Category: Warfare

The book, a long way gone: memoirs of a boy soldier, talks about the sociological effects of the war in the Sierra Leone and the effects it had on a boy, Ishmael Beah, his brother and the rest of the society. In 1993, war broke out in Beahs village and he became entangled in it. From then on, Beah and his friends began a life of running away from the rebels, being captured by them or harassment from wary villagers. Despite undergoing these problems, the boys did not give up and they keep on looking for their families.

“Blood diamonds,” is a movie that portrays the negative effects of diamonds in the country, Sierra Leone. Due to the civil war fuelled by the diamonds, the country is torn apart as the government and rebel soldiers’ fight each other relentlessly.

Both of the stories covered by the book and the movie are set in the republic of Sierra Leone during the1990-2001 period and portray various atrocities committed on the people.

These two stories have effectively shown the effects of war in a country and the effect it has on children’s sociological lifestyles. Memoirs of a boy soldier, is told through the life experiences of Beah. Due to the revolutionary united front, the rebels, he became separated from his family and he had to adapt to a life of war. By undergoing these changes, his norms changed and various strain theories could be depicted in his behaviour and that of Simons’ son (Eberts, 2003).

Beah like other children in the country suddenly found themselves fending for themselves and having to act like adults in order to survive the war. Due to the rampant insecurity in the villages, the people had to live in the jungle whereby the survivors of the war met each other and encouraged themselves to live through the war. The government soldiers failed to offer security to the citizens and instead were a source of terror to the citizens, the same was also portrayed in “blood diamonds” only that the scale of terror was very high.

The RUF was very aggressive in it campaigns against the government and they used the people in their agenda. Just like in Beahs village, the villagers were attacked, captured by the rebels and killed mercilessly. However in Simons’ case, the villagers were attacked, the women killed and others captured into slavery.

Due to RUF’s policy against democracy, the rebels hacked of the arms of the villagers in order to prevent them from voting for their leaders. Other villagers, who were found to be physically stronger, were taken to the diamond mining fields and forced to mine diamonds for the rebels (Hemmens, 2009).

However in the two stories, the stories are told from the perspectives of two different people. Beah is a boy whose goes through the war and survived to tell it from the perspective of a child. He had to look for his family and was left alone after he could not find them. Simon too, had to look for his family; however he was not a boy but a father who became separated from them during raid in his village.

Simon as well was very determined to find his family and was ready to sacrifice anything to find his son. However, he soon learnt that his son was captured and recruited in the rebel and was significantly brainwashed into the doctrines of the RUF.

Beah on the other hand was also captured but not by the rebels but, by the government forces. Both of them were forced into the forced and indoctrinated to fight for their respective groups, thus Simons’ son and Beah were fighting against each other without will or even knowing what the true cause of the war was.

The rebels’ leaders used drugs, alcohol, films and violence to train the child soldiers which affected their mentality severely. Therefore the fighters in this civil war were mindless children who really did not understand what was going on but kept on fighting as a means of surviving (Beah, 2008).

During this period the children themselves participated in committing human atrocities on fellow villagers which was ironical as they had undergone the ordeal and their negative effects only for them to come and carry on the work. Simon who was taken to the diamond mines found others like him and had to work tirelessly, without pay every day.

Those who become frail in the process are immediately killed by the slave master, Poison. It is while working that he, Simon, came across a large pink diamond and hide it. However his enslavement came to an end when the mines are attacked by the government forces and he run away, his ordeal however did not end there (Maltins, 2008).

The war in Sierra Leone was fuelled by the presence of diamonds in the country. Instead of the minerals bringing economic empowerment to the citizens, it brought death and disparity to the people.

The diamonds mines where Simon worked were mined and exported to foreign countries and the money got from the mines used to purchase arms used to fuel the war. Ironically, Simon mined diamonds which enabled his sons war career carry on. Beah did not escape like Simon but was released to the UNICEF by the soldiers as the peace talks were taking place.

He was later taken to a rehabilitation centre where his drug and psychological traumas that he had while in the war were finally eradicated from his life. He was also lucky since a member of staff got interested in his case and offered more help to him where he finally got over his mental wounds. Simon’s son was not lucky as such as the rebels did not honour the peace talks and held onto the child soldiers who now believed they are fighting for a good cause (Beah, 2008).

In Sierra Leone a lot of illegal channels had been created in order to successfully ship out the illegal diamonds out of the country. Involved in this syndicate were foreigners who employed the services of mercenaries to successfully manoeuvre the diamonds to the border of Sierra Leone.

In the course of finding his son, Simon met a mercenary who was search of the diamonds and in a position to help him find his son in exchange of the diamond. However the effects of the war, trauma, drugs and false indoctrinations had made Simons’ son forget his father. He was almost killed by his son when he confronted him since; his son had got out of touch with reality.

Due to the conflict, human suffering and the refugees’ crisis in the country a lot of world attention was captured. As a result, Beah was chosen to speak at the UN conference in the U.S where he told the world the negative effects the vast diamond resources in the country had brought to the country and the people. He also explained the connection between the sale of the illegal diamonds and the war in the country.

Simon was flown out of Sierra Leone and after a deal, his son was realised and also flown out of the country. Just like Beah, he too talked to world leaders at a conference that was meeting to deliberate the Sierra Leone civil war, thus at the end of the day he was able to explain the curse that resulted from the diamonds existing in his country.

From both stories one is able to clearly see the effects that the diamonds have brought in the country. Diamonds are very expensive and rare jewels that are only used by the society’s elite, due to this they have an everlasting demand and dealers will often look for ways through which they can get a cheap source of them.

Sierra Leone provided a good source of cheap diamonds as there was no government to regulate and tax the diamonds. Thus it became easier for the dealers to get the diamonds as long as there was instability in the country and no central government. The RUF on the other hand needed weapons and money in order to finance the war and be in a position to overcome the government forces. Therefore, RUF and the diamond dealers formed a good business partnership since both were in need of each other.

As a result, the RUF captured villagers and forced them to work in the diamond mines, the harder they worked, the more the diamonds, the more money they got to purchase their weapons and become stronger than the government while being able to instil terror and control the people.

For the diamond dealers, the more money they gave them, the more the country became unstable thereby guarantying them wealth for a very long time. This relationship continued for a very long-time and the some of the diamond dealers substituted money for the diamonds with weapons. In the end the country’s’ citizens suffered, got maimed, enslaved and others died in wide scale.

In addition, the diamond sales did not bring any economic empowerment to the people or even the government; instead the money was squandered by the war lords. The countries infrastructure got depleted and even the diamond mines lacked the proper machinery to carry out the mining.

Instead, the miners were forced to carry out the work manually. In order to scale up their psychological control of the region, the RUF carried out nationwide amputation of limbs to prevent the citizens from ever taking place in elections and serving as a reminder to those who dared tried it (Ronald, 2006).

Due to Simons’ exposure of the ills that were brought by the illegal trading of the diamonds, the world agreed to put a stop to this by agreeing to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme that required diamond dealers to authenticate the source of their diamonds before selling them.

By doing this, purchasing of illegal diamonds from Sierra Leone was drastically cut down resulting in financial hardships for the RUF to buy ammunitions. From the above one could observe the sociological effects the war brought to children and the economical hardships from the presence of diamonds in the country.

Reference List

Beah, I (2008). A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. New York, NY: Farrar and Giroux.

Eberts, R. ( 2003). Movie year book. New York, NY: Andrews McMeel.

Hemmens, C. (2009). Criminological Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Maltins, L. ( 2008). Movie guide. New York, NY: Plume

Ronald, M. (2006). Criminology: theory, research, and policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Barlett Learning

The war of Vinyl Ridge involved the military, who participated in the Arras War that took place in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais section of France, which happened during the First World War.

The chief participants in the battle included the four divisions of the Canadian Corps and the German Six Army, which was composed of three divisions.

The aim of the involvement of the Canadian Corps was to dominate the land that was held high by the Germany, which was on an escarpment that was located at the Northern part of the Arras Offesive.¹

The Battle of Vimy Ridge embraces an exceptional position in the shared thoughts of Canadians. In this discussion, it will be observed that this conquest was a manifestation of birth of Canada as an independent nation.

Success in this battle was essential for scores of reasons. Among many other battles that took place around this time, this was one of those that endeavored to cut off the German lines.

Also, among the many battles that Canada engaged in, the conquest at Vimy Ridge was the only significant achievement. It offered a solid security for the British force, which faced the Germans in 1918.

The long-term famous perception of the Vimy Ridge Battle resulted into a turning point in the Canadian military competence, which culminated into a fresh self-governing Canadian national character.

Furthermore, victory on a field that the colonial masters had previously failed catapulted Canadians out of their national adolescence and placed them in their rightful position as independent citizens.²

The weakness that is associated with any explanation of how Canada emerged out of their colonial status into an independent nation following the battle of Vimy Ridge is the pretence of the character of the Canadian Corps conquest and amplification of its position in the constitutional development of Canada.

However, an intellectual re-examination of Canada’s most significant military accomplishment is worth tribute for the important part it played for the nation.

By then, Canada, which was under British Empire, had all the reasons to take part in this historic battle. Although there were many important battles that occurred during this time, undoubtedly, the Battle of Vimy Ridge held a fundamental position since it culminated into the nation’s self-governance.

For Canada, this battle was a cut-off point. Indeed, the holding of Vimy Ridge Battle, which took place in 1967, has substituted the 1867 British North America Act as the rightful birthday for the nation.

Vimy Ridge was an important battle position in northern France. The Germans had secured the ridge for battle by digging trenches, tunnels, and complex walls.

Both the British and the French had attempted to possess the ridge, but every effort to do so ended up in flare ups. Shockingly, more than 200,000 people had been killed while attempting to possess the ridge that appeared unfathomable.

When the Canadians attempted to possess the ridge, they took a record groundwork. Careful preparation would include a total imitation of the ridge on which training was thoroughly done until the layout of the ridge was completely understood.

The Canadian military took time to understand how to fire and load German weaponry so that, rather than transporting their own artillery, it could be possible to turn captured weapons against the adversary.

This calculated planning for the battle shows that the victory was not spontaneous and, hence, it disserves to be associated with the birth of the nation – it is a true manifestation of their prowess.

The then Canadian colonel, Andrew McNaughton, also revealed a way of locating the adversary’s weapons using their sound and flash.

This made it possible for the major German locations to be identified and methodically demolished before they opened fire. Additionally, this encouraged the British to plunge shells before the enemy could move forward, which enables the Canadians to advance at the back of a noisy ‘rolling barrage’.

The major strategist for the Vimy Ridge was Arthur Currie, a Canadian officer. This former schoolteacher amazed many by working privately and finally turning out to be one of the most respected generals of the Battle.

Again, this was a manifestation that Canada owned the battle and hence a significant incident in their history.³

The assault on the Vimy Ridge marked the first incident that all the four divisions of the Canadian military worked jointly.

The whole Canadian army, which included troops from Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Alberta among other places, approached the ridge in unison and patriotism, and they worked out vehemently.

They driven the German out of the ridge in a record three days, and captured more ground, guns, as well as prisoners. This is referred to as “the most perfectly organised and most successful battle of the whole war”.⁴

Besides, it was a dramatic conquest that transformed the direction of the battle in the favor of the Allies.

Following the battle of Vimy Ridge, the people of Canada were divided as storm troopers and engaged in one encounter after another.

David Lloyd Georg, the British Prime Minister said, “Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line, they prepared for the worst.”⁵

This is shows the prowess of Canadians in this battle. Arthur Currie, consequently, became the commandant of the whole Canadian military. It is sometimes thought that, if it were not for Canadian military together with Currie, Germany could have won the battle.

Canada earned a special position and admiration on the global scene, following this tremendous contribution and success. The political independence that followed the battle granted Canada powers to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which marked the end of the war without involvement of the Britain.

Conclusion

Canada did not recognise the victory of this battle as its greatest achievement, but also as a moment of making the nation. Actually, it is believed that Vimy Ridge was the occurrence that helped Canada acquire political autonomy.

Forever, the image of Canada was transformed. Following this victory, Canada, for the first time, was able to control its foreign affairs.

Before the war, Canada was still under vassal of Great Britain and could only control its domestic affairs. Additionally, Canada earned high accolade internationally – its international voice also grew stronger.

The number of Canadians who participated in this battle was extremely many, and the troop’s casualty for Vimy Ridge alone was particularly high.

Bibliography

Inglis Davis. Vimy Ridge: 1917-1992, A Canadian Myth Over Seventy Five Years. MA thesis: Simon Fraser University, 1995.

Morton Desmond. When Your Number’s Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War .Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd., 1993.

Nicholson, Colonel. Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914-1919 (Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War).Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964.

Riddle, David & Mitchell Donald. The Military Cross awarded to Members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force 1915-1921. Winnipeg: The Kirkby-Marlton Press, 1991.

Footnotes

¹ Inglis Davis, Vimy Ridge: 1917-1992, A Canadian Myth Over Seventy Five Years, (MA thesis: Simon Fraser University, 1995), 96

² Riddle, David & Mitchell Donald, The Military Cross awarded to Members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force 1915-1921 (Winnipeg: The Kirkby-Marlton Press, 1991), 91.

³ Morton Desmond, When Your Number’s Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War (Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd., 1993), 126.

⁴ Nicholson, Colonel, Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914-1919 (Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War) (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964), 122.

⁵ Riddle, David & Mitchell Donald, 91.

Introduction

The issue of border protection in the United States has always been contentious. Some people feel that protection across the border should be reinforced while others think that there is no need to strengthen security as it only contributes to more problems. Consequences of not securing our borders have a more significant price than we can imagine.

These consequences are called terrorism. If we increase our border and coastal security without interfering with the process of transporting legal goods and people through our borders, it will cut down on some of the problems we face. We should be able to do so without putting a strain on our relationship with any of our southern or northern countries. This paper will examine the security of U.S. borders, their consequent pros, and cons, the current state of security and possible solutions to security problems.

Border Security Pro’s

The frequency and amount of drugs that enter the United States have risen over the years. One of the reasons attributed to the level of unlawfulness has been cited as the increase in the number of illegal immigrants that bring along with them the illicit drugs. Due to the strictness and thoroughness of checking, conducted at airports and other legal entry points like ports, it has been cited that some terrorists use the illegal entry points to get into the United States (Alper, Day & Loucky, 2008).

Once such individuals get into the United States, their primary task is usually the perpetration of violent crimes against the people of the United States of America. So security at the border is seen as reducing the number of illegal immigrants that want to get into the country. Individuals cite that if people want to get into the country, they should do so in a legal manner using the correct routes such as applying for a green card.

One of the most essential functions of the security wall and measures that are taken to protect the borders is the prevention of overburdening of the taxpayer. When illegal immigrants come into the United States, the government has to take care of them through the social welfare programs that have been out in place.

Education and health care systems that are already strained with the increase in the population of American nationals is strained even more since the government has to cater for people that had not been taken into consideration when the national budget was being planned.

For the longest time, Arizona State has been one of the most used entry points by illegal immigrants. Fencing of the Southern and Northern borders has been cited as one of the most efficient ways of ensuring that terrorists do not get into the United States. About 8,500 illegal immigrants were caught in Arizona as they attempted to enter the United States in 2008 (Forest, 2006). This represents a vast number of individuals that might include terrorists, smugglers and other kinds of criminals.

All these individuals also constitute a percentage of people that were not budgeted for in the financial year that they attempted to enter the United States illegally. Illegal immigrants strain the available facilities and cause the government to overspend since they do not pay taxes. All the inhabitants of a country should pay taxes to contribute to government income for public expenditure. To pay taxes, an individual would have to be legally registered.

Proper implementation of border security would promote appropriate trade between nations such as between Canada and the United States on the Northern part of the country. The security measures would also encourage the collection of taxes and therefore provide a source of income for the two countries.

Leaders of the two countries could put their political agendas and differences aside to promote security and international trade for the good of the nationals of the countries involved. One of the most significant benefits of cooperation between the two nations would be the sharing of intelligence about criminals.

Cons of Border Security

The issue of border security has been criticized as contributing to the straining of taxpayer’s since the construction of the border security wall has proved to be very expensive. “Taxpayers for Common Sense” has given the estimates of constructing and maintaining the fence across the borders to be between about $350 million to $ 1.7 billion for every mile. “The Taxpayers for common sense” is a watch group that monitors the spending activities of the government and advocates for the correct spending of taxpayers’ money.

The group also estimated that the costs were expected to rise especially with the poor performance of America’s economy. The group cited an example of a $ 20 million security border project that had been implemented on the Arizona border but was abandoned halfway because it was claimed that the security equipment did not work as it should have and not in the way that it was expected to.

The surveillance gadgets had been highly credited that they would reduce the need for actual officers patrolling the borders (Alper, Day, & Loucky, 2008). However, illegal immigrants still got into the country when those surveillance gadgets had been installed making them seem very unreliable.

Environmental bodies and agencies feel that the border fence is doing and will continue to do more harm than good. When barriers are put up, animals cannot migrate from one region as freely as they want. This might interfere with the natural ecosystem as it might result in interfering with animals’ natural mating or feeding habits. For example, some animals might migrate to another part of the desert so that they can mate or because there is no food in the region where they are.

Therefore, by putting up a wall, the government would be acting as a hindrance to feeding or mating for the animals. By completing the process of putting up the fence, the United States government will have contravened many lands, and environmental laws and most environmentalists feel that the reason given for putting up the wall is not sufficient to justify the damage that will be caused.

The apprehension techniques used in the curbing of crime across the border have been criticized as being too harsh. A few officers have been charged or faced disciplinary measures because they used too much force when dealing with illegal immigrants.

The immigrants have complained that they would like the same treatment that is accorded to the United States nationals to be granted to them because even they (illegal immigrants) deserve to be treated with dignity as related to international human rights. In the year 2005, two border agents; Compean and Ramos shot and wounded an individual who was trying to illegally get into the United States (Forest, 2006). The illegal alien was attempting to cross the border while driving a van that was later discovered to have been carrying marijuana.

The two agents jailed for a minimum of ten years each. Border patrol agents also have to do hazardous work as most of the time they get shot at from across the Mexican border.

There have been many cases whereby Border patrol agents have been assassinated because of doing their work effectively. Hired people usually kill the agents. Drug cartels do the hiring because the agents hamper with their smuggling operations. Supposedly, at one time in the year 2008, there had been 2 million dollars bounty placed on the head of a border patrol agent.

One Border patrol agent; Rosas died under such circumstances in the line of duty. Such incidents usually contribute to misunderstandings between countries. Most of the time the countries involved start blaming each other while in a true sense there are individuals that are responsible for such actions and not whole countries. Such blaming attitudes might hamper the conducting of proper international trade which would be of benefit to both countries.

The Border patrol agent occupation has also been identified as one of the most dangerous careers in the country, especially in the Federal branch of the government. About four agents have drowned while in the line of duty, about 30 have had accidents that involve automobiles.

Vehicle assault, stabbing, motorcycle accidents, and gunfire are some of the major causes of death for the agents. The disadvantage is that most of the agents are stationed to work alone in large areas and they are vulnerable to attack by criminals. Most of the criminals are very determined since they feel that the only way for them to make money is through their illegal trade.

Security threats to the United States of America

After the September 11 attacks on the United States, a few of the government agencies that have been tasked with the provision of security to the United States were reorganized (Ganster & Lorey, 2008). The action was taken to ensure that all the security agencies had more explicit views of their roles in security control and provision. The Department of Homeland Security is one of the agencies, whose primary functions is that of ensuring that the United States is secure from external threats.

External threats are usually posed by terrorists who mostly have an international background. The Department of justice is linked to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Border patrol agency. These agencies have the role of gathering intelligence in the United States and enforcing laws on border security. These and more agencies in the United States had their missions and objectives re-organized after the September 11 attacks.

The Department of Homeland security has also involved the curbing of terrorist activity. Osama bin Laden was one of the leaders of the most notorious terror groups that had claimed the responsibility of organizing and implementing terror attacks against United States nationals and interests. Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Mujahidin are some of the terror groups that have been found responsible for terror attacks that have been conducted on US soil.

These terror groups are very organized, and their networks are spread all over the world. After the September 11 attacks, the US government got very serious in shutting down the operations of the groups. The United States government secured the necessary intelligence about the whereabouts of the Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The leader was killed in May 2011 as he resisted arrest (Johnson, 2010).

Funding is an essential factor in the carrying out of terror attacks, and the restriction of the attacks has contributed to the reduction of those attacks. As a result, most of the terror organizations have now targeted American interests that are outside of the United States, where they know security is not as tight and compelling as in the United States. Many terror group leaders and associated members have also been arrested and questioned for the acquisition of intelligence by the United States government.

Security of US borders

The United States-Canada border has been criticized as having no protection and being neglected by government security agents. Guns, narcotics, and illegal drugs have been described as the most common forms of substances that are smuggled across the border. In 2005, three men were arrested while they tried to complete the construction of a tunnel that would help them hide illegal substances between the United States and Canada.

The underground tunnel had been constructed between the city of Washington in the United States and the city of British Columbia in Canada. A high number of migrants are also reported to be smuggled between the two borders. A lot of commodities are also supposedly transported between the borders which results in the loss of millions of dollars for both countries (Ganster & Lorey, 2008). The money that is lost could be used in the improvement of facilities in the two countries or on the border such as roads.

The Border patrol was enacted in the United States in 1924. But it was not until the 90’s decade that the act was fully enforced. Statistics show that the efforts of the Border patrol agents together with officers deployed from the military resulted in a reduction in the number of illegal immigrants especially those that smuggled illicit drugs into the United States.

The number of individuals that attempted to cross the border has been cited as having decreased from 600,000 to 153,000; an improvement which has been made through the construction of the border security wall. The border at San Diego is especially notorious for being used as a crossing point by illegal immigrants. This might be cited in support of putting up a fence as an effective means of stopping illegal immigrants from entering the country.

Solutions to the US border security concerns

The focus should be made towards the curbing of organized crime that focuses on the distribution of illegal drugs in border towns in the northern and southern sides of the United States. The illegal drug trade has been cited as being rampant mostly on the border towns of Mexico and the United States like in El Paso, Chihuahua, and Texas.

The judicial systems of both countries should collaborate so that they can put away organized criminals that supply and distribute illegal drugs between the borders. The police and other government-owned intelligent agencies should share the information that they hold concerning criminals.

The shared information can be utilized in the coming up of tact and strategy to put away the criminals for a long time. The use of the members of the community to drive away organized drug criminals has also been proposed as a means of ridding the two countries of organized criminals.

The members of the communities could help with the identification of the members of the drug cartels. Most of the drug trade has been cited as being successful because organized cartels run them. Identifying the people that run cartels can lead to the shutting down of the illegal activities of such groups that negatively impact the community (Johnson, 2010).

More border patrol agents should be assigned at the Canadian United States border because of the vulnerability in that part of the two countries. Operations at the United States and Mexican border have been tightened, and most criminals must be aware of that fact so some of them must have resulted to the Canadian United States border as a means of smuggling terror attack tools and themselves into the United States. Many commodities pass through the Canadian United States border that evades tax.

Establishing of a border patrol agency could lead to an efficient means of collecting tax on these commodities and the money raised from the tax could be used to run an efficient border patrol agency. The agency should be organized so that it is composed of members of law enforcement from both Canada and the United States (Warner, 2010). Canada and the United States should ensure that they share intelligence that they hold concerning criminals. This would fasten up the apprehension and lock up of many criminals for a long time.

Conclusion

The paper has successfully looked at the pros and cons of border security. One of the most significant advantages that would be obtained from the border security would be the creation of a safe environment from terrorists for US nationals. Measures to ensure that the highest possible security is available to the US nationals is paramount especially after the terror attacks that the nation has faced over the last few years and after the September 11 attacks. One of the biggest cons of border security is the expected destruction of the environment.

Putting up and maintaining the wall between US and Mexico has been cited as being an effective measure of ensuring that no illegal migrants or commodities enter or leave the United States. The move has also been cited as one that would heavily burden the taxpayers. The United States has suffered from terror attacks from extremist groups.

After the September 11 terror attacks, the government established the Homeland security; a department formed to implement measures that would guarantee security to its people. The department has been successful in the apprehension of many terror group leaders and supporters.

Security at the US Northern and Southern borders is a significant concern that should be seriously looked into to ensure that the US nationals are secure in the country (Warner, 2010). Communities that live close to the borders should get involved in the reporting and helping in the uprooting of illegal activities from the community.

Reference List

Alper, D., Day, J. C., & Loucky, J. (2008). Transboundary policy challenges in the Pacific border regions of North America. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Forest, J. (2006). Homeland security: Protecting America’s targets. Westport: Praeger Security International.

Ganster, P., & Lorey, D. (2008). The U.S.-Mexican border into the twenty-first century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Johnson, B. (2010). Bridging national borders in North America: Transnational and comparative histories. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.

Warner, J. (2010). U.S. border security: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Introduction

There have been various debates regarding whether it is necessary to enlist eighteen year olds to serve in the military for two years after high school. This paper will focus on arguments which support and oppose the enlisting of eighteen year olds into the military.

Pros

Proponents argue that mandatory conscription at eighteen makes the military stronger. The military is able to get new and passionate young people every year who appreciate the value of defending their country. These young people become valuable assets to the country because they make the military well prepared to deal with any form of aggression.

Military conscripts who are enlisted at the age of eighteen acquire strong experiences which make them see life in a different perspective. This makes the young conscripts to work hard to become more responsible citizens in the future. These experiences mould their characters and personalities.

Military conscription at eighteen helps the conscripts to be aware of the national security issues which the country is facing and how to defend it, in case of an attack. The conscripts are able to understand the best course of action, if the country is attacked by an external aggressor.

Eighteen year olds who are drafted in the military get an opportunity to acquire different skills and knowledge that will be helpful in their future careers. They acquire special knowledge in fields such as IT, medicine and engineering which improves the quality of human resource skills in the country.

These conscripts are made to learn the virtues of sacrifice and patriotism to the nation. They become aware of the importance of unity, peace and tranquillity in fostering national cohesion. The conscripts also learn to appreciate the role of the military in fostering national cohesion.

Cons

If the military service is made mandatory, many young conscripts would not value its importance. Some conscripts are likely to find the experience unpleasant and this will result in a poorly trained military service incapable of fulfilling defence objectives.

Mandatory military conscription at the age of eighteen strips away the right of young people to choose what they want to be in future. This violates personal freedoms and liberties that all citizens in the country are granted by the US constitution.

Mandatory military service can be used to achieve selfish motives of leaders and politicians who seek to achieve their own interests. Conscripts are likely to undergo military training whose objectives are not clear. They may be used to increase numbers in the military with the intent of attacking other countries without any provocation.

Mandatory military service wastes the valuable time of youth who join the program. These youth are likely to be sidetracked from their education and careers. The time wasted in the military denies them a chance to transition from high school to college and this reduces their prospects in life.

At eighteen, conscripts are yet to attain the required level of physical maturity to engage in combat. They can get severe fractures and injuries that make them dependent on state welfare from a very early age if they engage in combat. This restricts their future productivity because they become war veterans at a young age.

Mandatory conscription programs drain government financial resources which can be invested in other productive sectors. The government can divert these finances to other training programs, important for the professional development of young people in the country.

Operation Anaconda took place in early March 2002 in the Shahikot Valley and the Armagh Mountains, Afghanistan. This operation was the first large-scale battle in the US war in Afghanistan since the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001. It was also the first operation in Afghanistan to include a large number of US conventional forces, other than air forces, in direct combat. Between March 2 and March 16, 2002, 1,700 US troops and 1,000 pro-government Afghan militias were deployed to capture 300 to 1,000 Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to gain control of the valley (Hastert, 2004).

It seems reasonable to suggest that during the operation, the US military leaders adhered to the seven principles of mission command. These are “competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk acceptance” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. x). Despite the fact that there were a number of difficulties and unexpected factors that indicated several problems within the operation’s governance, the command still remained well-organized and followed these seven principles.

According to Kugler (2007), “the command structure was multi-headed” (p. 9). Such a state of affairs implies that there were several commanders responsible for dealing with serious issues. There were many intersected units accountable to different military leaders. In this vein, the principles of mutual trust and shared understanding are visible. The command structure units did not hesitate to delegate authorities and responsibilities to each other, which implies their trust in each other – this contributes to confidence both at the headquarters and battlefield. Then, the fact that there was no confusion in implementing orders by different units means that they understood the situation on a shared basis.

Then, the principle of commander’s intent “is a clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired military end state that supports mission command” (Department of the army, 2019, p. 1-10). It should be admitted that before the operation, the command had designed a comprehensive and concise plan that had clearly stated aims and roles each unit should play. This principle was visible further when the necessity to adapt the plan occurred – the command followed the best practices in this regard as well, which led to relative success in the aftermath. At this point, the reasons for the mentioned adaptation should be provided to further discuss the remaining principles.

From the very beginning of the operation, things did not go as planned by American strategies. The result of the bombing was exactly the opposite of what the Americans had hoped for. Instead of running in panic and hiding, the Taliban drove up several pickups with mounts. As a result of the shelling, about 40 special forces and the Afghans accompanying them were killed or injured. The US attempt to push deeper into the valley faced fierce resistance from small arms fire, heavy machine guns, and mm mortars. At that moment, it finally became clear that a surprise attack would not work as the Taliban’s defenses were well-prepared. After the start of the battle, Afghan forces that were in an alliance with the US troops hastily retreated to the village, which is outside the combat zone (Hastert, 2004).

After this, the US command had to adapt their plan to the new realities. The fast and advanced development of the plan – which was quite successful – indicates that the leadership was competent and followed the related principle. Then, the principle of mission orders implies that the ongoing directives coming from the command are unified, clear, and are to be followed. Given the significant strategic vector change of operation that was adequately perceived by the US troops (Kugler, 2007), it seems that the latter principle was followed.

Moreover, these troops strictly adhered to the orders provided, even after some tactical failures and considerable changes – this emphasizes the implementation of disciplined initiative (Department of the Army, 2019). Finally, risk acceptance took place in the command’s actions as well. It is visible from the initial Anaconda plan that involved rapid, forced, and resource-taking attacks on the Taliban units, which, unfortunately, was not successful.

It might be concluded that the united forces failed to achieve successes that they aspired to achieve initially, except for ousting the militants from the Shahikot valley. It is only a stretch to consider this a victory, especially since this victory came at a very high price. Many Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders who took refuge in caves around Shahikot escaped. This was confirmed by the interception of a convoy of three off-road vehicles. After the completion of Operation Anaconda, the American military leadership drew appropriate conclusions. Much attention was paid to improving the coordination of joint actions between different branches of the armed forces and communication between them.

And most importantly, all subsequent operations of this kind were authorized only after a careful study of intelligence obtained from various and independent sources. Also, this operation served as an example of not relying on technology alone. Afterward, the US army paid more attention to the appropriate implementation of the principles of command – especially in terms of competence.

References

Kugler, R. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: a case study of adaptation in battle. The Center for Technology and National Security Policy. Web.

Hastert, P. L. (2004). Operation Anaconda: Perception meets reality in the hills of Afghanistan. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28(1), 11–20.

Department of the Army. (2019). ADP 6-0 mission command. Federation of American Scientists. Web.

Introduction

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still one of the most controversial happenings in recent history. Historians have passionately debated whether the bombings were essential, the effect that they had in ending the war in the Pacific Region, and what other alternatives were on hand for the United States.

These very same questions were also debatable during that time, as American decision makers deliberated on how to put to use powerful new technology and what the long-term impact of atomic weaponry would be on the Japanese (Hasegawa 96). This essay presents a debate on reasons why the U.S. was not justified in using the atomic bomb on Japan.

Most historians who have been taking part in the debate on how World War II ended have based much of their focus on why the U.S. decided to drop the atomic bomb. Despite the much emphasis placed on this matter, there has been little attention directed on the role played by the Japanese in ending the war.

Even less information is available on soviet-decision-making and their joining the war against Japan. One of the major obstacles, which were overcome only recently, was the absence of a historian who was fluent in English, Japanese and Russian to enable him to examine the major materials, which included government, military, and intelligence memos and reports in all the three languages. This explains in part why most of the available literature on the subject only touches on the American side of the story.

One of the reasons why bombing Japan was not justified is because America had other options, which they could have used to compel Japan to surrender. In his 2005 milestone study titled Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa critically examines the threefold wartime relationship between America, Japan, and the Soviet Union.

What comes out from this careful study is the fact that America had other options that they could have pursued instead of the bombings but which they chose to ignore. According to Hasegawa (100), the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had indicated to America that he would attack Japan on 15 August 1945.

This meant that America had up to 15^th August to force Japan to surrender in order to prevent the Soviet union from joining the war something that would make Truman and his government to appear weak. Contrary to the claim that Americans used the bomb as a last resort, Hasegawa disagrees and claims that the early August date was chosen to counter the Soviets’ impeding attack in order to prevent them from joining the war.

In fact, the diligent research done by Hasegawa dispels the notion that the bombings weakened Japan’s position thus leading to their surrender.

According to the historian, the myth that the bombings weakened Japan’s will to fight and that they saved both Japanese and American soldiers is only meant to justify Truman’s decision and help in easing the conscience of the American people. According to Hasegawa, this myth lacks any historical backing since there is enough evidence to show that there were other alternatives besides the use of the bombs but Truman and his administration chose to ignore them.

Historians claim that Truman’s main worry was that allowing Stalin to enter the war would be an important strategic gain for him and this would pose a big threat to American interests in the region. With a deadline to beat, the only option that remained for Truman and his administration was to use the atomic bomb (Hasegawa 101).

Although Japan had not yet given a public indication that it intended to surrender, insiders knew that the country could not continue with the war and surrender was imminent.

This admission is contained in intelligence reports showing that Truman was privy to information that Japan had abandoned its goal of victory and was instead planning on how to harmonize its national pride with losing the war. With this kind of information, it is clear that America had no justification whatsoever to use the bombs since it was only a matter of time before the Japanese admitted defeat.

The second reason that makes the American bombing unjustified is the deeply flawed casualty claims. As it is, the exact number of Allied and Japanese lives that were likely to be lost during the intended invasion remains unknown. However, it is evident that those who supported the bombing have escalated the prediction of those who could have died from the earlier prediction of 45,000 given by the U.S. War Department.

Ten years after the bombings, Truman claimed that George Marshall feared losing close to a half million soldiers if the war was not brought to an abrupt close. This contradicted the claims by Stimson the Secretary of War who two years after the war had claimed that over a million people were dead, wounded, or missing.

In a 1991 address to congress, George Bush claimed that Truman’s decision to drop the bomb ‘spared’ millions of American lives. Four years after the claims by Bush, a crewmember of Bock’s car, the plane that dropped one of the bombs stated that the bombing preserved the lives of over six million people.

Over the years, historians have provided evidence to show that the casualty figures offered by Truman and his bombing supporters were seriously flawed. One historian claimed that the people who supported the high casualty claims relied upon strained readings and omitted crucial material, which in effect limited their research and cast a shadow of doubt on their findings.

Hasegawa and other anti-bombing historians did not refute the claim that Truman was concerned at the possibility of America losing many lives during the invasion, but the projected numbers were way below the exaggerated figures provided after the war to rationalize the bombings.

Such inflated figures, along with Japan’s presumed rejection of surrendering is usually a part of the debate on why the atomic bombs were necessary but from the proffered evidence, these claims are highly questionable.

Another reason to prove that the bombing was not justified is derived from looking at the real reasons why Japan surrendered. According to political analysts, postwar interviews with numerous Japanese military and civilian leaders showed that Japan could have given in before November 1, which is the date that the U.S. had planned to invade the country.

This was not because Japan was afraid of atomic bombs or the impeding Soviet entry but because they had no reason to continue fighting in a war, which they were certain to lose. This conclusion definitely supports the view that the bombings were not in any way necessary to end the war and their use was therefore unjustified.

Historians project that given the huge impact that the Soviet entry into the war and the air-naval blockade imposed by the Allied forces, there is high possibility that Japan would have surrendered before any invasion since its resources to support the war had dwindled. Historians question why Truman was not willing to avoid the costly invasion of Japan by allowing the Soviet entry instead of dropping the bombs.

The question of Truman and his administration not knowing about Japan’s intention to surrender does not arise since historians have discovered records showing that Truman was in possession of intercepted and decoded Japanese intelligence communication, which showed their willingness to surrender.

As Hasegawa (110) rightly put it, if Truman and his ilk really wanted to desist from using the atomic bomb as it was claimed after the war, then why was the intelligence reports in the intercepted cables ignored? According to the historian, stressing the decisive role of the atomic bombs in ending the war was meant to weaken the importance of soviet entry into the war thus making inconsequential the Soviet role in ending the war. This was meant to display the super weapon that was only possessed by the United States.

Conclusion

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) is still one of the most debated topics in modern history. According to most historians, the bombings were unjustified because there were other available options to end the war but they were ignored.

Contrary to the claim that Americans used the bomb as a last resort, most historians disagree and claim that the early August date was chosen to counter the Soviets’ impeding attack on August 15 1945. This ensured that America got the credit for ending the war.

Works Cited

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Harvard University Press, 2005. 89-112. Print.

Anders Berring Breivik was the man accused of the terrorist attack that took place in Oslo. Through his document that he posted on the website on July 22 hours before the attacks took, we get to learn that he had a fair standard ideology of far right. The document which he named 2030- A European Declaration of Independence evoked several themes in central movements and mentions numerious ideologies of the right wing (Chesterton 2011).

However, after close inspections, it was found that Mr Breivik’s view of the world did not match any of the established ideologies of the right wig which include Christian fundamentalism, Ultanationalism and supremacism. Rather his worldview revealed new doctrines to the civilizational war that represented the Chrristian version of an Al Qaeda. This was revelead through his statement when he exclaimed that he feared extinction of Nordic genotypes.

This meant that his main agenda was not racial hygiene, but rather he wanted to expel but not kill muslims who were in Europe. He did not mind about the non-muslims Asians and the Jews. Mr Breivik is not a Norweign nationalist but he is extremely proud of his Norwign/ Odinistic heritage and that is why he declares independence for all Europeans.

He publicly declares his religion of being a Christian, however, not a very religious one. Mr Breivik wants to change his views concerning Western Islamazation in Europe. He actually views himself as a defence war soldier against Islamic imperialism. Breivik views muslims as colonized Europeans who were helped by multicultural doctrines and high birth rates which were advocated by the European elites (Hegghammer 2005).

Mr Breivik view muslims as an extisting threat to European civilazation and that is why they must end up their existance by all means. Waging war against them was the best way to counter them since they were traitors who allowed colonization to occur. According to Marxists muslims are European intellectual and political elites and that is why they are considered as traitors.

Despite the exceptional violent acts of Breivik, he does not have enough knowledge of Islams (Huntington 1996). His manifasto is mainly inspired by new intellectuals of the right-wing which is currently referred to as counterjihad. The roots of the movement can be traced back in 1980s but it only gained momentum after the occurance of 9/11.

The internet has become a home to Breivik where different views are aired in blogs like Atlas Shrugs, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch publications and written by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Fjordman and Bat Ye’or for Norwegian blogs. Many counterjihad writers replete Breivik manifestos which is a sign that they were inspired by him.

Mr Breivik also advocates mass murder of most prominent European politicians. He gives details information concerning the issue and his main manifesto contains information and ideas that no counterjihad existing ideologist has ever discussed. Mr. Breivik provides an extensive piece of advice on building bombs and the way to plan terrorist attacks.

However, he was condemned by the leading counterjihad writers for advocating violence; they actually condemned Breivik for his actions. Breivik openly announced that he was a member of knightly order known as European Military Order and Criminal Tribunal. He describes the group as a reincarnation of Knights Templar which he himself found in the year 2002 in London with some activists from eight countries across Europe (Hegghammer 2005).

Mr. Breivik has a similar ideology with the Al Qaeda’s since they both see themselves to be engaged in civilizational war between West and Islam that actually exceeds all existing crusades. They both fight on behalf of existing transitional entities refered to as community or ummah for Europeans and Al Qaedans.

The phrase Ummah also known as one Community mainly refers to Islamic unified world (Hegghammer 2005). The nation should produce the mankind who command righteous and forbid anything that is considered as wrong. Both Breivik and Al Qaedas frame the struggles they face in the wars as defensive war survivals.

They actually both hate their former governments for collaborating with those they refer to as outside enermies. Both Mr. Breivik and Al Qaedas use matyrdom language; Breivik calls those who attacks him as matyrdom operation. They also both call themselves espouse medieval ideals and knights of chivalry. They also lament partriarchy erosion and women emancipation (Hegghammer 2005).

These numerous existing similarities between Mr. Breivik and Al Qaeda only mean that Mr. Breivik is mainly inspired by Al Qaedas or he is simply trying to emulate them. However, Al Qaeda’s actions suggest that they manifest the same generic ideological phenomenon; a macro-nationalism which is a varient of nationalism used to cluster nations or states held together by similar notions like ummah or the West (Hegghammer 2005).

Great Macro-nationalists actually view their own people to be low in attacks and fights when it comes to defending themselves. Pan-Islamism which is muslim world has got a long history and they have always been inspired by militance since 1980s, a period when Arabs used to travell to Afghanistan to fight their fellow Muslims against the Soviet occupation. However, the West lacked similar movements in comparison to those of Pan-Islamism (Praveen 2000).

Nevertheless, it is expected that this could change after the appearance of Breivik manifesto and the rise of counterjihad in 2000. In case a violent anti-muslim movement emerges in West, what we expect is a division on the question who the target will be. Some members of the movement would prefer to punish European elites with the same reason which is the treason just like Mr. Breivik did. Others will prefer to attack the muslims directly just like they did it with the snipers who injured and killed several immigrants in Malmo in Sweden last year.

One of the greatest tasks that the country has is countering macro-nationalists like Breivik and Al Qaedas. This is because they normally get popular support even if they are involved in mass murder which is something that is universally rejected.

Mr. Breivik is a relatively large reservoir of European anti-muslims sentiments just like the AlQaedas exploit widespread Muslim oppossition policies in Middle East. However, many hope that Breivik’s actions will be horrific and undermine his major cause since one Al Qaeda is more than enough. Breivik hopes that countries such as Phillipines, Thailand and China will succeed him in the fight.

In conclusion, it must be mentioned that this article looks more at the broad view of civilisations in violent struggles for survival and supremacy. It clearly defines what macro-nationalists think of the views and adeologies of confessed Norwegian mass murder Mr. Breivik. He struggles much in trying to implement the democratic regimes.

Breivik apprecites those Hindu groups which actually do not sustain the injustice; they carry out riots and attacks on Muslims whenever things worsen but their main ideology is that their attacks are counterproductive. However, they do not attack the muslims directly instead, they target consolidate millitary cells in India with the aim of overthrowing the cultural Marxist government.

Breivik envisages that future organizations would actually hand out multi cultural force which will bring military cooperation with the Buddhist, nationalists, Jewish and Hindu. He believes that these forces will help fight against the cultural Marxist forces (Clark 2011).

This article also advocates how many Neo-cons in America are in need of global war with the radical muslims Mr. Breivik’s worldview does not fit into established categories of the ideologies of the right-wing just like fundamentalism, supremacism and ultranationalism. It however reveals all the new civizational war doctrines that represent how Christians view Al Qaeda since Mr. Breivik himself is a christian though not a strong one.

This article clearly shows how people view muslims and what they can do within their power to see that the Al Qaedas stop terrorizing Western countries. However, they use almost the same tactics as those of the Al Qaedas to stop the killings. This article also clearly shows what America turned into after the incident of 9/11 which left many people injured while some lost their loved ones.

Based mainly on ethnicity , religion and cultural essense, they all try to unify all the members of pan-groups that are beyond the nationalist boundaries. The above ideologies have been ignored by many governements and states.

References

Chesterton, G. (2011). The Rise of the Macro-Nationalists. New York: Barnes & Nobel.

Clark, N. (2011). Nationalism: Classical, Macro and Regional. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Hegghammer, T. (2005).Counter-Jihad’ fake nationalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huntington, S.1996. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Praveen, S. (2000). Norwegian Mass Killers Manifesto Hails Hindutva. New York: Free Press.

Why Germany Lost and Why It Took the Allies So Long to Win

As the World War II began, in 1939, most of the European countries were forming alliances to gear up for the war. Most of the Eastern Europe countries ganged up with Germany to form a stronger alliance. Germany was the favorites in this war and proclaimed to be the strongest contender in the whole of Europe.

German had conquered nearly half of Europe thus making it easy for them to pursue the other countries in war. With Adolf Hitler in command, he led his army to brutally fight and conquer what he termed as enemies of Germany (Overy, 1997).

Germany’s strong point was that they used heavy artillery and had a remarkably stable air force. With a total number of 6000 tanks and 4000 aircrafts, the Germans foresaw early victory in this war. They had a grand master plan on how to win the war. They engaged massive tank battles and destabilized most of the eastern front forces.

Nazi forces conquered Denmark, Sweden and Poland which was a vital process to Hitler. This conquest assured him that he would win the war. After a series of wars, Germany managed to defeat Holland, France and Belgium hence the Nazi’s continued to push further and attack Britain (Overy, 1997).

In the pacific waters, the Japans were fighting on behalf of the Germans. They had the same ideologies as the Germans hence led to Hitler ordering the massive massacre of the Jewish. Germans were in the fore front in production of armories, hence gave them an upper hand to control the distribution of army resources. Germany and Japan were well prepared for the war hence they had initiated recruitment process of recruiting young soldiers and engaging them to vigorous training (Overy, 1997).

The Germany’s fighting front faced some weaknesses. Hitler was not certain on what decision to take. When engaging the soviet forces, he took so long to decide whether to attack or not. He wanted to use his new fleet of tanks known as panther tanks. He was extremely confident that the panther tanks will grant him victory.

The soviet forces caught them unaware, and defeated them in this battle. All his hopes of using the panther tanks went down the drain since most of this tanks broke down at the battle while a good number of the tanks fell into his opponents’ hands. Another weakness is that the Germans underestimated the capability of their enemies.

In the battle against Britain, the German forces had planned an operation Sealion. They were to destabilize the Royal Air Force altogether. However, the Royal Air Force with the help of the Soviet Union overturned Germany’s plan and defeated them. This infuriated Hitler, and he decided to invade Russia (MacDonald, 2009).

Another outstanding setback came after Adolf Hitler’s suicide mission. The Nazi had to fight for their lives and without anyone to lead them thus they gave up on the war. The Nazi’s encountered a lot of challenges like; lack of fuel for their tanks and air crafts, food for their army and medical treatment. The Americans decided to stop the Nazi’s from conquering the world. They attacked the japans with atomic bombs and crippled the Germans front in the Asian wing.

As with the allies, they had more sophisticated tanks than the Germans and more technology on war fare. They invented the atomic bombs which played a crucial role to destroy the German forces. Moreover, the allies were considerably favored with these sophisticated scientific inventions. They also merged industrial power for instance Britain and France, Soviet Union and America.

This enabled them to be much superior in terms of manufacturing key resources of war. Their industrial capability overshadowed that of the Germans. The allies also were the leading suppliers of petroleum to Japan hence it was easy to cripple Japan by just denying them this precious commodity. The Royal Air Force of Britain was superior to the Germans’ air force.

This led to the defeated of Germans’ air force. With this silent defeat, British air force took control of nearly half of Europe air space. The allies had an upper hand on this since they forced Germany to sign the treaty of Versailles. This treaty limited the Germans not to use tanks, air crafts and other heavy artillery. The allies were extremely organized and well planned.

This as well gave them an upper hand to counter both the Japanese army at sea and the Germans. The allies had powerful air forces and controlled the naval activities. This was the key aspect to win the war. The red army of the allies learnt how to fight effectively as a unit until the war ended. They gained much support from the civilian resources thus they built up confidence to win this war (Overy, 1997).

The allies faced limited expenditure on army machinery. This gave an upper hand to the Germans since they invested all their resources to acquire the best military machinery. Hitler had significantly interfered with the weaponry of the allies hence they faced a lot of complications in operating these weapons.

The allies’ soldiers were mostly unskilled giving them a lot of difficulties in the war. Fighting a very ruthless leader such as Hitler proved to be an exceedingly difficult task since most of the allies’ army soldiers were brutally murdered. Any provocation towards him led to many innocent victims dying.

German was well prepared for this war, and as a result, many allies’ soldiers were caught unaware when the war began. Many countries rallied behind Germany in World War II. It was very easy for Germany to get their support since all these countries were Germany’s conquest in the earlier battles (Overy, 1997).

References

Overy, R. (1997). Why the Allies Won. New York: W.W. Norton Publishers.

MacDonald, F. (2009). World War 2. New York: Gareth Stevens Publishing.

During the course of recent decades, there has been a clear tendency among many Western historians to strive to distort the history of WW2, especially when underlying reasons for Germany’s attack of Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 is being concerned.

Russell Stolfi’s 1991 book Hitler’s Panzers East represents the perfect example of historical pseudo-revisionism, aimed to discourage ordinary citizens from making critical inquiries into officially endorsed view on Germany’s war against USSR as such that has been instigated by Hitler’s irrational desire to expand his country’s ‘living space’.

According to Stolfi, in the summer of 1941, German army was fully capable of defeating Soviet Union: “My purpose is to show that the German armed forces… could have advanced through Moscow into the Moscow-Gorki space in August to October 1941” (p. ix). This statement alone reveals the sheer ridiculousness of Stolfi’s assumption that, had Germans captured Moscow before the winter of 1941, they would have automatically won war against Soviet Union.

Apparently, despite his academic credits, author never heard of what happened to Napoleon’s army in the winter of 1812, after it had captured Russian capital. In all probability, it simply never occurred to Stolfi that eastwards of Moscow, Russian territory extends by another eight thousands kilometers and that by the end of summer of 1941, 60% of Soviet military production lines have been relocated beyond Ural Mountains.

Given the fact that, as we have shown, book’s foremost conceptual thesis appears thoroughly fallacious, it comes as no surprise that Hitler’s Panzers East contains a number of unsubstantiated and even deliberately misleading claims.

For example, Stofli suggests that the reason why Hitler attacked USSR in June of 1941 is that he thought that this would help him winning the war against Britain and that he sought the expansion of Germany’s lebensraum to the East: “He (Hitler) reiterated with impressive consistency the argument that the Soviet Union was Britain’s last hope for continuing the struggle… Hitler made it clear that German destiny would be realized one way or another in European Russia the East” (p. 8).

Nevertheless, as recently unclassified documents from Russia’s secret archives indicate, Stalin was about to invade Germany, and consequentially the whole Europe, on July 6, 1941.

It is namely due to this, and not due to Stalin’s sheer stupidity, as many ‘progressive’ Western and Communist historians would like people to believe, that as of June 1941, the force of five million strong, supported by 20.000 tanks (with the total number of Soviet tanks amounting to 28.000 – twice the number of all world’s tanks put together) and by 10.000 aircrafts, has been concentrated within fifty kilometers wide strip, along Soviet-German border.

Therefore, it is utterly inappropriate to explain German attack on USSR by Hitler’s bloodthirstiness, as Stofli does – on June 22, 1941 Wehrmacht had struck Soviet Union in essentially preemptive manner.

It is hard to disagree with Stolfi when he claims that by the end of July, Red Army has been virtually destroyed. Yet, the reason for this had nothing to do with Red Army not being ready for war, but with the fact that through years 1939-1941, Soviets were getting ready for an offensive, not defensive war.

This is why throughout May-June of 1941; Soviets have been occupying themselves with removing barbed-wire defenses along the border with Germany and with building roads that led straight to this border. In his book Icebreaker, famous Russian WW2 historian Victor Suvorov (1990) states: “It was not, of course, for Hitler’s benefit that Meretskov, Zhukov and Beria (Soviet generals) had built roads and railways and stockpiled supplies along the border.

It was to let the Soviet ‘liberation’ army loose on Europe, with speed and with nothing in its path, and to keep it supplied in the course of its surprise offensive” (p. 82). Therefore, despite what Stofli implies in his book, Soviet Army’s defeats of 1941 came as the result of Germans catching it at the worst possible time – in the middle of getting ready to launch an assault on Europe.

Had Hitler postponed his attack by two weeks, Red Army would have overrun German defenses in essentially blitzkrieg-like manner, just as Hitler had done it to Poland and France before. Yet, under no circumstances can Germany’s military successes in the summer of 1941 be explained by fact that at the time, German army was much stronger than the Red Army.

Germans had no winter clothing, no freeze-resistant gasoline and oil, no adequate artillery (throughout the course of Eastern campaign, 80% German artillery consisted of captured Soviet artillery pieces – best in the world), no long-range bomber planes. All of their 3320 tanks were obsolete, especially when compared with Soviet latest tanks KV-1 and T-34, the number of which alone in Soviet Western military districts amounted to approximately 800.

However, even 9.000 of Soviet ‘obsolete’ tanks BT-5, with 75mm long-barreled anti-tank gun, were easily capable of dealing with Germany’s newest T‑IV tanks, featuring short-barreled 50mm gun, especially given the fact that the number of T‑IV tanks amounted to only 230.

And yet, historians like Stolfi prove themselves arrogant enough to suggest that, when compared to Red Army, German Werchmaht was superior, while going as far as implying that Germans had no problems whatsoever, when dealing with Soviet tanks: “Fortunately for the Germans, the Soviets had only a few T- 34 tanks available for combat in June and July 1941” (p. 165).

This statement, of course, is an outright lie – as it was shown in Suvorov’s book, throughout June, July and August of 1941, Germans had captured at least 300 KV-1 and T-34 tanks, which had been immediately converted for the use by Wehrmacht.

Most of these tanks had been lost to Germans not because their crews were not ready for combat per se, or because these tanks were not of high quality, but because their crews were not ready for particularly defensive combat, especially when finding themselves encircled in pockets, deep behind the frontline, with Luftwaffe’s complete dominance in the sky.

Upon being exposed to the sight of advancing German troops, without being given orders for defensive action, the crews would simply get out of their tanks and start walking home – pure and simple. It is one thing embarking upon the ‘liberation’ of Europe, when being encouraged by NKVD’s ‘friendly’ fire from behind.

However, it is another thing defending Soviet ‘workers’ paradise’, where citizens have been turned into slaves, especially given the fact that Stalin kept silent until July 3, 1941, which instilled Soviet soldiers with a sensation that the war against Germany was lost.

Therefore, it is quite impossible to agree with Stolfi when he suggests that Hitler had good chances of defeating Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. Hitler’s attack was suicidal, which is exactly the reason why he initially succeeded with inflicting heavy blow upon Soviet army – Soviet leaders simply never expected Hitler being arrogant enough to decide to strike USSR with technically obsolete and numerically inferior army.

This is why Stalin kept on dismissing intelligence reports about Germany’s impending attack. Nevertheless, just as a wounded bear, Stalin’s USSR was able to regain its strength back and to put an end to National-Socialist Germany by 1945.

By attacking Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler was able to postpone Germany’s demise by four years and to save Western Europe from being ‘liberated’ by Red Army in the same year, as Stalin originally planned. Yet, it does not make Hitler’s attack less suicidal – unfortunately, historians like Stolfi continue to have a hard time, while trying to understand this simple fact.

References

Stolfi, R. (1991). Hitler’s panzers east. Oklahoma City, University of Oklahoma Press.

Suvorov, V. (1990). Icebreaker: Who started the Second World War? London, Hamish Hamilton.

Introduction

The London bombings of 2005 occurred on Seventh July in the morning hours commonly referred to as the rush hour where four bombs were detonated killing more than fifty people and injuring more than seven hundred. The attacks targeted the British civilians particularly those using underground trains.

Three out of the four explosions took place in underground trains and they occurred in quick succession leading to panic through out the public transport system in London and other major towns in the European region. The United States of America also became alert as there were fears its transport system would also be targeted.

The fourth bomb detonated an hour later in a double-decker bus and this made the public panic even more due to the sensitivity of the issue and it almost brought business to a standstill due to fear (Frost, par 3, 2008). However, with time the public regained their confidence on public means though caution was still high.

Circumstances and Responses to the London Bombings of 2005

As a result of the London bomb attacks; there were high alert responses from disaster preparedness management departments and also massive response from other emergency services through out the city of London. In the weeks that followed, people almost shunned the use of London’s public transport system especially after another attack targeting the public was experienced few days later.

It was only after some weeks later that the public started showing back some confidence in the public transport system by defying all the odds and the days that followed, the city started regaining its life again though with more security alerts and less underground rail services.

To the rest of the cities in Britain and other major cities in the world, especially in the European region and the United States, there were numerous security alerts over the issue with the public being advised to be on the look out both by the governments where they were residing and their home governments.

Apart from the public response that resulted in the reduced number of public transport users, the security response became alert both in London and other countries.

For example, in the United States of America, the Homeland Security raised threat level for mass transit systems such as the use of trains and buses. In all major cities (particularly in Washington and New York) equipped police force and explosives detecting dogs were positioned (Frost, 2008, par 8).

European countries also responded to the attacks by raising their alert levels. For example, France responded to the terror attacks by raising the level of terror alert to red which was the second highest leveling response to the London bombings.

In Germany, the levels were a bit low placing their alert levels to yellow level which showed that the likelihood of the country being attacked was minimal while in Spain, the level was raised to level three which is the highest in the country. At that level, it entailed that the security personnel were to patrol the (public) transport systems (Frost, 2008 p.6).

In nations like Singapore, security measures were immediately enforced on the sector (public transport) where the equipped officers were positioned in every area.

Plans for installation of CCTV cameras in all trains and buses and the public was also put into place and updates on the status of the security alerts and the expectations were communicated to the public to avoid confusion and other ugly scenes from occurring. These among others were the security alerts issues all over major cities in Europe and America.

The response (by the London emergency and transportation systems) were portrayed as the most broad and multifaceted response ever to a terrorist molest (Strom & Eveman, 2008, par2)

On the other hand, there were also media responses. In the UK, TV and radio networks dropped their programming schedules in order to cover the news and the same was experienced in other major news organizations such as the Cable News Network.

The media houses also responded by removing some of the programs which were to be viewed that night or the days that followed especially if they were to cover terrorism or bombing attacks.

This among other media houses postponed some of their programs which involved suicide bombers due to the sensitivity of the matter (Frost, 2008 par. 21).

There were also legislative reactions where in the UK, parliament began by fast tracking the enactment of anti terror bill which could criminalize all acts as preparatory to terrorism, training and incitement activities. There was the legislation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2006 (Sim, 2010, par. 7).

The community on the other hand answered by launching websites which stated they were not afraid and they could not be cowed by any terrorism act.

Compare and contrast the London bombings with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 Olympics bombing. During the preparations for the Atlanta 1996 Olympics, the federal authorities feared there would be terror attacks before or during the event in order to instill fear among the crowds and participants.

There were preparations to reduce the vulnerability with the organizers engaging the US custom services to provide flying radar platforms and also place secret service snipers on helicopters to warn off or take out planes threatening the games.

However, despite the preparations, caution and regulations, they failed to stop a lone bomber from striking. A single person armed with a small bomb was able to detonate it in a public square killing two people and injuring over a hundred others (Selliaas, 2005 p.).

Before the September 11 attacks, the Oklahoma City building had been described as the most destructive act of terrorism in the United States of America. The blast claimed more than 160 lives and injured more than 650 people. The bombs destroyed many buildings within a sixteen block radius, razed cars and shuttered glasses in the buildings around.

As a result of the bombings, the US government enacted laws in a bid to control and stop terrorism as well as boosting protection around state buildings and to the American populace in order to stop any attacks from occurring in the future.

The similarities of the three attacks were the fact that they involved use of bombs which were detonated by Islamic extremists. All the attacks were aimed at the public and were in retaliation to the government activities against the Muslim world. They were used as a means of venting anger by the bombers to the governments which to them were oppressive.

For example, the London attacks which were conducted by four Muslims were in retaliation against the British government for participating in the war against terror in Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya among other countries. According to the tapes of the bombers, some of the bombers targeted the British civilians because they were the electorate that had voted in the government which was committing atrocities on the people (Muslim).

For the Oklahoma attacks, the bombers were in retaliation to the victims of Waco siege and ruby Ridge attacks (Kushner, 2003 p.8). The Olympics attacks on the other hand were in retaliation to abortion.

Another similarity was that the bombings in the two countries (Britain and USA) led to legislation of new laws which would deter any future bomb attacks in Britain. We had the anti terror bill by Clarke while in the USA we had the federal legislation which protected all the federal buildings from attacks.

The difference between the three bombings was the materials used to make the bombs differed. The sizes of the bombs and their destructive capabilities were also different due to the fact that there were different number of casualties in the incidences with the bombing of Oklahoma being the most destructive while the Olympics bombing was the least destructive with minimal losses of lives.

The three bombings also targeted different locations. While the Oklahoma bombings targeted civilians in buildings, the Olympics bombing targeted people in the stadium while the London bombings targeted people using public means of transport especially the underground train system.

The motivations behind the bombings were also different though all the attacks were directed towards the governments reducing their presence in the Muslim world as wanted by the terrorists.

Conclusion

Security problems and threats from terrorists remain a major problem to every human being but it is positive to note that there has been willingness to invest more in security and access controls.

We can conclude that measures carried by the relevant authorities were sufficient in handling the situation and the law enforcing agents enacted and implemented extra precautionary measures such as the anti-terrorism act to prevent future occurrences of terror attacks in their lands.

Recommendations

Given the urgencies reflected by the relevant authorities to deter the bombings, in the case of Oklahoma, Atlanta Olympics bombings there was nothing I could have done better than what was done. But concerning the London bombings a second attempt would not have succeeded if the authorities had remained alert through out but to prevent the occurrence of the situations.

With all the intelligence the United States of America and the Britain possesses, the two countries should have implemented precautionary measures ensuring that in all points of entry, people are frisked and the reasons of their visits be noted and where surveillance on certain individuals is needed certain measures should be taken.

Measures to track down all those individuals affiliated to terror groups such as the Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups must be enhanced. If these measures had been implemented earlier, the detection of attempts to bombing would have been on time, saving lives that were lost and properties which were destroyed.

Reference List

Frost, M. (2008). Response to the 2005 London Bombings. Web.

Kushner, W. H. (2003). Encyclopedia of Terrorism. New York: Sage Publishers.

Selliaas, A. (2005). From Internationalization of Terrorism to the Internationalization: The Role of the Summer Olympic Games of Anti-terrorism. Web.

Sim, P. (2010). Counter-Terrorism Legislation in the UK: How the War on Terror has Affected British Policy-Making. Web.

Strom, K, J., Eyeman, J. (2008). Interagency Coordination: A Case Study of the 2005 London Train Bombings. National Institute Justice Journal No.260. Web.