, none of this was attained as planned. The most encouraging thing was that wounded persons had not turned out as many as had been feared.
The German Panzer Division attacked the Canadians on 7th and 8th June and meted out profound losses but did not manage to break through. In the mean time, the beaches were being connected by the united forces. The Germans were being outdone in adding force to the front. A superior air presence and obliteration of the French rail ensured that every German force progress was sluggish and perilous.
Utah Beach
Utah Beach was the codification for the right/west most of the united troops’ touch down all through D-Day. Utah got incorporated in the attack program just before plans were complete and the reason for this was because extra landing crafts were on hand. The US 4th Infantry Division touched down on the 3 miles long beach with quite small opposition. It was unlike Omaha Beach where warfare was severe.
The plan involved touching down in four bearings. Just two hours prior to the focal attack force, a marauding party came ashore from a German surveillance point. The first platoon got there on time and all 20 vessels were released as planned. The attack craft brought down their access ramps and 600 soldiers walked through waist-deep water onto the beach.
Arrival on the beach was thus late by a few minutes and there was relatively no opposition at this point (Whitlock, 2004, p. 46). The 1st Battalion was planned to touch down straight opposite les Dunes de Warrenville.
Touch downs, on the other hand, were made 1,800 meters south. This blunder was potentially grave as it could have ended up in a huge misunderstanding. Fortunately, that never happened. However, this meant that the original procedures could not be executed thoroughly.
On realizing the mistake that had been made, Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr. conducted a scouting of the area to find entry points which were to be used to get inland. He then got back to the touchdown point, got in touch with the commanding officers of the two contingents and directed the attack. These spur-of-the-moment plans worked out well and Roosevelt later got to be honored.
At the end of the day, over 23,000 forces had safely touched down with only around 200 injured persons reported. A number of issues facilitated success at Utah as compared to Omaha.
To begin with there were a small number of German defenses. There was effectual pre-attack salvo as several known bunkers were torn down from the air before D-Day. Landing as not planned turned out to be a blessing as the other areas were profoundly secured.
Estimated number German forces that got killed and injured were 200,000 while further soldiers totaling the same number got arrested as prisoners of war. They were held up at American prisoner-of-war camps where they underwent interrogation.
Assessment of the battle
The Normandy might have been pricey in terms of troops while the defeat meted out on Germans was one of the prevalent occurrences of the battle. Tactically, the operation led to the loss of the German occupancy in majority of France and the safe institution of a fresh key frontage.
The overall united idea of the battle was well-grounded, capitalizing on the powers of both Britain and the United States (Battle of Normandy). German inclinations and headship were for most of the part out of order. On a larger scale the Normandy landings were of much help to the Soviets who at the time were facing German troops. The landings abridged the clash.
Reference List
D-Day, the Battle of Normandy. Available from
Ford, K. (2002). D-Day 1944 (3), Sword Beach & the British Airborne Landings. London: Osprey Publishing. P 34 – 56.
The main phases of the Battle of Normandy. Available from
Whitlock, F. (2004). The Fighting First: The Untold Story of the Big Red One on D-Day. Boulder, CO: West view.
This paper analyses the vents that happened at My Lai village and why it could have been prevented had the US army followed the principles of war. The paper starts by looking at what really happened and then proceeds to analyze whether the killings could indeed have been prevented.
Many will remember the My Lai massacre as one of the most shocking events of the world and can be described as one of the most infamous events in the history of Vietnam War (Bilton and Siam, 1992).
This war took place on March in 1968 in the village of My Lai which had approximately 700 people, located in the southeast of the United State base of Danang (Bilton and Siam, 1992). It is in this village that innocent people were killed on that date by the US Army while they were in search of rebels.
The question then becomes whether this attack on innocent people was justified; the first part of this paper discusses what happened and the US army conducts at that particular time and is a synopsis of the events of that fateful day.
The second part of the discussion looks at whether the principles of war were adhered to and examines whether these deaths would have been prevented had the rules of engagement been followed (Bilton and Siam, 1992)
The events at My Lai
The US troops conduct during that time was incredible and least expected and the outcomes of that day have left many people dumbfounded. The morning of March 16th saw three platoons of US troops from C Company of the eleventh Brigade arrive in the Son My area (Bilton and Siam, 1992).
The Platoon which was commanded by Lieutenant William Calley was on a search and destroy mission that was directed on My Lai village with the sole aim of finding members of the NLF popularly described as Vietcong (Bilton and Siam, 1992). The reason for directing the operation on that village is because the area had in the recent past been very active with the Vietcong rebels.
As the Platoon troop advanced through the village they started firing towards the village and instantly killed innocent civilians mainly women, children and the elderly who had at the time gone to the paddy fields to carry out their daily chores.
By then, Sergeant Michael Bernhardt, 1973 who was at My Lai said that he saw no one who could have been of military age and went on to say that “the US troops in My Lai met no resistance from the villagers” (Bilton and Siam, 1992).
One of the army photographers who had accompanied the platoon also said he “saw a US soldier shoot two young boys” that were probably just about 5 years old while many of the dead people comprised of other even much younger children (Bilton and Siam, 1992).
These facts were collaborated by the people who later returned to the village and claimed it took them several days to bury the dead who included very young children. To make it worse, the bodies had been badly mutilated apart from being shot.
This horrifying episode came into public light in November 1969 when a US soldier was interviewed on television; it is during that time that the soldier gave an actual account of the events of that day and admitted to how the platoon had deliberately and systematically shot civilians during that day (Bilton and Siam, 1992).
In the wake of this admission, the US military was under pressure to investigate this grave violation of human rights but turned out it was aware of the allegations and had even initiated an inquest into the matter; this was in April 1969, some six months before the public admission made by the soldier (Bilton and Siam, 1992).
The actual number people who were killed during that day remains unknown, however the official approximation figure was pegged at 175 but the actual figure is thought to have been much more higher in the region of 500 people (Bilton and Siam, 1992). In fact according to the memorial at My Lai the list actually has 504 people written.
So Could it have been prevented?
What happened at My Lai should have been prevented if rules of fair engagement were followed by the US soldiers especially when combat is in civilian locations. Based on universal principles it is illegal to follow orders that are illegal or which borders on illegality even from superiors.
Based on this principle of law it was therefore wrong for the US soldiers to have followed illegal orders of attacking the village that clearly contravened the human rights principles.
It is always important when fighting war or attacking enemies in civilian locations to take into account careful planning and consideration. There are Principles of War that have been used successfully for many years by military commanders which have always avoided unnecessary death of civilians; the same principles could have been important in this case.
Even on its own standards it is clear that the US laws of engagement in civilian locations were not adhered to which led to the death of innocent people. These soldiers should have identified a clear objective and target during this mission which required using precautionary force under the circumstances.
In fact one might argue that the soldiers had no clear objective from the start since they obviously attacked the civilians as opposed to the rebels that they were pursuing. Meaning that they confused their target, which is not only acceptable but an indication of incompetence or outright regardless of human life.
In fact during the inquest the US army said that “the people they encountered lacked military skills and were not a threat” (UNHCR.org. 2010); which clearly shows that there was no reason for the soldiers to have had used excess force in the first place.
Instead they were supposed to have applied diplomacy and only use force where necessary; at the same time the Commanders in the field were supposed to make important decisions and not give orders of civilian’s execution.
It was also important for the US soldiers to have had sought permission from the relevant Authorities before attacking the My Lai village.
What happened is that the soldiers abruptly opened fire attacked without due diligence or even obtaining prior permission from relevant authorities as the attacks were carried out without prior knowledge from the Vietnam authorities. If permission was first sought then probably the soldiers would have been directed to their targets and the operation wouldn’t have resulted in deaths of the civilians.
As a general rule of natural laws on armed conflicts, military attacks should never be directed towards churches, innocent people, agricultural places, water points and all other places that are essential for well being of the citizens of the attacked country (UNHCR.org. 2010). But what the US army did in My Lai was in fact contrary to this principle as they also destroyed important resources that are vital to the citizen’s survival.
The question is whether it was necessary for these soldiers to have gone about killing women and children in the way that they did; the answer is certainly no especially when you consider that there was no justification at all for doing so, and not even the need to capture the rebels can be cited as the reason for the simple reason that the people killed posed no threat at all.
There is no reasonable soldier who will go about killing innocent civilians which is the reason why the actions of this day was so appalling as this was a common sense decision. The only time that civilians can be attacked is if they are trying to engage the soldiers and poses a threat to them (UNHCR.org, 2010).
Therefore in these attacks reasonable force was not used by the US Army and if the principles of war were followed then innocent children and women wouldn’t have been killed during that day.
Reference
Bilton, M., & Siam, K.(1992).Four Hours in My Lai. New York: Penguin Group.
UNHCR.org. 2010. The United Nations Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Web.
In various cases, it has from time to time been obligatory for higher-ranking officials of chief executives, envoys and governments to live inside a complex with secured boundaries, and to journey out of it only in a group.
This may perhaps, in various cases, be easier and calmer for all apprehensive people including families, than endeavoring to formulate a secluded stronghold of each entity. It does, though, depend on a key strategy result by the government, and will consequently be exceptional.
An individual bastion can be well-built — although almost certainly, not tough enough to discourage a military assault by a big, well equipped guerilla division. But to discourage something short of this, the same protection in power is essential for a plant or office multi-part.
This implies that concentric rings to holdup and give caution of attack, adjacent with determination built house with a ‘keep’ for extended defense pending help. (Goldstein, 1990)
The external concentric loop is once more a practical one: the objective should avoid conventional routines, and maintain the comprehension of his whereabouts only to those who require the knowledge.
The second ring is both ritual and material: he ought to try not to let everybody see him getting into or out of his automobile, nor in opening a gateway or garage access. As previously pointed out, his exit and arrival are his most susceptible moments.
The third ring — which develops into the outer ring as soon as he is within the abode — will be a valuable boundary barricade, lacking cover for people to hide from view close to it, very well lit, hard to traverse, and with a vigorous and dependable alarm structure.
The fourth ring ought to be a whole halo of open land in-between the boundary barricade and the quarters. This can be offered by clearance of the plot and patio of uncalled for flowering shrubs and hedges. It ought to be very well lit, exclusive of shaded spots like the area at the rear of buildings or foliage in which people may hide from view.
Where extraordinary strength is obligatory, the backyard may be covered by motion/movement detectors, as depicted above for ‘vulnerable areas’ in industrial units. Feelers or sensors of the buried-line model which are able to cover an area of up to 200 yards or more are highly appropriate.
So much can be discussed about floodlights, or additional floodlights, which may be activated by the alarm on the perimeter wall or linked to motion/movement detectors that may be covering the backyard.
An unexpected bright flash of light can astonish any intruder who is away from a shade and startle them into perplexity or departure. It is equally applicable to a noisy alarm or bell, with optional manual and automated systems of starting.
The doors of the home ought to, of course, be physically sturdy, electronically locked and subjected to visual perception via means of identifying visitors via CCTV, wide-angled eyeholes or reflectors and it should also have remote-controlled opening. This ought to also applicable to the external gateway of the boundary which, if not manned, ought to be controlled from the quarters.
Points of entry ought to be reduced to the least sum, but optional exits must be accessible, e.g., in case a fire breaks out, or to enable the family unit and others to flee at the same time as access is being gained at the focal door.
Portholes ought to be secured or draped. If there is a danger of an explosion, coated glass or epoxy resin polyester film will decrease the risk of soaring glass, and chain mesh may deter grenade assaults.
Inside an endangered dwelling there must be an intercom system, substitute telephones (one may possibly be linked directly to the law enforcement officers) and maybe a broadcasting connection. Fire sensors may be modified also to communicate a ‘panic button’ pointer to the law enforcement officers, or to echo an earsplitting alarm.
Also — as in an industrial unit or workplace — the ‘keep’ must have strong substitute communication apparatus, if possible as well as a battery broadcasting transmitter which may be netted to the police force frequency.
On any one occasion, a dishonest or unfaithful member of the family/household can invalidate all other protective procedures. A terrorist group after a specific victim will with no doubt strive to penetrate his family circle most likely through his private workforce.
They may try to induce or compel them. Scrupulous care ought to be taken when selecting servants to guarantee that they are not susceptible to blackmail or pressure — possibly via coercion of their family units. The accounts of cases of abductions as well as shootings are jam-packed with instances of personnel who desired to be steadfast but gave in due to intimidation against their family units.
References
Bonoma, T., & Slevin, D. P. (1978). Executive survival manual. Boston: CBI Publishing Company.
Brown, J., Kroszner, R. & Jenn, B. (2002). Federal tourism insurance. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Buford, J. A. Jr., & Bedian, A. G. (1988). Management in extension. Alabama: Auburn University Press.
Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the profession: Frontiers for rural development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Cherrington, D. J. (1989). Organizational behavior: The management of individual and organizational performance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Clark, R. C. (1992). Basic concepts and theories of administration and supervision. Toronto: Simon and Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (1992). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Toronto: Simon and Schuster.
Delmey, J. (2003). The aftermath of September 11: The impact on and systemic risk to the insurance industry. Geneva Papers and Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practices 28(1) , 65-70.
Drucker, P. R. (1966). The effective executive. New York NY: Harper & Row.
Fielder, F. (1966). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.
Fogelson, R. (1977). Big-city police. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.
Hobsbawm, E. (1968). Industry and empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Vietnam has a long history of political instability. However, this came into global attention during the fight against communism that tore the country into pieces. The war not only involved the Vietnamese but also a number of other states. The other states that were involved in this war were the United States of America, The Peoples Republic of China, France, and the Soviet Union. One could wonder why all these states were involved in a fight that paralyzed the economy of Vietnam.
Well, it was a war between communists and anticommunists with Vietnam as the battlefield. The World super powers used Vietnam as a stepping-stone to fight the spread of communism, which they believed, was worm dangerous to their economic stability. The War or rather conflict caused much pain not only to the people in Vietnam but also to the economic superpowers, the United States being one of them. The freedom of Vietnam from French colonialism stirred a number of events.
The impact of the war was a consequence of these events. The big question remains: was the fight against communism a success? Different historians have different opinions concerning this issue. This paper explores the events of the Vietnam conflict with respect to the support that an individual received that made Vietnam stick in war for twenty-one years.
Propagation of the war
After hundred years under French colonialism, it was time for freedom to the Vietnamese. In 1954, the world’s super powers held a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the matter. In this meeting, the delegates decided to divide Vietnam into two parts at the seventeenth parallel.
They also named the people who would lead the two parts. Ho Chi Minh was to lead the Northern part while Bao Dai was to lead the Southern part. They signed an agreement that there would be elections in 1956 for the Vietnamese to choose their leader in a democratic way.
The agreement however remained a dream in this country since it took so many years before any peaceful election could took place in Vietnam. It is important to mention that the two parts of Vietnam resulted from the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China pressure on the Vietnam delegates that attended the meeting. It is due to this reason that the delegates agreed to partition their country temporarily.
It was during this meeting when France and Vietnam signed the Geneva Peace Accord. The Northern part comprised of the communist society while the Southern region was made of anti-communists.
Martin Luther Jr. said that, “Communism is the positive abolition of private property, of human self alienation and thus the real appropriation of human nature through and for man. It is the resolution of the antagonism between man and nature and between man and man. Communism is the true solution of the conflict between existence and essence” (Dorros 346).
The single aspect led to enmity between the Northern and the Southern regions of Vietnam. At the time when the split occurred, both parts had an equal population of approximately sixteen million people (Brickham 6). The Secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, did not agree with the accord. It is because he thought that the Accord gave too much power to the communist society. His disagreement is responsible for all the events that constituted the fight from 1954 to 1975 in Vietnam.
The war
The United States’ policy makers as well as most Americans compared communism to a very contagious disease. They regarded it as a vice and the antithesis of all nations. Owing to the state of the Vietnamese community from 1954-1956, the Americans acknowledged that if Vietnam held its elections in 1956 as proposed in the Peace Accord, Ho Chi Minh would be the Vietnamese leader.
It is important to mention that Chi Minh was a staunch communist and if he became the Vietnamese leader, he would lead masses to embrace communism. This propelled the Americans to come up with a way to stop the elections that were supposed to take place in 1956. Rotter attributes this to the fact that no American leader, especially Kennedy and Johnson, was ready to allow any country to embrace communism (Para. 5).
With the support of the Americans, Southern Vietnam carried out elections in 1955 whereby Diem became their leader. This led to the birth of South Vietnam or the Republic of Vietnam in the same year. It is imperative to note that Diem was a staunch anti-communist-just what the Americans were looking for. It did not take a long time before he came up with claims that the communists had started attacking his newly created government and that they wanted to take it forcefully.
Each of the parts had its own supporters. The Americans supported the newly created Republic of Vietnam while the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China supported the communists in the Northern part of Vietnam. During that time, the Peoples Republic of China was under the leadership of Mao Zedong, a staunch communist. Minh, the leader of the Northern region initiated the training of the guerillas that went to the south to spread communism.
They were not using any force in this mission (Isaacs 124). They embarked on helping the people of the south anti-communists in their daily chores while persuading them to embrace communism. In 1957, Diem launched a military attack to the communists in the North. This occurred with military help from the United States. When things grew from bad to worse, the People’s Republic of China with assistance from the communist nations such as Russia trained the guerillas to become military fighters.
This was in an attempt to strengthen the communists’ fight against the anticommunists. Both groups in Vietnam had massive support from external forces. The war between the two groups had taken a different dimension where use of firearms against each other was the order of the day. Importantly, before Diem initiated the military war, the guerillas had achieved substantial influence over the rural communities in the Republic of Southern Vietnam.
This proved helpful because these people formed a movement that opposed the rule of Diem in the South. Between 1956 and 1960, this group held relentless fights against the leadership of Diem. Diem used this as a platform for more intensified fight to the communists. In 1959, the communists in their fight for the freedom of the south adopted more violent/brutal tactics.
The fight between the communists and the anti-communists continued with an alarming rate. Historians argue that towards the end of 1960, the communists had achieved substantial success since the anti-communists in the south were then engaging in a fight with the converts.
In December 1960, the communists in the south formed the National Liberation Front (NLF), which was open to anyone with the goal of opposing Diem. Consequently, the United States under the leadership of President Kennedy sent a team to Vietnam purposely to assess the strength of Southern Vietnam in the fight. In December 1961, the team compiled a report to the president, which they referred to as the White Paper.
According to this report, Southern Vietnam was in dire need of military, economical as well as technological help. Owing to their zeal to win this fight, the Americans acted or rather responded immediately. The US supplied military machinery and advisors to the anticommunists (Olson and Roberts 130). With this, Diem embarked on intensified military fight in the rural areas within his state.
This fight targeted Diem’s subjects who were communist converts. In retaliation, the communist community targeted the Southern Vietnamese leader as well as the American president. This led to the murder of Diem and his brother in November 1963 (Brigham Para.12). It also led to the assassination of the US president (Kennedy) on the streets of London three weeks after their death.
The murder of the three leaders made matters worse in Vietnam. The United States retaliated in full force. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson-the successor of Kennedy declared war to the communist community in Vietnam. In 1965, Lyndon authorized his military to fight the Northern communist society in Vietnam.
He also authorized the dispatch of 3,500 marines to Southern Vietnam. Sustained bombing of the US air force in Northern Vietnam marked the severity of the US attack on the communist society. The American leaders thought that this attack would grant them victory over the communists.
However, the communists did not rest until they had achieved their goal. They changed their tactics against the Americans. They engaged in a war that the US, with its military power, could not win. It had turned to a psychological war. They embarked on drawing attention of anti-war activists especially on the US. This was a successful move since the number of anti-war activists in the US grew substantially. It is important to mention that almost all the Americans felt the impact of the war.
It made the Chicago police to engage in protests against US intervention in the war against communism in Northern Vietnam. This led to a reduction in the number war volunteers in the US. The US had no other option other than to withdraw its attack on the Vietnamese. It is evident that psychological battles are more effective than military ones especially when fighting with a nation that has military and technological stability.
The war ended in 1975 when the National Liberation Front with the assistance of the North Vietnamese communists captured Saigon, the capital city of the Republic of Southern Vietnam (Brown 38). They began by evacuating all the Southern Vietnamese civilians as well as all Americans who were still living in that city. Historians say that this is the largest helicopter evacuation experienced in the world.
Thereafter, the Northern Vietnamese troops replaced the Southern Vietnamese flag in the presidential palace with theirs. The formal reunification of the Vietnamese under the communist rule began. The Northern Vietnamese named the Saigon city Ho Chi Minh City-after their staunch communist leader.
Conclusion
It is true that one man’s words/opinion caused a war that lasted for decades: a war that led to innocent bloodshed; a war that was not only military but also psychological; a war that led to the loss of a battle by a World’s supper power-the United States. John Foster Dulles by disagreeing with the Geneva Peace Accord stirred the war in Vietnam. His opinion and support for anticommunism made the Vietnamese to embark on a course to fight for communism.
It is because the Americans with the leadership of President Kennedy chose to support Dulles. To prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam, the Americans supported the Southern Vietnamese community in fighting the North. When the Americans realized the Northern Vietnamese were seemingly stronger that the Southern Vietnamese, they decided to give full support to the Vietnamese anticommunists. President Lyndon Johnson, the successor of Kennedy played a major role in intensifying the war in Vietnam.
The Northern Vietnamese on the other hand received massive assistance from communist nations. The American relentless efforts to support Dulles cost the US a lot yet they did not stop communism in Vietnam. Overall, by the time the Americans accepted defeat, Vietnam had suffered a lot.
Thousands of Vietnamese had already lost their lives and the conflict paralyzed Vietnamese economy. It is important to mention that though Vietnamese suffered immensely during the war, they were fighting for a worth course for their nation. Dulles opinion, which got a lot of support from the Americans, endangered Vietnamese economy as well as the community as exposited in this paper.