The period between 1939 to1941 remains a historical predisposition for the Jews and Nazi-Germans as it was the period of the Holocaust. It was a time that the rivalry between the Jews and Nazi emanated. In light of this, many Jews were murdered by people whom they had lived cohesively. The details of those events are detailed by two books written by Jan Gross and Jan Karski respectively. Published on diverse dates, these books chronicle the events that happened in a realistic approach.
The events that catapulted the mass murders of Polish Jews are chronicled in Jan T. Gross’s book, Neighbors: The destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland by fellow citizens in a village resided by the Nazi’s in Poland. In the book published in 2001, the author uses pieces of eye witnesses’ accounts to produce the book that received criticism across the geographical divide.
Murderous acts were carried out by people on Jedwabne’s existing Jews. It was in 1941 and the Jews knew the people who carried out the act well. They had lived cohesively but on this fateful day, their friends turned to foes. The murderous acts were executed in an inhuman way. For example, the Jewish population in Poland were confined in a barn then set on fire.
On the other hand, the Story of a secret state, written by Jan Karski provides a personal experience of the Nazi-Jewish mass killings in Poland. Karski was a doctoral student in Poland. He gives an account of how the killings were executed in his book. Published in1944, the book delves information and the details of the massacre from a personal view. Karski narrates that while in a group of other Polish soldiers, they were held hostage by Russian soldiers under wooden barns.
In light of this, Karski plotted an escape with the help of fellow hostage, Lieutenant Kurpios. He underwent numerous traps and landed himself as a Polish underground in various countries including France. He travelled to London to inform the Polish government in exile there on the pains of the Jewish people[1]. In his experiences he encountered the difficulties that the Jewish community was undergoing in their foreign land.
Critique
Gross’s book has arguably led to a foray of criticism from various quarters.
These quarters have been ethnologists and historians. Gross relied heavily on third party knowledge with minimal consultations in other study tools such as historical facts in archives. Historians argue that Gross’s work is more like a journal article and not as a work of history.
For example, he uses the setting of burning barn of Jedwabne to construct Polish-Jewish relations. He arguably focuses on particulars to make generalizations, simply known as inductive reasoning. For instance, he makes generalizations on limited data. Moreover, the book is so shallow in giving the details of the massacre.
It largely details the attacks with minimal literature on the reasons for the attacks. A casual reader with prior knowledge of the atrocities committed might find it hard to understand the book. For example, the book only chronicles the events of the massacre, making it partial. This implies that it looks at the massacre from a one-sided perspective without giving the reader the other side of the coin [2]
Another major flaw in Gross’s work was his alienation of facts that the pre-war Jewish- Polish relations had considerable effects on the Jedwabne massacre. He largely depended on the accounts of a single Jew to analyze the effects and chronology of the war. Gross singled out that the wars experienced in the town were more detrimental to the relations of the Jewish and Polish individuals unlike others in the regions.
In his analytical book, he only focused on those wars and did not discuss into details their etiology. In light of this, he provided a one-sided approach into the massacre. For example, he could have arguably detailed the reasons that led into the massacre and not only victimizing one side [3]
Story of a secret state
The plot analysis in the book is over riddled by the monotonous description of his encounters although it was a personal experience narration by Jan Karski. Moreover, personal narrations are overly dotted with fictitious parts. He hugely, just like Gross relied on his personal experiences eluding other important historical literature that could have helped to shape the story [4]
Even though the story was aimed at propagating a historical ideology, it takes the avenue of literature story telling genres such as narratives. By including personal experiences heavily on the story he washes out the historical salt in the massacre. For example, he takes considerable space in the book to discuss his intricacies in the war as opposed to telling the reader about the happenings. In light of this, Karski only shapes the discussion from his experiences without involving any other secondary source to spice up his story.
Historical Context
The book has analytically given a green light on the events that shaped today’s German-Jews rivalry. Although it analyzed the Holocaust from a particular to a generalized standpoint, it arguably shaped the research platform on the rivalry between the Nazi-Germans and Jews. In light of this, the book articulates the birth rivalry due to the murderous acts committed against Jews. In this regard, the enmity tries to articulate as they happened in real times.
Historians argue that for an author to claim to write history, acknowledging the works of other writers in the same subject is not only important but also shapes the overall work. It gives the work a background to rely on. For example, it takes account of a sole soldier to tell the story without putting emphasis into secondary literature.
Such actions water down the premises and subsequent conclusions that emanate from the historical-driven works. Usage of the same would have created a critical ingredient to achievement recognition in the story. However, Gross alluded to these vital precautions thus deeming his work rather a literature oriented story than a historical one[5].
Story of a secret state
Similarly to Gross’s work Karski left out a critical avenue for historical representations. He focused on narration as opposed to prose in telling out the story of the massacre. In light of this, he skipped numerous historical instances experienced in the course of his encounters in Poland to bring out a rather weak historical hypothesis. For example, he only uses his personal experience to tell the story. Although it brings the reader close to the events that happened in the Jedwabne massacre, it lacked historical taste.
However, it would be unrealistic to abandon the reality that the book has arguably helped in shaping the historical background of the Holocaust. Historians articulate the books as the avenues that enabled the realization of the Holocaust. For instance, after the production of the books, the Holocaust events became realities to many leaders notably in the political and religious spheres. This is because the books were published after the Holocaust since Karski worked as an undercover agent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the two books have provided a credible analysis. By using the personal accounts of individuals, the books have shed light on the intricacies of the Holocaust and also providing critical historical literature for future generations. By reading the books, an individual relates with the events like they happened yesterday due to the clear usage of the language.
Moreover, the books have used good language to be understood by all individuals regardless of the academic disciplines. For example, the books can provide a critical grounding for not only history scholars but also religious and theological studies. Religious and theological scholars can effectively apply the knowledge gained from the book to analyze the religious distribution in the world.
A siege is the attack or a raid of a city or a fortress with aim of winning by wearing down the enemy, of their personnel, and cutting of the supply of weapons to them and denying their people foodstuffs. The medieval siege warfare was fought from the mid fifteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century. This paper seeks to explore the different methods used in defense during the late medieval warfare1.
Introduction
The medieval siege warfare was characterized by the use of weapons that had gunpowder. Gunpowder was mainly used in China and during this particular era, it gained popularity and now had spread to Europe. This characteristically changed the war tactics. The tactics however shifted between direct engagement and the siege tactic.
The enemy would be surrounded in his city or fortress and the attackers would block the supplies from reaching the population. These supplies included food, and additional artillery. The main aim of this method was to starve out the defenders.
The late medieval times witnessed the use of cannons. Cannons were used to attack the castles. The castles were built with tall walls. The weapons were heavy, large, and required a huge number of people to carry and operate. The use of castles with tall walls as defense mechanism became irrelevant immediately the siege cannons were invented.
The siege cannon largely gave a big advantage to the attacker and hence the eventual winner. Normally necessity is the mother of invention; new tactics had to be developed. The sloppy walls that actually were the opposite of the original design replaced the tall castles.
The sloppy walls then turned to being the new defense structures. This new development ultimately rendered the use of castles, which were quite thin, obsolete. The fortress was developed to replace the castles. They had thick and sloppy walls. Their strength was strong and they could withstand cannon fire hence they led to the reintroduction of the siege as a basic attack line2.
The Methods applied
The fighters during the medieval age applied different methods of defense. These methods kept changing depending on need. For example if the war required more men at the battle ground, if it was necessary to keep the fighters for longer periods at the battle fields and the development of technology which came along with urbanization. The siege tactics included the following.
Mining
This method was also referred to as sapping. This method of defense entailed digging of tunnels under and around the castles walls. The walls strengthened using wood, which were fixed onto it for reinforcement. These passageways would then be filled with combustible equipments and the military would set them on fire.
With the advent of gunpowder, the same gunpowder replaced the flammable materials. Gunpowder was more superior, lethal, caused more damage, and was therefore considered more effective. The use of mining would bring down the wall to the mine and therefore a gateway would be made. The attackers would this as an through way to attack their enemies.
The Artillery Bombardment
This was a simple but very cruel method. All the available machinery would be used to bring down the whole fortress. The system brought down everything and anything causing mayhem.
Use of siege engines
The siege engines were widely used and were comprised of very many categories. The categories included catapults, trebuchets, ballista, mangonel, battering ram, siege towers, and onager.
Ballista
This was a very deadly weapon. It was used to fire heavy arrows. The weapon had the shape of a crossbow. Its strength was in its capacity to propel bows one by one and threw them if they were in groups. Initially, it was designed to throw large stones. It was later on, modified to throw arrows commonly referred to the bolts. This earned the ballista a nickname the bolt thrower. Its effectiveness was felt during close range shots.
Catapult
A catapult was a modification of the ballista. It was therefore an offshoot of ballista. This category of a blockade steam engine was used to drive projectiles over a long distance. Whereas, the ballista was perfect at close range, a catapult was effective over long distances. The weakness experienced by using the ballista was eliminated using the catapult.
This type was less portable and hence it was easier to build them at the battleground. Building them at the war site was also influenced by their raw material. The raw material, which was wood, could easily be found at the battlefield. The catapults were categorized according to their varied ability to keep and release power energy for execution.
The first type was the tensional catapult. This type utilized chains or an animal skin to heave the objects. This process involved pulling back the rope or the sinew under tension. The tension would then release the power to propel the projectile.
The next category of the project was called the torsion catapult. This type utilized torsion energy. It consisted of an arm with a bucket joined together using a rope. To it was a sling that held the missile. The category of the catapult applied the knowledge of gravity. A. member of this group was the Trebuchet.
The Battering Ram
These are among the very ancient weapons used in the medieval warfare alongside the Helipolis. The battering was used to break forcefully into the doors and walls of the castles. This would then cause a heavy impact that breaks it creating the way for the raiders. It would then be an avenue for accessing the enemy.
The logs were later improved by adding the wheels. Locomotion was then media easy; hence, the speed at which the enemy would be attacked was increased. The addition of the wheels however came along with the increase in the battering ram’s size. Chains that allowed it to swing held the ram. Further improvement covered the rooftop to prevent it from being burned in cases where the defenders responded. This protected the attackers too3.
Its sophistication was later enhanced by fixing rollers onto it. This increased its speed tremendously making it more lethal. To reduce its power of damage, defenders applied various options that ranged from putting obstacles on the way to obstruct its movement. They sometimes resorted to setting the machine on fire and sometimes they launched a counter attack before the attackers arrived at the fortress. These machines were greatly used by Alexander the Great to bring down the Roman Empire and Jerusalem.
Helipolis
Demetrius Paliocetres used this type of siege engine in Cyprus when the Salami’s were massacred. These weapons were among the oldest weapons. The structure of the Helipolis had nine sections. These sections were professionally divided in order to accommodate projectiles, large spears, and stones. Two hundred soldiers controlled it4. This method was effective because of its capacity of being wheeled forward. This could without the soldiers coming out to face the defenders.
Mangonel
Mangonel was another bludgeon that was utilized in throwing projectiles at citadel walls. The Mangonel had immense power to throw projectiles at longer distances. Its biggest weakness was its lack of precision. This weakness was reduced by the development of Trebuchet. The trebuchet was had better precision but was effective over short distances. The improvement had been effected but at the cost of distance.
The structure of the Mangonel had a sling held the held the projectile. The sling was however, multipurpose. It could throw anything touchable including stones, rocks, and even materials that were on fire. This weapon was funny in those attackers could throw dead bodies and carcasses of animals. Alexander the Great modified it and used it to cover his troops in battlefield.
As much as its accuracy was questionable, it happened to be the most famous weapon of the medieval age. Tone of the reasons for this was the ability of the attackers to use it to throw dead bodies. This was very unhygienic; it quickly spreads diseases that also happened to be a war tactic. The Mangonel was also very versatile and easy to move around5.
Onager
Its name originated from the way in which it executed its immense power. The movement was almost like a kicking action. It maintained its strength using the twisting ropes Onager had a very simple structure. It was made of frames that worked as a foundation. On the perpendicular frame was a hinge with a projecting beam. The mangonel improved to develop the Onager.
The Siege tower
This was a bludgeon utilized in the late medieval age with the main purpose of defending the soldiers in the battleground as they advanced towards the castle walls. The blockade tower had ramparts high enough to the stature of the castle walls and some even higher. This was to enable the attackers to shoot directly in to the fortress.
These weapons were however, only applied as the last resort after exhausting all the other war methods. This was because of its weight and size. This made it very cumbersome and time consuming to construct. This was also its greatest undoing. It allowed the defenders to spot it easily, hence making an easier target.
The Infantry
The infantry was also very popular during the medieval war era. The use of infantry was influenced by various factors. First among them was that the war kept becoming generally expensive to sustain. This aristocratic knight turned out to be only affordable to the nobles. Another reason that led to infantry increasingly becoming famous was the Back Death. This death swept across Europe in the fourteenth century. The death had devastating effect to both the population and resources.
Following the crusade war era, that required more men to be deployed to far of battle grounds, the cost of had escalated to almost unmanageable levels. It was felt that these deaths and costs could end up wiping out regimes. This played a great role to the rise of infantrymen. The group comprised of warriors, heavily armed, riding powerful horses that specially trained. The soldiers were well motivated. This worked almost in a perfect way against weak and poorly armed opposition6.
The initial workers to be recruited in the force commonly consisted of peasants and masses that were employed because of their low level of income in the pecking order of the feudal system. The system changed with urbanization. As opposed to the earlier recruits, who were uncivilized, lacked proper training and used crude weapons, those who were recruited during urbanization were specially trained and war skills.
This era was characterized by the rise of mercenaries who had specific loyalty; they could easily be hired by any medieval regime. It was during this period that the use of bodyguards by people who held higher positions in the society started. They also had troops to guard their homes. The increased need for fighters led to an expansion of the soldiers. The entry of the elite into infantry brought with salaries. The soldiers were now to be paid. This changed the methods of recruitment, organization and saw an increase in remuneration7.
The infantry applied three methods in the battlefields.
The Circle
It was also referred to as the crown because of its method of surrounding the enemy in a circular manner putting the Calvary at the centre. Among the notable users were Alexander Flemings and the Scandinavians.
The Wall
This tactic was very common during the medieval period. The lines used as defense lines were an improvement of the Shield walls that employed in the early days. Lines were found to be more effective because they could be used to form depths with a range of four to sixteen8.
Deep formations
This was a heavy force was very skilled especially in dividing into portions. Their tactics included the formation; they referred to as the manner of the shield. Wedge hammers were also applied in these formations. Another pattern employed here was the wedge of pikes to head their lineage.
The Conclusion
It is evident from the methods of defense discussed above that the tactics kept improving. The regimes of medieval times kept developing new fighting and defense lines on need basis. The skills had to be developed because war was a common phenomenon. The modern war technology and the superior artillery applied today are a result of improvement on the medieval period techniques.
The medieval period witnessed new fighting skills developed and other methods that had earlier been used were rekindled. These weapons contributed a lot to the spread of war across Europe, Africa, and in some parts of Asia for example in China. The gunpowder for example, which was mainly used in China, became a better weapon of fighting in Europe.
These methods also led to the rise and fall of many other regimes. Alexander the Great for example became popular during this period, The Crusade war had these weapons applied at the same period.
Bibliography
Keen, Maurice. Medieval Warfare: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Boutell, Charles. Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the middle Ages: Also a Descriptive Notice of Modern Weapons. New York: Combined Books, 1996
Harper, Christopher. Medieval Knighthood IV: Papers from the Fifth Strawberry Hill Conference 1990. New York: Boydell, 1992
Kaeuper, Richard. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Gore, Terry. Neglected Heroes: Leadership and War in the Early Medieval Period. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1995.
Bradford, Broughton. Dictionary of Medieval Knighthood and Chivalry: Concepts and Terms. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
O’Connell, Robert. Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Karl, Friday. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Footnotes
1Harper Christopher (Medieval Knighthood IV: Papers from the Fifth Strawberry Hill Conference 1990. New York: Boydell, 1992), p. 78.
2Karl Friday (Samurai, Warfare, and the State in Early Medieval Japan. New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 98.
3O’Connell Robert (Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 112.
4 Bradford Broughton (Dictionary of Medieval Knighthood and Chivalry: Concepts and Terms. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), p. 54.
5Kaeuper, Richard. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Kaeuper Richard (Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3.
6 Gore Terry (Neglected Heroes: Leadership and War in the Early Medieval Period. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1995), p. 9.
7 Boutell Charles (Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the middle Ages: Also a Descriptive Notice of Modern Weapons. New York: Combined Books, 1996), p. 89.
8Keen Maurice (Medieval Warfare: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 67.
The Second Battle of Fallujah was the deadliest war that took place during the Iraq War, which occurred in 2004. What led to the Second Battle of Fallujah was the unsuccessful First Battle of Fallujah, which strengthened the insurgents who sought refuge in Fallujah and made it their stronghold during the Iraq War. The insurgents had dominated the city and started attacking American soldiers.
Brutal killings of Blackwater soldiers prompted the United States military to launch an offensive attack on Fallujah city. According to the United States secretary of defense, the brutal killings provided an opportunity for the United States army “…to push the Sunnis on the Governing Council to step forward and condemn this attack, and we will remember those who do not. It is time for them to choose.
They are either with us or against us.”1 To capture the city of Fallujah, the combined forces of the United States, British, and Iraqi soldiers employed an effective battle command. Therefore, this essay analyzes the battle command that General Natonski employed when he mobilized soldiers to conquer the insurgents and capture the city of Fallujah during the Second Battle of Fallujah.
Leading
Leading a great army is a huge task that requires advanced leadership skills of commanders. What made the Second Battle of Fallujah successful was the ability of General Natonski to lead his troops throughout the offensive attack. Since the insurgents had taken over Fallujah, they used it as their fortified base where they could launch attacks against the American soldiers and their allies from Iraq and Britain.
Hence, combined leadership of British, Iraqi, and American armies was significant as it contributed to the successfulness of the Second Battle of Fallujah. Under General Natonski, “Sergeant Pennell displayed unyielding personal courage while leading his attacking squad through sustained high intensity combat in southern Fallujah.”2
Effective leadership of different troops enabled the United States, British, and Iraqi soldiers to conquer the insurgents in Fallujah.
Applications of the same strategies on different troops of soldiers who attacked Fallujah from different points involved great leadership skills. When the insurgents dominated Fallujah and started attacking American soldiers, it was difficult for American soldiers alone to conduct the offensive battle. The combined force of Iraqi, British and the United States army provided a strong army that the insurgents could not conquer.
Since diverse troops of soldiers had a common enemy, they shared combat strategies. Leadership enhances organization among soldiers as it causes feelings, values, attitudes, and behaviors to integrate, and thus “create a system of processes facilitated by tools.”3 Thus, the organization that the combined forces displayed at the Second Battle of Fallujah weakened the insurgents and eventually led to their utter defeat.
Understanding
Before embarking on the offensive battle, commanders and soldiers need to have an understanding of the environment under which they operate. American and British soldiers were unfamiliar with the Fallujah and its environment, and thus they took ample time trying to understand the operational environment. To understand the operation environment, General Natonski drew maps that aided in location of the insurgents in the city.
Additionally, understanding of the terrain was also necessary so that soldiers could plan on how to navigate through as they advanced to Fallujah.
“Through collaboration and dialogue, knowledge sharing enables an understanding of the operational environment, problems to be solved, and approaches to solving them.”4 Collaboration that existed among different troops of soldiers indicated that they had an understanding of their roles and environment.
Understanding the nature of the enemy is an important role of a commander and soldiers. Prior to the commencement of the Second Battle of Fallujah, General Natonski ensured that he understood the number of insurgents and their advancement in weaponry.
The combined armies had estimated that insurgents in the city were about 5000. The figure enabled the commanders and soldiers to determine the effective force that could overcome the insurgents.
According to the United States Army, “nearly one million tons of arms and ammunition had been stockpiled around the country, in mostly unguarded facilities, free for taking.”5 Such knowledge enhanced understanding of the enemy and promoted effective preparation for the combat.
Visualizing
Commanders should have a visualizing ability when designing operation process. As different processes of operation exist, commanders should visualize and determine an effective process.
“Army forces combine offensive, defensive, and stability or civil-support operations simultaneously as part of an interdependent joint force to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative, accepting prudent risk to create opportunities to achieve decisive results.”6
In the Second Battle of Fallujah, General Natonski mainly employed offensive battle as the insurgents became defensive in the city. Since the insurgents terrorized Americans and their allies, General Natonski saw that offensive battle was essential to exterminate the insurgents in Fallujah and across Iraq.
Before embarking on offensive battle, General Natonski visualized the impact of the battle on the civilians. The insurgents were using civilians as their shield, and thus making it hard for General Natonski to launch an offensive attack without killing innocent civilians.
The combined forces conducted civil support where they assisted civilians to move out of the combat zone to safer places while leaving the insurgents alone in the city.7
General Natonski also visualized that he needed to prevent the insurgents from escaping. Hence, the combined forces created strategic checkpoints where they could only allow innocent civilians to move out of Fallujah and its surroundings.
Describing
The preliminary task of the commanders in leading soldier is to understand and visualize the problems and their potential solutions, and then describe them to the soldiers. For soldiers to accomplish a given offensive attack, they need to comprehend the magnitude of the problems and estimate the efforts that they require to resolve them.
In Fallujah, the insurgents had prepared well to counter the offensive attack by the combined forces by building bankers, setting obstacles, putting roadblocks, burying mines, and acquiring sophisticated weapons.8
In this view, General Natonski had to describe the impending challenges that the combined soldiers were to face during the ambush so that they could take necessary precautions and reduce the occurrence of unnecessary deaths.
Given the impending dangers, General Natonski had to describe how the offensive attack would take place. General Natonski described coordinated attacks by providing extensive description of the plan and command line that soldiers followed without undue confusion. Before commencing a battle, commanders need to describe resources, space, and time, which are necessary for the battle to be successful.9
Underestimation of resources and time is quite dangerous because it increases the vulnerability of soldiers. Given the successfulness of the Second Battle of Fallujah, General Natonski was able to provide an effective description of the battle, which enabled soldiers to take their critical roles effectively.
Directing
Directing soldiers to undertake an offensive battle is quite challenging because enemies usually take offensive positions. The ability of a commander to direct armies to follow a given plan of attack and a command line is an integral part of an offensive battle. Since insurgents were ready for the offensive battle, they took a defensive stance. In directing armies, General Natonski designed a way of approaching the city.
Different troops of soldiers approached Fallujah from different directions while communicating amongst themselves regarding their advancement into the city.10 General Natonski planned such a coordinated movement to prevent the insurgents from escaping, and thus enhanced their extermination within the city.
Additionally, General Natonski employed intelligence in directing his troops as they advanced into the city. Continued supply of intelligent information enabled soldiers to update their offensive strategies according to the tactics that the insurgents used.
The intelligence “created a loop in which the information gathered during one operation led to a new operation, and the information provided new intelligence for the next one.”11 Whenever the combined forces got the intelligent information, they acted on it promptly, and thus advanced their attacks towards the city without giving the insurgents ample time to counteract their attacks.
Assessing
Assessing the progression of an offensive battle helps in overcoming new challenges that usually emerge in the course of the battle. To determine if a battle command is effective, commanders should continually perform an assessment of various conditions in an operation.
“Assessment is continuous because it includes monitoring the current situation and progress towards accomplishing those objectives” of an operation.12 The assessment of the battle enables commanders to modify their orders and plans to suit the prevailing conditions of war and overcome tactics that enemies employ.
In the Second Battle of Fallujah, it is evident that General Natonski performed continuous assessment of the offensive attack. Every step that the forces took involved operational planning and caution because the insurgents had taken an offensive stance where they prevented the combined forces from entering into the city.
“Commanders achieve decisive results through the effective combination and balance of offensive, defensive, and stability operations across the entire width and depth of their operations.” Whenever they experienced attacks, General Natonski redesigned his operation and issued different orders with a view of balancing offensive and defensive attacks, as well as stabilizing operations.
Conclusion
Although the Second Battle of Fallujah was the deadliest battle in the Iraq War, the combined forces of British, Iraqi, and the United States troops managed to defeat the insurgents.
The defeat was possible because the battle command that General Natonski applied in the battle was effective since he used various strategies in launching an offensive battle. Hence, the Second Battle of Fallujah provides valuable lessons that soldiers need to apply in undertaking any offensive battles.
Bibliography
Camp, Dick. Operations Fury: The Assault and Capture of Fallujah, Iraq. New York: Zenith Imprint, 2009.
Department of the Army. “Knowledge Management Operations.” Field Manual (16 July 2012): 1-82. Accessed from https://armypubs.army.mil/
Lowry, Richard. New Dawn: The battles for Fallujah. New York: Casemate Publishers, 2007.
Williams, Wallace. “FM-0 Operations: The Army’s Blueprint.” Military Review 88, no. 2 (2008): 2-17.
Endnotes
1 Dick Camp. Operations Fury: The Assault and Capture of Fallujah, Iraq (New York: Zenith Imprint, 2009), 6.
2 Richard Lowry. New Dawn: The battles for Fallujah (New York: Casemate Publishers, 2007), 321.
3 Department of the Army. “Knowledge Management Operations.” Field Manual (16 July 2012):1-82.
4 Department of the Army. (16 July 2012), 11
5 Richard Lowry. (2009), 20.
6 Wallace Williams. “FM-0 Operations: The Army’s Blueprint.” Military Review 88, no. 2 (2008): 4.
The article is “The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda’s Leader” by Peter L. Bergen
This article is unique as it gives an in depth picture of Osama’s life and his involvement in military activity. It then moves on to show the emergence of Osama’s hatred towards the U.S. and consequently the emergence of threats towards the Americans.
Research question of the article
Does the article establish the emergence of his threat to the United States and portray its counter measures?
Hypothesis of the article
H1: The article aims to ascertain the history of Osama Bin Laden
H2: The article aims to portray the role in Islamic fronts on his threat of the United States
The articles general content of the literature review
The literature review serves its purpose of elaborating the genesis of Osama and the conception of his hatred of the U.S. This assist the reader understand the genesis of his threats to the U.S.
The article’s literature review explains that Osama Bin Laden’s mother came from Syria, and his father came from Yemen. Born in 1957, Osama Bin Laden was the seventh child in a family of fifty siblings.
Bin Laden’s father had a poor background and later became a powerful businessman who owned one or the biggest construction companies in the kingdom. Bin Laden’s father was close to the royal family of King Saud and later the Faisal monarch. After the post Saud-Faisal conflict, Laden’s father assisted King Faisal by paying the civil servants’ wages six months.
The article’s literature review showed that Osama Bin Laden had immense Islamic commitment. His father’s religious affiliation with Hajj pilgrims brought in Islamic scholars and leaders to their residence during Hajj. The leaders and scholars influenced Osama Bin Laden in religious matters.
Some of the Islamic scholars were leaders in various Muslim movements around the Middle East. Osama Bin Laden made excellent contacts with the movement leaders in those gatherings. In his secondary school life, he joined the Muslim brotherhood as many other educated Muslims at the time. Later in university, he undertook compulsory Muslim studies. The lecturers in the article later became renowned leaders in Afghanistan.
The review further explained that Osama Bin Laden first went to Afghanistan during the first weeks of the soviet invasion. He had first had experience with refugees and met some leaders through his hosts. This was an exploratory trip, which lasted a month. Later, he took an action trip back to Pakistan after lobbying leaders to support the Mujahedeen. He raised a surmountable amount of money for the Jihad.
In this trip, he accompanied Pakistanis and Afghanis who worked in the Bin Laden. This trend of collecting money and travelling went on until 1982. In 1982, he went to Afghanistan loaded with plenty of machinery for construction to assist the mujahedeen. Osama Bin laden spent up to eight months in a year in Afghanistan. This was immense dedication from a person from a different country and a comfortable lifestyle.
The literature review traced the beginning of Osama’s military involvement as starting in 1984, when he established a guesthouse called Baitulansar in Peshawar to be the first Arab mujahedeen station in Afghanistan. In 1988, Osama built upward of six camps in Afghanistan. He had his own front and ran his own under his own command. He recruited senior Arab ex-military as his fighters and Syrian and Egyptian men with excellent military experience. He spent eight months or more a year in Afghanistan.
The article’s literature claimed that in 1988, Osama began documenting his visitor movement from the guesthouse to the camps generating a complex known as Al-Qaeda, which means “The Base.” Al-Qaeda became public knowledge. After the Afghan war, the al Qaeda fighters joined other international conflicts. This made al Qaeda a global entity and benefited cultivation of other generations of al Qaeda.
Contents of the literature review
The literature review of the article portrayed the presence of American force in the Saudi Arabia during the Gulf war shifted al Qaeda focus to combating the invasion. The al Qaeda protected Saudi Arabia, as it was home of Islam’s most sacred shrines. They began extreme terrorist acts against rulers in Saudi Arabia.
The ultimate goal of these actions aimed to forcefully force out the pro-American leadership in Saudi Arabia and replace it with the Islamic regime. The acts of terror forced the Saudi Arabia leadership to deport Bin Laden and later revoke his citizenship.
According to the literature review of the article, in 1991, Osama Bin Laden relocated to Sudan, which became his base for almost six years. At this time, Al Qaeda made many connections with terrorist organizations assisted by their Sudanese hosts and state of Iran. Al Qaeda organized terror attacks carried out by sister organizations. Although individuals claim that Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda outfit were responsible for the attacks’ on the world trade center in 1993, there is little evidence.
He attacked American humanitarian convoys heading to Somalia in Yemen and Aden. He also assisted the Somali militias fight off United States forces in 1994. In 1995, he implemented a serious terrorist attack against American military in Riyadh, and the following year in Khobar. Following U.S. pressure, the Sudanese government asked Bin Laden to relocate which he did. He moved to Afghanistan and befriended ruling Taliban.
The literature review of the article further shows that in Afghanistan, Osama’s anti-united States rhetoric escalated to new heights. In 1996, he praised the attacks in Riyadh on U.S. soldiers. In the same year, he issued Al Qaeda’s first jihad, declaration of war, to America.
In 1998, several Muslim leaders joined the force with Bin Laden to form a coalition against Jews and crusaders. This entity issued a Jihad against the U.S. The international Islamic front chose Osama Bin Laden to become their leader. The front published its goals and ideologies in a British based Arabic paper. It stated its main goal as a call to all Muslims to murder any Americans or their allies wherever they may be (Bergen, 2006).
The literature review concludes by showing the peak of Osama attacks. The Al-Qaeda attacks against the United States escalated in August 1998. This is when they attacked two United States embassies in the capitals’ of Kenya and Tanzania killing 12 Americans and 200 locals.
The U.S. retaliated by attacking targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. The Al Qaeda attacks continued and in October 2000, they bombed an American missile destroyer called the U.S.S. Cole at Aden in Yemen. The most devastating Al Qaeda attacks occurred on September 11, 2001.
Main points of the article
The main points of the article are identifying the threats posed by Osama Bin Laden on the United States. The priority is the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden with his al Qaeda outfit. The Al Qaeda continues to move on after Osama’s death. This article attempts to understand the significance and magnitude of the threat poised. The article also examines factors that enhance and sustain the threat.
The methods used in collecting and analyzing Data
The author explains the methods of collecting data in depth. The production of the article required an elaborate evidence base. The material acquired from numerous sources. It ensured proper and correct supporting information to the research carried out. The collection of information interlinks for efficiency. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods assist in the generation of information.
Qualitative methods: These include literature reviews of documents with information that affects variety qualitative angles.
Quantitative methods: These includes desk sorting of necessary reports and data acquired for a variety of aspects analyzed.
These methods limit unnecessary material to be used on the production of the main points in the article. It brings out a comprehensive and in-depth appeal to the document. The table below highlights the main points for each objective. The process requires careful consideration of data available.
No
Objective
1
Carry out a comprehensive and critical analysis of the present status of the threat of poised to the United States by Al Qaeda network and Osama Bin Laden.
2
Develop key conclusions on issues affecting the threat of poised to the United States by Al Qaeda network and Osama Bin Laden.
These methods could assist me replicate the study of the production of the article. I believe I could successfully replicate the study if I follow the methods to the later.
Findings
The findings support the author’s thesis. The findings show that the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden on the United States began from the earlier years of the Gulf war. The American occupation of Saudi Arabia drove Osama to propagate hate against Americans. This led him to get exiled and while, on exile, he began his plots and attacks against Americans.
He rallied Muslims to attack Americans in his role as a leader of an international Muslim front. He proclaimed numerous jihads against the American nation and their allies. This prompted numerous attacks on the U.S. and counter attacks by the U.S. on the Al Qaeda.
Conclusion and evidence provided in the article
The conclusion follows the evidence provided and I am satisfied by it. It portrays Osama Bin Laden’s legacy still lives on in the hearts of his Al Qaeda network. His militants continue the spread of anti-American rhetoric in the post Osama era. The violence controlled in the public arena only, but the diehard followers continue to plot against Americans.
In the post Osama era, the United States have strengthened their intelligence and homeland security proving that the threat by the Al Qaeda has risen. Osama’s death has not reduced the need of his followers’ threat to the United States, but rather it has prompted his followers to conceal their activities and plot surprise attacks.
The articles limitations
The article has numerous limitations due to the material available on the subject. The article is not random. The data collected base its facts on literature produced by the affected government and not self-reporting by the assumed mastermind. Self-reporting produces verifiable data of the accusation poised. The research limits to previously undertaken research material. This limits the angles the researcher might want to take. The results cannot be accurate as the sample size came from resources.
References
Bergen, P. L. (2006). The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda’s, Council on foreign relations, 34-238.
The battle of Wanat occurred when a force of Taliban fighters of up to several hundred attacked a remote base in Afghanistan’s Nuristan province defended by 48 American and 24 Afghan troopers on July 13, 2008. American forces lost nine killed and twenty-seven wounded before driving the Taliban fighters away, making the casualties significant for a small tactical action. The analysis demonstrates that the reasons for initial Taliban successes included a favorable operational environment, skilled positioning, precise targeting, and exploitation of incomplete defensive preparations, but the lack of discipline hampered their early gains.
Operational Environment
The Taliban forces were able to prepare a mass assault on the vehicle patrol base (VPB) Kahler near Wanat and the associated observation post due to the favorable operational environment they enjoyed. VPB Kahler was situated near the border with Pakistan – specifically the tribal areas, poorly controlled by the Pakistan government and serving as the operational basis for the Taliban. Apart from that, staffing numerous observation posts with limited forces stretched American forces thin. The necessity to maintain 15 platoon-sized posts simultaneously left the American forces unable to maintain a battalion reserve (Steeb et al., 2011). This, as well as the remote area, made a prompt arrival of reinforcements impossible. Finally, the Taliban enjoyed at least partial support from the local population, which, in turn, made intelligence gathering easier (Steeb et al., 2011). Finally, the intelligence underestimated the forces that could potentially threaten VPB Kahler and the troops garrisoning it, which allowed the enemy to concentrate a large unanticipated force. Put together, these factors allowed the Taliban to maintain secrecy while gathering a numerically superior force for a well-prepared attack on a largely isolated target.
Tactical Considerations
Excellent use of familiar terrain was likely the primary reason why the Taliban was able to achieve uncharacteristically high success in the initial phase of the battle. Using terrain to camouflage troop movements and achieve tactical superiority over the enemy in terms of positioning has been a hallmark of Afghan warfare for centuries. Afghans have used it extensively in recent wars, both against the Soviets in 1979-1989 and against the Coalition from 2001 onward (Steeb et al., 2011). In the battle of Wanat specifically, the Taliban fighters utilized several firing positions overlooking VPB Kahler, most notably – the house on high ground 900 meters to the base’s southeast (Steeb et al., 2011). Seizing and using these positions allowed the enemy to concentrate fire effectively.
Sounds prioritization and precise targeting in the initial minutes of the battle was another reason for the Taliban’s first gains. Utilizing their positional advantage to a considerable effect, the enemy managed to disable the post’s 120-mm mortar and TOW system within the first minutes of the engagement (Steeb et al., 2011). As a result, American forces at VPB Kahler had to defend it with small arms fire, hand grenades, M240 machine guns, and a single Humvee-mounted 50-cal machinegun. Thus, the precision in massing their fire in the initial phase of the combat allowed the Taliban to attain a crucial tactical advantage early on.
Finally, the enemy also exploited the fact that the defensive preparations at VPB Kahler were not completed by the time of the attack. Due to the technical difficulties as well as the stalling of the company contracted to bring heavy engineering equipment, the combat outpost was not fully prepared to withstand an attack. Not all of the necessary force protection assets were in place, and even when they were, their utilization was imperfect (Steeb et al., 2011). For example, the HESCO barriers were only filled up to 4 feet instead of 7, leaving the personnel partially exposed to enemy fire. This factor, combined with the others listed above, allowed the Taliban to attain a considerable initial advantage and inflict high casualties on the defenders before artillery and air support could finally repel the attackers.
While Taliban forces demonstrated good use of terrain and sound prioritizing, the lack of discipline also hundred their initial successes. For example, after driving off the Afghan National Army contingent, the insurgents could have pressed their initial advantage and attacked American positions at VPB Kahler rights away. However, most Taliban fighters began searching the captured positions for spoils despite their commander urging them to press on (Zoroya, 2017). This brief pause provided the American forces in the outpost with more time to organize their defense and hampered the early gains made by the advancing Taliban forces. This lack of discipline among the insurgents made them unable to proceed with a determined assault immediately after the first success and exploit the tactical opportunities it offered.
Conclusion
To summarize, the battle of Wanat was an American tactical victory that came at a considerable cost and highlighted several operational and tactical factors that the Taliban utilized to their advantage. Proximity to the operational basis in Pakistan, the lack of operational reserve for the American forces, and faulty intelligence created a favorable environment for the attacks on remote outposts. The Taliban forces also demonstrated excellent terrain knowledge and sound tactical prioritization to exploit incomplete defensive preparations. However, the lack of discipline made the enemy unable to press forward after their initial gains. As such, the battle of Wanat is a useful case study for small unit tactics in a low-intensity conflict against the enemy possessing fundamental tactical skills and good knowledge of terrain yet little formal training.
References
Steeb, M., Matsumura, J., Herbert, T. J., Gordon, J., & Horn, W. W. (2011). Perspectives on the Battle of Wanat: Challenges Facing Small Unit Operations in Afghanistan. RAND Corporation. Web.
Zoroya, G. The chosen few: A company of paratroopers and its heroic struggle to survive in the mountains of Afghanistan. Da Capo Press, 2017.
In the present fast-changing world, leadership concepts are becoming extensively crucial in the government organizations at policy development and implementation stages. This means that a sense of urgency is being provoked to advance the performance of public institutions to accomplish the interests and demands of citizens and nation at large.
It was also recognized that influential leadership can help government institutions make the significant transitions from intention to implementation, policy to practice and potential to performance (Martin, 2009). The ultimate aim of this context is to compare and contrast the Munich Massacre and the Beslan Crisis in Russia (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005). It also examines how different leadership models can foster proper coordination and cooperation of nations in fighting terrorism.
The Munich Massacre
Germany hosted the 20th Olympic Games in 1972, but tensions were extremely excessive since they were the first Olympic Games to be held in Germany from the time the Nazis hosted them in 1936. During those times, the level of terrorism was very high in the world, particularly in the Arab world and nations like Israel, as well as in some European nations (Klein, 2005). The Israeli athletes and their coaching teams were extremely anxious.
This is because several of them had family members and relatives who had been killed in terrorist attacks in Israel, particularly during the Holocaust. Some of them though were Holocausts survivors. The first couple of days passed well, and the competitors began to ease their tension. On September, 4, the Israeli team had gone out where they spent the evening at Fiddler on the Roof and went back to the Olympic Village.
It was around 4 a.m. on September 5 when eight affiliates of Palestinian terrorist organization jumped over the six-feet fence that surrounded the Olympic village and attacked the Israeli athletes while they were asleep. They entered the Connollystrasse building at around 4.30 a.m. and circled occupants of apartments number 1 and 3. Many Israeli athletes tried to fight back, but it was in vain and two of them were killed and some of them succeeded to escape out of the windows.
Nine of them were taken captive (Klein, 2005). The police were alerted 1 hour later, and the news began to spread to the entire world. The terrorists threw a list of their demands through the window where they had demanded 234 prisoners to be set free from the Israeli prisons and two from the Germany prisons within four hours though negotiations extended to noon (Klein, 2005).
They then asked for two planes to go together with captives and themselves to Cairo, Egypt and hoped that moving further would help get their demands fulfilled. The German officials concurred with their request but knew inside their hearts that, that would not be possible. Frantic to the last part of the standoff, the Germans arranged for Operation Sunshine, which was a set up to outbreak the apartment building (Martin, 2009).
The terrorist realized the set up through watching television, and the Germans opted for otherwise. They planned to attack them on their way to the airport, but they were unsuccessful because the terrorists implemented their plan again. At about 10.30 p.m., the fanatics and the captives were moved to Furstenfeldbruck airport by helicopter. The Germans decided to meet head-on with the terrorists at the airport and they had positioned snipers, but the terrorist discovered the trap once the plane landed on the ground.
The snipers began shooting at them and they responded by shooting back and in the process, two terrorists and one German police officer were shot dead. Then a stalemate emerged. The Germans asked for armored cars and stayed for about an hour before they were brought.
When they arrived, the terrorists knew they were done, thus one of them hurdled into the helicopter and killed four captives and flung in a grenade (Klein, 2005). Another terrorist jumped into the other helicopter and killed the other five captives with a machine gun. The armored cars and snipers killed three other terrorists in the second round of gunfire while three terrorists endured the attack and were imprisoned.
The Beslan School Hostage Crisis
Russia is a federal state whereby every year on September First, citizens celebrate a holiday called “Day of Knowledge” at every school, particularly at the public schools.
The event has the children accompanied by their parents and other relatives while dressed in their best clothes to celebrate the first day of the school year (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005). The event involves some sort of speeches on behalf of the school staff, parents and students, as well as giving presents, particularly flowers, to the last year students while the first year students are taken to their first class.
However, on September 1, 2004 at School Number One, the terrorists used this event as a good opportunity to perform an attack. When parents and students were celebrating, a group of about thirty men and women fully armed arrived at the Beslan School Number One in a Gazel vehicle and a GAZ-66 military lorry.
The terrorists ganged the middle of Beslan school where most of the students were children from seven to eighteen years old. The majority of terrorists wore black ski masks and few of them had explosive belts. Immediately after the arrival of these attackers, the police arrived (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005).
The terrorists demanded that the Russian troops in Chechnya leave the place immediately. However, the Russian government was exceedingly reluctant on the issue because the troops in Chechnya were preventing the Chechnya attackers from plotting other attacks in different parts of Russia (Martin, 2009).
Therefore, the government plotted to attack the terrorists but they realized the plan and announced that for every of their members killed, they would revenge by killing 50 hostages. The situation was extremely dangerous and involved a lot of gunfire that resulted into more than 350 people most of them children killed and several others wounded. Other nations like the US tried to help particularly in forcing the terrorist to release the hostages, but all was in vain (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005).
Comparison and contrast of the two Terrorist Attacks
The two terrorist attacks were similar in their nature. To begin with, the two attacks involved people being taken as hostages. The terrorists in black September Munich attack were on a revenge mission where they wanted to use the opportunity to help their people get freedom.
They thought it was a brilliant idea to attack the Israelis athletes because most of their people were imprisoned in Israeli while two others were in German prisons (Kakabadre, 2000). In the Beslan school siege, the terrorists were reported to demand several things. They demanded the Russian troops to withdraw from Chechnya. They knew the school function contained several prominent people who would influence the withdrawal of the Russian soldiers.
Some of the prominent people who were taken to hostage included ALeksander Dzasokhov – the president of the North Ossetia, Murat Ziazikov – president of Ingushetia, Alu Alkhanov – president of Chechnya, and Vladimir Rushailo – Executive secretary for Commonwealth among others. According to the terrorists of those days, taking people to hostage was the best way to have their demands fulfilled (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005).
Moreover, both terrorist attacks involved serious gunfire that led to death of many people. In the Black September Munich Massacre (Klein, 2005), the terrorists attacked and killed two Israeli athletes to alert of danger to the Olympic Games, and to raise concern with the involved parties which were mainly the Israelis and Germans.
A lot of gunfire was experienced at the Furstenfeldbruck airport where more than eight Israeli hostages were killed: three terrorists killed with others taken into custody and a few snipers also killed in the process (Martin, 2009).
The Beslan crisis was the toughest because it involved the most dangerous gunfire where more than 330 people died with children being most of the victims (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005). A couple of terrorists, as well as police officers, also died in the attack. At the same time, more than 1000 people were taken as hostages, and the terrorists announced that if one of them was killed, they would revenge by killing 50 hostages. That showed how serious the incident was (Martin, 2009).
Nevertheless, the two incidents also had some differences in their natures. First, the Beslan crisis in Russia was so massive that it was pronounced to be a national tragedy. In fact, it was termed a crisis because the entire country was in a mourning mood for about a month. In several cases, if an incident involves more than 150 deaths, it is pronounced as a national tragedy, and that was the case with the Beslan crisis.
The Munich Massacre, on the other hand, was minor as compared to the Beslan crisis in Russia. This incident was an eminent threat to Germany as a nation because it interrupted with the international Olympic Games that were in the county thus made the international sports association to feel insecure in hosting such events in Germany. However, the incident was not that critical because the number of people killed was less than 50 though it raised a lot of tension in the entire country (Kakabadre, 2000).
Moreover, the two terrorist attacks took place in two different periods. The Munich massacre occurred in late 1972, which was in the period of 120h century. The Beslan Crisis, on the other hand, occurred in late 2004 which is just few years ago in the 21st century.
The weapons used in the two incidents were, therefore, different because the technology that was there in 1970s is much different from that experienced in 2004. The recent weapons are much modified and more dangerous than the weapons of those days (Martin, 2009). Generally, both incidents were highly dangerous and could lead to more deaths if tactics were not involved.
The question that must be asked is, “How do the internal governments of different countries in the world doing to prevent such terrorist attacks?” What type of association should be developed between different nations as a result of fighting such attacks? What type of government models must be developed to prevent such actions on nations? This leads us to examine different government models and their effect in such occasions.
Models of Leadership
Democracy is the most popular and widely used system of governance in the world today. It is a system of carrying out election where the winning candidate becomes the president of a nation and the rest of the authority are the elected delegates (Kakabadre, 2000). This model entails a strong constitution that issues authority for elected heads to govern the citizens and organize the affairs of the government.
The citizens are also obliged to complain strike and even have a vote for no confidence in any leader who fails to serve them. This means that the power of a state is clearly described in this model of state power. The elected leaders have the power to rule and manage all the affairs of the nation as specified by the constitution.
Such governments are usually associated well with international bodies that stand for various things. For example, frequently, such government usually works consistently with NATO in fighting terrorism (Martin, 2009). The citizens of the nation have the authority to inform its government about any form of invasion they observe anywhere in the country. Therefore, through association with important international bodies and its people, the government is able to prevent any form of terrorism in the country (Ewart & Woodhead, 2005).
Authoritarianism is another model of government whereby the authority and power originate from the state and are never designated by people to elected heads. This model of government may contain elected heads but have authoritarian power and mostly reign for an unspecified period of time.
In this type of governance, the constitution does not have the authority to control and forbid abuses by the state (Kakabadre, 2000). Terrorism is intense in such a nation because there is no clear coordination between the authoritarian government and its people as well as with international bodies like NATO and international criminal courts. The best example of a country with such a government is Syria where its citizens always protest against the cruel and humid authoritarian reign.
Another model of government is the totalitarianism where the government hypothetically does not allow individual freedom and strives to minion all aspects of life of a person to the powers of the government. The best example of countries with this type of leadership is China.
This type of leadership is praised for maintaining a robust economy and successfully fighting corruption. However, there is no proper coordination of the government and other international bodies especially in the fighting terrorism (Martin, 2009). Terrorism is the greatest threat that a country may experience since it can lead to massive lose of property and lives.
Other models of leadership include crazy states leadership where the country contains a lot of violence and struggles for power. Such reigns are always unstable and never last for a long time. The best example is Liberia and other African nations. Transformational leadership is also one of the best because it combines democracy and development thus making a nation to grow faster in terms of development and technology. The best example of such a state is the United States.
References
Ewart, E. & Woodhead, L. (2005). “Children of Beslan”. HBO Documentary Films and BBC co-production. London: Routledge.
Kakabadre, A. (2000). Essence of Leadership. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Klein, A. J. (2005), Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel’s Deadly Response. New York: Random House.
Martin, A. G. (2009). Understanding Terrorism Challenges, Perspectives and Issues. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
History of humankind is riddled with wars waged for various reasons. Since ancient times, nations and states fought one another over territory, resources, religion, traditions, and ideology (Thayer 2013). What all wars have in common is that in every single case, the initiators of the conflict find a justification for their actions. War is a grisly business, filled with murder, fire, and death. While there are certain people ready to wage war on payroll with no need to justify their actions to themselves or others, the majority of the population requires a righteous reason in order to accept and support the conflict.
The leaders, rarely driven by morality in their conquest, realized the importance of justifying hardships of war to the troops and their nations. As humanity evolved, justifications took multiple forms. First, there were divisions based on territory and nationalism, followed by religious justifications, which were replaced by ideological wars and confrontations in the 20th century. After the fall of the USSR in 1991, the source of ideological tension between the East and the West disappeared. In the 21st century, wars and invasions are frequently named Humanitarian Interventions. While theoretically, the use of military force for a humanitarian purpose can be justified. In practice, humanitarian interventions frequently carry hidden agendas that distort the initial justification of the action and affect the result in a negative way.
What is Humanitarian Intervention?
McMahan (2010, p. 3) defines a humanitarian intervention as “military intervention in another state that is intended to stop one group within that state from brutally persecuting or violating the human rights of members of another group.” He states that these interventions, more often than not, target the existing government and its army. Thus, such an intervention is conducted without the consent of the state, and the country subjugated to intervention. The concept of humanitarian intervention resides on a postulate that, under certain circumstances, human rights violations can override the rights of states to govern themselves and deal with their own internal affairs. In theory, the UN must pass a resolution in order to justify the beginning of humanitarian military intervention in another country. In practice, however, certain countries allowed themselves to act with no regard for the resolutions and the UN Charter (The UN Charter 2017). One of the examples includes the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies in 2003.
Justifications of Humanitarian Interventions
Based on McMahan’s article concerning humanitarian interventions, as well as on works of Kuperman (2014) and Pieterse (2016), it is possible to assemble a list of criteria which a situation needs to meet in order to justify humanitarian intervention. In addition, the intervening forces need to be held to a certain standard themselves, in order for the intervention to be called “humanitarian.”
Cases of large-scale violations of human rights. The mass slaughter of people in Rwanda in 1994 is used as a staple example of a country in need of humanitarian intervention (Meierhenrich 2014). However, this criterion is debatable. How many people need to die at the hands of a particular government to declare an intervention necessary? Can other violations of human rights be used as a basis for humanitarian intervention? The UN charter answers this with the concept of “Responsibility to Protect,” however, in practice, it is referred to very rarely due to the ambiguity of the terms (Background information on the responsibility to protect 2016).
Consent from potential beneficiaries of the intervention. In many situations where human rights are constantly violated, such as an event of a civil war, any military intervention from outside the country might be perceived as an invasion.
The absolute absence of ulterior motives. Humanitarian intervention loses any moral justification if the side responsible for committing it has self-serving goals in mind. This usually reflects the number of civilian casualties, since if the intervention does not really care about saving lives, their strikes will be indiscriminate.
Do more good than harm. In order for a humanitarian intervention to be justified, it has to have a positive result. In many situations, the results are hard to predict. This makes planning and justifying interventions even more difficult, as it is hard to guarantee its success.
If a humanitarian intervention adheres to these four criteria, then it can be considered justified. However, while it is theoretically possible to imagine such a scenario, the realities of modern politics and humanitarian crises have very little in common with these theoretical concepts.
Justifying the War to the Troops
One of the problems that arise with the concept of humanitarian intervention is the justification of war to the soldiers that will participate in the operation. While soldiers are professional combatants, are trained to fight and are expected to give their lives in the line of duty, if need be, their duties and loyalties lay specifically to their respective countries (Petersen & Maksimovic 2011). The participation of military force in a humanitarian intervention suggests that the soldiers will be forced to fight and put themselves in danger for the sake of the people they do not know or even care about.
As a general rule, neither the people nor the members of the US army demanded their government to participate in all and any humanitarian interventions that were fought in the last 20 years. This makes the already unstable moral ground for such interventions even weaker, as these wars are waged without consulting with the population.
Humanitarian Interventions and Realpolitik
McMahan and other theorists that seek to find justification for humanitarian interventions tend to base their arguments on a supposition that states and governments are going to commit to a military strike against another nation or country for humanitarian concerns. It suggests that national leaders are driven by ethics and morality first, and the interests of their respective nations – second. Naturally, very few, if any, humanitarian interventions could be called completely justified.
However, if we look at the concept of humanitarian interventions through the prism of Realpolitik, it will become obvious why so many interventions raise so many questions about their legitimacy or sincerity of the proclaimed goals. The concept of Realpolitik suggests that states and governments are driven by practical and pragmatic concerns, rather than ethics and morals (Bartrop & Totten 2013). Although the term is frequently used as a pejorative, the concept itself remains a valid one. It offers reasonable explanations as to why almost every humanitarian intervention fails to uphold the tenets of moral justifications mentioned in the previous chapter.
Participation in a perfect and justified humanitarian intervention is always detrimental to all parties involved. During the operation, the intervening forces will suffer casualties, valuable equipment will be damaged or lost, and a prolonged campaign will become a burden on the state budget. This is one of the reasons why the USA did not participate in preventing the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 – there was nothing to gain from such action. The Clinton administration did not want to lose votes for committing to the intervention. Occupation and pacification of Rwanda did not promise any financial gain either, as the country had no valuable natural resources.
Wars in general, whether waged under the guise of humanitarian interventions, counter-terrorist operations, or religious crusades, tend to be waged with ulterior motives in mind. Even in a perfect scenario of a justified intervention, there are parties who would benefit from the war and promote it through any means. These parties are mainly military contractors – companies that produce ammunition, weapons, rations, and military equipment. To them, war is a business opportunity. Thus any military action, even a justified intervention, will possess ulterior motives of the parties involved in supporting the war effort.
The Iraq campaign, waged by the United States and their allies, can be used as a classic example of a humanitarian intervention done wrong. Initially, the war was justified by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessing dangerous weapons of mass destruction (Sassoon 2012). However, the subsequent investigations revealed that these accusations were false. Then, there was an attempt to brand the campaign as a humanitarian intervention. If we treat it as such and compare it to the four criteria of justifying a humanitarian intervention, this operation will fail in all of them:
Violations of Human Rights. While the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been accused of violently suppressing movements seeking to overthrow the government during various stages of his rule, no immediate genocide was being committed at the start of the humanitarian intervention in 2003 (Saddam Hussein 2017).
Consent from potential beneficiaries from the intervention. There was no large-scale movement or opposition to the dictator when the operation began. Thus, there were no notable beneficiaries of the intervention.
Lack of ulterior motives. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the US pursued its own economic and political goals by invading Iraq. One of these goals is to establish control over the energy resources located in the Persian Gulf (Colgan 2013).
The ends and the means. Surveys conducted from March 2003 to August 2007 indicate that over a million Iraqis perished as the result of the war. To compare, the victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime estimate around 250,000.
Analysis of Humanitarian Interventions and their Results
There are numerous factors that need to be taken into account when judging the success or failure of a particular humanitarian intervention. In order to simplify the analysis, we will look at the countries that were subjected to humanitarian interventions, analyze their state before and after the intervention, and compare the number of casualties received during the intervention to potential damage brought upon by their respective governments and dictatorships.
Iraq. The alleged number of victims of Saddam Hussein’s Regime – 250,000. The total number of casualties during the Iraq War – over 1 million (Iraq body count, 2017). State of the country – still recuperating from the war. A large portion of the country under ISIS control.
Libya. The alleged number of victims of Muammar Qaddafi’s Regime – unknown. The total number of casualties during the Libyan Civil war – over 100,000 (Alibhai-Brown 2011). Infrastructure and the economy suffered a great deal of damage (Muammar al-Qaddafi 2014).
Syria. The alleged number of victims of Bashar Assad – over 5000 (Oweis 2011). The total number of casualties during the ongoing Syrian Civil war and war against ISIS – over 400,000 (Syrian president 2015).
Kosovo. Initial death-toll at the start of the conflict: 1500-2000 people. The total number of casualties during the Kosovo War – over 13,000 (Spagat 2014). Tensions between Serbia and Kosovo persist (Geis, Muller & Schornig 2013).
As it is possible to see, all four conflicts presented in this analysis have a death toll that is much higher than whatever damage their governments and dictatorships inflicted on their population. In all cases, there was a significant decline in respecting and upholding human rights, and in two cases out of four, the states were thrust into a civil war, as the result of the humanitarian intervention. This contradicts one of the four criteria that would make an intervention justified – to do more good than harm. The intervention failed to achieve that goal in all four presented cases (Gulbis 2013).
UN Armed Forces
One of the most frequent suggestions that concern the use of armed forces to prevent humanitarian crises is to give the UN a mandate to have its own armed forces, which would be strong enough to successfully engage in humanitarian interventions, and would not serve the interests of any country or nation. In theory, this measure would make interventions more justified if we refer to the four criteria of justification. However, there is a lot of opposition to that idea. It operates on the assumption that the UN operates without flaws, that every member of the UN is equal to another, and that all decisions will be made unanimously. That is not so. The members of the UN have their own national interests and agendas, which they will simply pursue within the parameters of the organization. The wealthier and more powerful the country is – the more likely it is to gain support from its allies and satellites. In addition, the creation of an army that does not serve anyone state is a great logistical challenge, as it will need bases, supply depots, suppliers of arms, armaments, food, medicine, and other materials (Military 2016). In addition, the soldiers will likely speak different languages and have different views on the world, which will not help in facilitating cooperation. If we add in the fact that most, if not all, humanitarian interventions tend to cause more harm than good, then the creation of a UN army becomes a pointless exercise.
Conclusions
The concept of humanitarian intervention can be understood from an emotional perspective. When evil is being committed, it is very hard to simply stand by and watch it unfold. The first reaction of any decent human being, when they witness a heinous crime being committed, is to intervene and stop it. Even use force, if need be. However, this sentiment cannot be applied to large groups of people and governmental bodies, which do not operate with the same morals and sentiments. Government morality lacks the emotion and benevolence of a singular person, as it is comprised of many people, who see crimes only through reports filled with numbers and statistics. Despite the bold claims about values of human rights and democracy, the analysis shows that the governing motivation behind any government action remains self-interest, hidden behind the mask of goodwill and benevolence.
While humanitarian interventions can be justified in a theoretical setting, in practice, they rarely, if ever, work out. They bring more harm than good, destroy the country’s infrastructure, and pave the way for more radical elements to take control. Often, these elements are even worse than the dictatorships they just dethroned. Thus, it has to be concluded that humanitarian interventions cannot be justified. If the theory that justifies them has very little to do with the realities of war, then the theory is wrong.
Does this mean that the world has to stay silent while atrocities are being committed in certain places without batting an eyelash? The answer to that is “No.” If we stand by and do nothing, it speaks volumes about our society and about each and every one of us. Nevertheless, a large-scale military intervention is not the answer. Destroying a country to save it is not the answer. There has to be a different approach, one that will allow a surgical and precise solution to the problem. In addition, the call for action must come directly from the people, rather than their governments. The reactions of the people towards tragedies around the world lack ulterior motives, as exemplified by humanitarian crises caused by natural cataclysms. The people must act as a safeguard against humanitarian interventions waged with the scope of political, territorial, and economic gains.
In her article “Deportations from Western Europe”, Holly Arendt explores the role that ‘ruthless toughness’ played in shaping the way in which Germany interacted with the world under Nazi leadership. She begins the article by pointing out the way in which men manifesting this particular character trait to a great degree were selected as emissaries to other countries beginning in 1941. By 1942, these relations led to plans for the deportation of thousands of Jews from France, Belgium and Holland. Most of the Jews to be deported in this way had reached these locations after fleeing German influence in places such as Russia, Austria, Poland, Rumania and Hungary while few realized the true intentions behind the term ‘resettlement’. However, this influence was not necessarily as strong or as ruthless as it might seem.
As Arendt illustrates, it was due to the eagerness of the Germans to ‘resettle’ as many Jews as they could within their borders despite their apparent hatred for them that brought suspicion upon them. Eichmann’s attempts to assert his authority in France caused some to question his true intentions and his request that French Jews be included in the deportations triggered a complete change of heart on the part of French officials. Rather than moving forward with the deportation efforts, France agreed to uphold naturalizations granted to Jews prior to 1933 and intentionally delayed efforts to deport even stateless Jews.
These problems weren’t present in France alone. Arendt discusses several ways in which Belgian officials did what they could to prevent or interfere with deportations. Local law enforcement was reluctant to participate in collection efforts, those guarding trains were careless in ensuring train cars were locked and the nature of the Jewish population as a result of recent events made the community highly unorganized and therefore difficult to pick out. Holland was largely at the mercy of the Germans after their entire government fled before occupation, but this country also managed to interfere with deportation issues due to disagreements between Eichmann and Himmler as well as opposition by the population. Unfortunately, the public was divided on this issue and an equally strong faction worked diligently to uncover Jews in hiding and turn them in while native Jews worked against their refugee brethren under the mistaken belief that they would be safe as natural citizens. Denmark’s officials resigned their positions rather than take part in deportation efforts in that country, finding asylum in Sweden. “Italy and Bulgaria saved their Jews by playing “a complicated game of double-dealing and double-crossing … but they never contested the policy as such” (337). The Danes simply refused to make any distinction between Jews and non-Jews, native Jews or foreign Jews. The Danish resistance through measures such as refusing to work on German ships encouraged other nations’ resistance and began changing the mindset of German officials placed in Denmark.
What impressed me most about these stories was the way in which strong people in other countries worked to reduce the number of Jewish people that were killed in the concentration camps. Although it is deplorable that so many were killed, far many more were saved because these other countries were willing to take them in and protect them to various degrees. These kinds of stories are important for people to hear because they encourage others to resist evil thinking.
Works Cited
Arendt, Holly. “Deportations from Western Europe.”
The United States has been faced with the challenge of having to understand and deal with Islamic fundamentalism in the past decade. The US has found it difficult to come up with a comprehensive foreign policy to address the issue.
However, policymakers have been able to comprehend the ideological tenets behind these fundamental groups or at least they have been able to establish justification for the actions of these fundamental groups. Islamic fundamentalism has been referred to as the successor of the infamous Red Scare during the Cold War era.
In some quarters, this has been referred to as the Green Menace whereas some analysts have regarded these groups as social movements that emphasizes on religion. Generally, it can be agreed that the issue of Islamic fundamentalism requires special attention. This is because of the fact that these fundamentalist groups have resorted to terrorist tactics in advancing their position (Levitt and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006).
Hamas is regarded as one of the Islamic fundamentalist organizations which have resorted to terrorist tactics in advancing their course of action. Hamas uses child-soldiers and suicide bombers to launch attacks against their target.
The group does not have discretion for targets; it targets innocent civilians, political party members and any opposing military forces. This group has also resorted to guerilla tactics which pose a real danger to the US Homeland Security. Hamas has a strong support system from other organizations such as the Hezbollah, as well as from nations such as Iran and Lebanon.
The support system of Hamas provides financial aid and training ground to the group (Levitt and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006). This paper aspires to provide a detailed analysis of one of the Islamic fundamentalist group known as the Hamas. In addition, the paper will provide analyses of various United States policies towards the Hamas group and other external terrorist organizations.
The Emergence and ideology of Hamas
Hamas is an Arabic word which means ‘zeal’ and is derived from the verb ‘hamisa’ which signifies the idea of supporting a cause without any reservations. The term Hamas acquired a distinctive meaning during the formative stage of the Palestinian intifada which begun in December 1987. During this time, Hamas engaged in a military activism against the Jewish state of Israel. Hamas is an acronym that stands for Harakat al-muqawama al-islamiyya which translates to mean the ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’.
Hamas was started in Gaza during the fall of the year 1987. The organization served as a political as well as a military arm of the group, Muslim Brotherhood Society, which had been established in 1928 in Isma’iliyya, Egypt. After its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood Society spread its influence in the Arab world establishing branches in Palestine in the period 1936-39 when the country was experiencing an uprising (Muslih, 1999).
There are various reasons which are advanced to explain the formation of Hamas. It is believed that Hamas emerged owing to the mood of active resistance that had been established by the Palestinian intifada. The group was also influenced by the success of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
In addition, the emergence of Hamas was influenced by the loss of political initiative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) during the Palestinian revolt of 1983-87. The military activism of the Islamic Jihad that was established in 1979, having been spearheaded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were disgruntled, acted to motivate the emergence of Hamas.
The Islamic Jihad group begun its activities in 1980 and was led by Fathi Shiqaqi in conjunction with Abd al-Aziz Audeh (Muslih, 1999). The 1980s saw the emergence of numerous changes in the structure and outlook of the Muslim Brotherhood society. The Muslim Brotherhood Society stressed upon reforming the society and religion together with the education morals in fighting Israel.
However, the youthful members of the society did not agree to the position adopted by the senior members of the society in dealing with Israeli occupation. These young members emphasized on the adoption of armed resistance in fighting for the rights of the Palestinians (Council on Foreign Relations, Inc, 2012).
Due to increased pressure from the young members of the society, the Muslim Brotherhood began to get involved in politics during the 1980s. At the time when Palestinians called for armed resistance against Israel in December of 1987, the society rose to the occasion through its political wing, the Hamas. Hamas carried out violence using its expansive network of mosques, students and professional organizations as well as charitable organization.
They also achieved their mission of violence through underground cells and command centers (Council on Foreign Relations, Inc, 2012). At first, Israel did not do anything to stop Islamist organizations when the Palestinian intifada was just starting. They in fact seemed to be pleased that the Palestinians were getting divided, leading to the creation of a rival rank to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It was believed that with the emergence of the radical Hamas, the power of the PLO was going to be weakened.
This was a false move by Israel since following the outbreak of the intifada; Hamas resorted to armed violence making them to be regarded as Israeli’s fiercest enemy compared to the PLO. The Hamas group did not just threaten Israel, but also the PLO. The PLO had embraced diplomatic strategies in dealing with Israel. Hamas on the other hand embraced violence in dealing with Israel and this enhanced their popularity among the Palestinians (Council on Foreign Relations, Inc, 2012).
Hamas came up with its charter in the year 1988 which was distinctively different from the nonviolent ethos of the Muslim Brotherhood Society. The group resorted to violence against Israel and adopted terrorist strategies in fighting Israeli occupation. The maiden suicide bombing by the Hamas was executed in the year 1993. When the Hamas came up with their charter, the situation in West Bank and Gaza was ready to explode.
This is because of the despair and anger that had accumulated among residents of these regions, and Hamas brought an avenue upon which active resistance against Israel was to be carried out (Council on Foreign Relations, Inc, 2012). This section of the Palestinian territory was engulfed in a defiant mood in which civic disintegration was eminent and that Hamas members and sympathizers were very active and most warrior-like.
The Hamas group expanded to include Islamist intellectuals and members of other groups apart from those of the Islamic Brotherhood Society. In addition, Hamas spread its influence beyond the Palestinian borders to include the Arab and Islamic nations bordering them.
This necessitated the creation of two leadership organizations including qiyadat al-kharij and qiyadat al-dakhil, Qiyadat al-kharij is the leadership of Hamas in foreign countries whereas qiyadat al-dakhil is the group’s leadership within the Palestinian territory (Muslih, 1999).
Hamas has been regarded as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union. This has been done basing on the fact that this group is greatly involved in terrorist activities. Hamas has a paramilitary wing known as the Izz al-Din al Qassam Brigade which has launched scathing violent attacks on Israel and to some extent, within the Palestinian territories.
The group has engaged in suicide bombings which have claimed numerous lives against civilians both in Israel and Palestinian territory. In addition, Hamas uses makeshift explosives that are planted by the road side and launches rockets into the Israeli territory (Muslih, 1999).
During the 2006 legislative elections that were conducted in the Palestinian territory, Hamas emerged victorious putting an end to Fatah’s grip on the Palestinian Authority. This was a great challenge to Fatah’s leadership. Despite having been democratically elected in power, Hamas has been steadfast on renunciation of the existence of Israel and in calling for use of violence in the fight against Israeli occupation.
The Hamas’ charter is categorical on the use of violence in fighting against Israel occupation. Through the violence means that is common with Hamas, many civilians have been killed. This amounts to terrorism as terrorist activities can be described as those activities that result in indiscriminate murder of people.
Therefore, Hamas can rightfully be argued to be a terrorist organization. There are claims that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and that it is a nationalist movement. However, this can be rebuked since some Hamas elements have adopted both political and violent strategies, which include terrorism, in their pursuit of their goal of ensuring the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state (Davidson, 2006).
It has been established that Hamas is known for its countless attacks which claim innocent lives. Due to its terrorist activities, the United States has declared Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization. It is alleged that Hamas gets financial support from other countries such as Iran, Syria and Lebanon. The United States and the European Union member states vowed not to offer any financial assistance to the Hamas unless they renounce their violence approach and recognized the existence of Israel.
For a long time, Hamas has been regarded as a terrorist group; however, the 2006 election produced dramatic victory to the Hamas which broke the dominance of the PLO’s dominance in Palestinian politics. This led to western powers led by the United States and the European Union coming to an agreement that no more funding would be directed towards Hamas.
The change of political guard in the Palestinian territory is attributed to the rampant corruption within the PLO leadership. It is noted that Hamas leadership is often considered to be efficient and does not entertain corruption as the PLO. The election of Hamas to power made the group to be regarded as the most dominant in Palestinian political affairs (Levitt and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2006).
Hamas terrorist activities are said to have led to the death of many innocent individuals. It is claimed that over 500 people have perished in more than 300 terrorist attacks that have been launched by Hamas since the early 1990s. Apart from suicide bombers, Hamas uses mortars, rockets and small arms.
When recruiting the suicide bombers, Hamas mainly targets youthful male individuals who are deeply religious. Most of these suicide bombers are not desperate individuals, and in fact, they have paying jobs. However, it can be noted that the suicide bombers have an intense hatred towards Israel and this is what drives them to volunteer as suicide bombers.
The United States’ policy on Hamas
The United States has been concerned with the activities of Hamas which is adamant about its charter that emphasizes on violence in the fight against Israeli occupation. This has seen the group be regarded by the United States authority as a terrorist group which should be renounced for its activities.
Though Hamas has avoided direct confrontation with the United States, its activities against Israel are an indication that the same can happen to the United States citizens. In addition, since the United States is determined to fight terrorism on the international front, it is imperative to take measures that will enhance homeland security and combat terrorism in all its forms.
The United States has put in place various policies which are aimed at combating terrorism as well as enhancing homeland security. The immigration policy for instance is set to help in the identification of any illegal entry of terrorist and blacklist them.
On the other hand, the border security policy is aimed to enhance the country’s border security, blocking any illegal entry of terrorist elements including Hamas. The policy on combating terrorist use of explosives in the United States will prepare the government agencies on combating and identifying the types of explosives that Hamas operatives might use in attacking the United States.
The maritime security policy and aviation policy shall also protect innocent civilians from unprecedented attacks. The aviation policy shall enhance aviation security whereas the maritime security policy shall help in the identification of any illegal entry or tampering of shipping containers that might contain explosives, or even possibly ‘dirty bombs’.
The immigration policy adopted by the American government is aimed at establishing criteria of admission of aliens into the United States. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) clearly stipulates admission requirements and exclusion criteria for immigrants who come to the United States. It is stipulated that any person coming to the United States should not have any links with terrorism.
In this case, anyone who participates in terrorist activities or represents a terrorist organization or is a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization like the Hamas is not eligible to be granted permission to visit the United States. Following the September 11th attack, the INA was enhanced to include the denial of entrance of foreigners who are perceived to represent groups that endorse terrorist activities, individuals who embrace terrorism and to some extent, the close family of individuals who are associated with terrorism.
The Immigration and Nationality Act also provides ground for refusal to admit someone in the United States basing on foreign policy issues. Essentially, the INA is meant to screen foreigners who would wish to come to the United States to ensure that they do not have any association with a terrorist organization. In this way, members of foreign terrorist organizations such as Hamas are blocked from coming to the United States to accomplish their heinous terrorist activities (Garcia and Wasem, 2010).
There is no doubt that security and economic growth of the US is dependent on the aviation system in a significant way. Owing to the importance of the aviation industry in the prosperity of the United States, terrorists have identified the industry as a prime target for attack and which they can take advantage of. The case in point is the dreadful September 11th attack of 2001 and the Heathrow plot of 2006 where terrorists exploited the aviation industry to launch their attacks.
The United States president issued a directive that aimed to ensure the establishment of an accomplished National Strategy for Aviation Security which would guarantee the protection of the US and its interests from terrorist attacks in the Air Domain. The National Strategy for Aviation Security enhances the alignment of Federal government aviation security programs and initiatives to come up with an all-inclusive and consistent national security effort involving all sectors concerned with security issues.
The stakeholders in the security issues include the “Federal, local, and tribal governments and the private sector” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007, para 3). These efforts are meant to enhance aviation security and promote the defense of the United States from terrorist activities.
The National Strategy for Aviation Security adopts a collaborative inter-agency approach and has developed various plans to counter threats and challenges facing the aviation domain. The various plans are intertwined and strengthen each other.
plans include the Aviation Transport System Security Plan; the Aviation Operation Threat Response Plan; the Aviation Transport System Recovery Plan; Air Domain Surveillance and Intelligence Integration Plan; International Aviation Threat reduction Plan; Domestic Outreach Plan; and the International Outreach Plan (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007).
The Secretary of Homeland Security has been given responsibility to ensure close coordination of the Federal government activities that encompass national aviation security programs. With the enhancement of the aviation security, terrorist organizations such as the Hamas shall be thwarted in their mission to launch attacks on the aviation industry which is vital to the American economy (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007).
As for the border and maritime security policies, the United States has taken considerable measures aimed at enhancing the protection of the United States from attacks emanating from foreign terrorist organizations.
There are various projects that have been put in place by the Department of Homeland Security to ensure maximum protection of American borders. Among these projects is the Advanced Container Security Device (ACSD) Project which is aimed at the development of an enhanced sensor system to screen the veracity of the containers in the maritime supply chain.
The ACSD devise is usually attached to one side of the container and is able to screen the container, reporting intrusions on the container as well as the availability of human cargo that may be contained in the containers. This will act to enhance security measures thereby thwarting any means that could be used by terrorist organizations such as Hamas to launch attacks in the United States (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011).
In addition, there is the Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) Project which is aimed at coming up with an automatic imagery detection ability to expose unusual content in various cargo categories. This has enhanced the American security as terrorist groups like Hamas may resort to sneak their terrorist elements disguised as cargo.
The Border Detection Grid (BDG) Project is also an essential component of security measures taken by the United States. This project is said to provide “a grid of advanced sensors and detection, classification, and localization technologies to detect and classify cross-border movement” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011, para 5).
Such technology is set to boost border surveillance where one Border Patrol officer will have the capability of monitoring over ten miles of the border. This will enhance keeping vigil on the border to ensure that terrorist activists such as members of the Hamas group do not sneak into the United States (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011).
There is also the CanScan Project which is geared towards the development of a next generation non-intrusive inspection (NII) system that shall be used in the detection of terrorist materials and contraband goods. This project is set to enhance cargo screening to ensure that all cargo coming to the United States is free from terrorist threat posed by groups like the Hamas (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011). There are other projects which include the Container Security Device (CSD) Project; the Hybrid Composite Container Project; the Marine Asset Tag Tracking System (MATTS) Project; Secure Carton Project; Secure Wrap Project; and the Sensors and Surveillance Project among many other projects. It is worth noting that the various projects aim at enhancing the security status of the American borders and waterways from foreign terrorists without affecting trade and those people who are travelling (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011).
The Department of Homeland Security has also enhanced its mission to protect the United States and its citizens from terrorist attacks. The Small Vessel Security Strategy Implementation Plan has been put in place to address risks related to the possible manipulation of small vessels by terrorists who may want to target the American maritime.
This ensures that terrorist organizations such as Hamas are blocked from advancing their attacks on the American people. The US-VISIT is known to support the Department of Homeland Security in its mission to guarantee protection to the American citizens.
To achieve this mission, the Department of Homeland Security provides biometric identification services that are critical in the identification of individuals to determine whether these individuals may present a risk to the United States. This is important as it will ensure that members of terrorist organizations such as the Hamas will not penetrate the boundaries of the United States and pose a security threat without being noticed.
Also, there is the Container Security Initiative (CSI) which focuses on the enhancement of security for container cargo that comes to the United States from around the world. The CSI is concerned with aspects of border security threats and threats to global trade from terrorist groups like Hamas which could use the maritime container in delivering a weapon (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, n.d.).
Conclusion
Hamas has been known to resort to violence and terrorist tactics in its fight against Israeli occupation. Though this group does not pose a direct threat to the United States, it is has been regarded as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States.
Even after Hamas was democratically elected to provide political leadership to the Palestinian people, the group has continued with its terrorist tactics and launched attacks within the Palestinian territory and in Israel. The United States and the European Union urged the group to denounce its terrorist activities so as to continue to benefit from their financial aid all in vain.
Having recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization, the United States has put in place various policy frameworks that are aimed at thwarting any potential terrorist organization from launching its attacks on the American soil. Through the various policies, terrorist organizations such as the Hamas will find it difficult to penetrate the United States or sneak arms and explosives in the US to be used in terrorist activities.
Reference List
Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. (2012). Hamas. Web.
Levitt, M. and Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (2006). Hamas: Politics, charity, and terrorism in the service of jihad. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Muslih, M. (1999). The Foreign Policy of Hamas. “Council on Foreign Relations Press”. Web.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). Protecting America. Web.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2007). National Strategy for Aviation Security. Web.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2011). Borders and Maritime Security Projects. Web.
Today the problem of the public security is discussed at all the social and legal levels. Terrorist attacks became the real threat for the people’s everyday peaceful life, and the problem of security acquired new aspects since the events of September 11 revealed the most dangerous outcomes of the terrorists’ actions. It was the start of the war on terrorism and of the intensive development and improvement of the protective systems against the possible attacks.
The public and government concentrated on the role of pilots in the struggle with terrorists in airplanes. The question of the necessity for pilots to be armed became widely discussed, and this issue still remains rather controversial. However, commercial pilots should not be armed because the fact of the pilots’ carrying guns contributes to creating only the additional threats for passengers, but not the improvement of security in airplanes.
The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO) was put into action in 2003. This program was discussed by the commercial pilots enthusiastically and many of them began to participate in it. Moreover, at the governmental level the authorities stated that such a program can become the effective preventive measure and contribute to the issue of the national defense (Renna).
At first sight, the idea of allowing commercial pilots’ carrying guns in their cockpits as one of the methods to defend the passengers seems to be rational. Nevertheless, it is not the pilot’s direct task to defend the passengers in the situation of the terroristic attacks.
The effectiveness of the usage of guns in the cockpits cannot be considered as obvious because such a situation creates many threats for the passengers of the airplane.
During the discussion of the program project the leaders of the country’s airlines argued on its development accentuating the fact that airline companies spend much funds on safety of the flights and try to make the airplanes free from any kinds of weapons because of the high risks. According to the airlines’ leaders, the idea of allowing the pilots to carry guns may lead to the opposite dangerous results (Renna). The security of the passengers should be realized outside the pilots’ cockpits in order to be effective.
It is more reasonable to improve the security systems in the airplanes without involving the pilots in this process because the effectiveness of their actions when they use guns cannot be adequately high with references to that pressure they could experience during possible hijackings.
Furthermore, there were situations, for instance in 2008, when the pilot accidentally fired his gun, and that is why the life of the other pilot and the lives of the passengers were at risk (Fraher). Today, when the whole secure system in the pilots’ cockpits is improved the possible usage of guns can only destroy it.
The enthusiasm of commercial pilots who accepted the development of the FFDO program can be explained by the fact of the general emotional impact caused by the treats of the hijackings (Renna). It is important to determine the combination of the factors which influenced the pilots’ discussion of the program.
The situation of the terroristic hijackings includes the risk of the progress of many pressures on pilots. The external pressures are connected with the necessity of providing the possible security and developing the solutions to the issue of hijackings (Fraher). Pilots should be able to act according to the instructions and with avoiding all the possible risks for the passengers.
The opportunity to use guns can be considered as the chance to control the situation. Nevertheless, the real conditions of the pilot’s work do not allow the effective usage of this opportunity, especially with references to the internal pressures. The internal pressures are connected with changing the circumstances of the commercial pilot’s work after the situation 9/11 and with their psychological reaction to the fact of the terroristic hijackings (Fraher).
The peculiarities of the realization of the FFDO program also cannot be considered as quite successful for providing the necessary security support of the passengers during the flight (White Paper). Many problems of the FFDO program development are connected with the drawbacks of its implementation. The most significant aspects are the inability to provide the effective training for all the commercial pilots who participate in the program and the lack of the pilot’s rights.
Thus, to provide an effective result, pilots should have the right to use the guns outside their cockpits. Nevertheless, this fact can also be discussed as the threat for the passengers. Moreover, to react to the issues successfully, pilots should be skillful and perfectly trained (Armed Pilots Bill Flies through House). However, it is also necessary to focus on the fact that pilots do not have the real rights to use the guns as the officials (Renna; Wilber).
The idea to use the armed commercial pilots for the realization of the preventive measures and implementation of principles of the national defense cannot be discussed as effective because it involves a lot of provocative aspects as the pilots’ impossibility to use the guns in the cockpits effectively, the lack of the necessary skills, the risk for the passengers. The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program is a rather controversial method of the struggle with terrorism, and it has definite weaknesses in its development.