Category: Warfare

Background

Violent extremism is a complex phenomenon that is based on promoting and supporting the violence associated with or justified by certain ideological, political, social, or religious visions (Glazzard and Zeuthen 1). During the post-Arab Spring period, the development of violent extremism in Arab countries became associated with a variety of factors, triggers, or drivers. In this context, political, social, religious, and individual factors are discussed as key influences of the progress of violent extremism in Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, among other states (Allan et al. 2; Ranstorp 3). However, it is important to note that the role of communitarian drivers in developing violent extremism is even more influential because these drivers are based on complex community, ideological, cultural, and religious factors that are determined concerning Muslims’ identity and specific group dynamics.

Statement of the Problem

Although violent extremism can be observed in different states where the Arab Spring movement developed, the drivers for the progress of this phenomenon vary. The problem is in the fact that the development of communitarianism as a theoretical and ideological framework has led to the progress of extremism at all levels in such countries as Libya and Tunisia, among other states. As a result, it is possible to note that specific communitarian drivers can perform as reinforcers for the development of extremist movements in those Arab countries where collective opinions, religious views, and military interests play the key roles in provoking social changes (Allan et al. 3).

The further examination of different communitarian factors that can stimulate the progress of violent extremism in Arab countries is important to understand the main aspects of communitarianism and violent extremism and recommend actions that can be taken by the global community to overcome the problem. The purpose of this research is to examine what communitarian drivers influence the development of violent extremism in Arab countries and discuss how these triggers affect the process. The focus should be on the cases of Libya and Tunisia.

Theoretical Framework

To understand the background and theoretical aspects of the social, political, and military processes that can be observed in many Arab countries during the post-Arab Spring period, it is necessary to refer to such theories and concepts as the Social Movement Theory, the idea of the Double Movement, and the philosophy of communitarianism. According to Borum, the Social Movement Theory is appropriate to explain the progress of violent extremism as a movement that unites people that want to change their society’s structure (17). This process can be based on the irrational, ideologically motivated, and radical collective behavior of a large group of people, and many individuals may want to join this movement to contribute to changes.

In the context of the Arab Spring’s consequences, researchers also discuss violent extremism as a reflection of the Double Movement concept (Salamey 32). The Double Movement is a specific situation that occurs when people choose certain changes and then focus on the protection from these changes. After achieving certain political and social results during the Arab Spring, extremists in Arab countries became oriented to further actions that seem to contradict the changes. Furthermore, the discussion of communitarian drivers is almost impossible without understanding the idea of communitarianism. This philosophy supports the vision that individuals in the Arab world are focused on developing their communities and social ties. As a result, when some groups of people begin to express radical ideas and emphasize their importance for a community, Muslims united by religious, social, and ideological principles are inclined to support these ideas (Salamey 54).

Research Question

The following research question is formulated to be answered in this study: How can specific communitarian drivers contribute to the development of violent extremism in Libya and Tunisia?

Methodology

A qualitative research design is selected for this study because of the necessity to discover what specific communitarian drivers can influence the development of extremism in different countries and how the impact of these drivers can affect the situations in Libya and Tunisia. In the context of qualitative research design, a comparative case study approach should be selected with the focus on examining different communitarian drivers that can be associated with the progress of violent extremism in Libya and Tunisia. Much attention should be paid to comparing communitarian drivers and extremist movements in these two countries with the help of case study analysis tools (Bartlett and Vavrus 24). Data collection methods that are appropriate for this study are the literature review and document analysis because of the necessity to use secondary research. The interpretation of the data will be realized concerning qualitative research techniques applied to the comparative case study analysis.

Anticipated Results

While focusing on the research question, it is possible to expect that communitarian drivers will play a key role in the development of violent extremism in Libya and Tunisia. Furthermore, it is important to assume that these drivers are rather similar. The reason is that these countries have the same ideological and religious background for the progress of violent extremism. However, it is also possible to expect that the findings regarding the priority of drivers that provoke the development of violent extremism will be different because according to the principles of communitarianism, specific social and ideological factors influence the formation of communities that share the same values are often unique. The focus will be on the fact that in the Arab world, communitarian drivers are usually similar, and their impact on the development of certain movements is significant because of the nature of the Islamic society, which is focused on sharing values and supporting collective ideas.

Timeframe

The following steps should be completed to conduct the study for two weeks:

1. Identify a problem and review literature – Days 1-4.
2. Select methodology and write a research proposal – Day 5.
3. Conduct comparative research and case study analysis – Days 6-9.
4. Analyze the data – Days 10-11.
5. Write the thesis – Days 12-13.
6. Proofread the thesis – Day 14.

Works Cited

Allan, Harriet, et al. Drivers of Violent Extremism: Hypotheses and Literature Review. Royal United Services Institute, 2015.

Bartlett, Lesley, and Frances Vavrus. Rethinking Case Study Research: A Comparative Approach. Routledge, 2016.

Borum, Randy. “Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories.” Journal of Strategic Security, vol. 4, no. 4, 2011, pp. 7-37.

Glazzard, Andrew, and Martine Zeuthen. Violent Extremism. Government and Social Development Resource Centre, 2016.

Ranstorp, Magnus. The Root Causes of Violent Extremism. RAN Centre of Excellence, 2016.

Salamey, Imad. The Decline of Nation-States after the Arab Spring: The Rise of Communitocracy. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Modern historians regard Winston Churchill as one of the main political leaders who contributed to the defeat of the Third Reich and its allies. This paper will focus on his diplomatic strategies to defeat the Axis Powers and end the war. One can argue that he played a critical role in the creation of an alliance against Nazi Germany. Although his policies were not always popular, he was adamant in his decisions. To some degree, this steadfastness prevented many military plans of Nazi German from succeeding. This is one of the reasons why Churchill remains a role model for contemporary leaders, especially those who want to act as public officials.

One should keep in mind that Churchill was extremely critical of the attempts to appease Germany. In his opinion, these attempts were flawed because they highlighted the weaknesses of various European countries that disagreed with the policies of Hitler. For instance, he opposed the Munich Agreement, which enabled Germany to annex certain parts of Czechoslovakia¹. Moreover, he continuously laid stress on the idea that at the end of the thirties, the Third Reich had significantly increased its critical capabilities.

In particular, one can speak about German air forces that could threaten the United Kingdom². Additionally, the key politicians of the Third Reich continuously emphasized the idea that Germany had to act as the dominant force in Europe. Nevertheless, very few political leaders were willing to recognize this danger. They believed that Adolf Hitler would restrict his aggressive policies after annexing the territory of Czechoslovakia. They did not consider the possibility that this approach was completely flawed because it relied on the assumption that Adolf Hitler was a rational individual.

The outbreak of World War II demonstrated that Churchill’s criticisms of these policies were quite justified. One should keep in mind that for a long time, the United Kingdom was the only country that actively resisted the Third Reich. At a certain point, Germany invaded and defeated France, while the United States and the Soviet Union did not join the war. In turn, the United Kingdom had to face a powerful opponent that bombed its cities.

Many British politicians insisted that the government should sign a peace treaty with Germany, event at the time when this state had already made war on other countries. However, Churchill was firmly convinced that such actions would eventually lead to the disaster because the leaders of Nazi Germany could never tolerate the existence of any country that could dispute German dominance in Europe.

This is why the British government rejected the peace offer of the Third Reich³. This decision made Churchill extremely unpopular, especially among the aristocratic elites. However, at the same time, it profoundly undermined the military plans of Hitler and his commanders, because they could not deploy all of their troops in the Eastern Front. This is one of the main impacts that one should take into account.

In turn, Churchill attached much importance to the creation of the alliance against Nazi Germany. At first, he persuaded the American government to launch the Lend-Lease program. As a result, the countries fighting against Germany could receive oil, food, and equipment that could be critical for the construction of weaponry and logistics. Moreover, Churchill attempted to convince American politicians that the Third Reich could be a global threat⁴. Moreover, the isolationist foreign policy of the United States could be perilous for the country.

In particular, Churchill continuously argued that Europe dominated by the Nazi Germany would eventually try to attack the United States or at least isolate this country both economically and geopolitically. Thus, in the long term, the policy of non-intervention could harm the interests of the United States. To a great extent, these arguments were quite effective. One should take into account that at that time, many American politicians opposed to the ideas of joining this war in any way. So, it is possible to say that Churchill was able to cope with a very difficult task.

Furthermore, as a diplomat, Churchill believed that at the time of war, allies had to set aside some of their political disagreements. This is why he supported the Soviet Union, when Germany attached this country. One should keep in mind that Churchill was extremely critical of the political and economic regime, established in the state. Furthermore, the country also tried to impose its political ideology on Europe and other countries regions of the world. Moreover, its political leaders signed a peace treaty with the Third Reich. So, Churchill tended to distrust the Soviet Union. Additionally, he criticized the oppressive policies pursued by Joseph Stalin.

Nevertheless, he argued that it had been vital to provide military equipment to the Soviet Union since the defeat of this country could shape the outcome of World War II in favor of Nazi Germany. One can refer to his famous statement, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”⁵. To some degree, this quote shows that Churchill perceived fascism as the major threat to the world. Thus, it was critical for different countries to join their efforts against this force. Overall, Churchill significantly contributed to the creation of coalition against the Axis Powers and coordinated military actions against these countries.

Apart from that, Churchill could see that the defeat of the Third Reich would not completely eliminate the risk of military conflicts in Europe⁶. This is why he took an active part in various negotiations that could set the borders of post-war Europe and establish the balance of powers. For instance, one can speak about the Yalta Conference which had to delineate the spheres of influence in Europe and other regions of the world. At that moment, there was an increased risk of military conflicts between Western countries and the Soviet Union. Thus, it was vital to minimize these risks.

To some degree, these examples demonstrate that separate individuals can profoundly shape the course of history. Admittedly, one cannot assume that politicians or diplomats are the only people who determined the outcomes of World War II. It is critical to pay attention to the role played by millions of soldiers and officers who sacrificed the lives to achieve this victory. Similarly, one cannot disregard the importance of scientists and engineers who designed weaponry.

They also ensured that the Allies could achieve technical superiority over the Third Reich. However, much depends on the willingness of people to take steps that will be widely unpopular. Furthermore, they should be unwilling to compromise their principles. To a great extent, these arguments are relevant if one speaks about Winston Churchill and his diplomatic policies which prevented the Axis Powers from succeeding.

Bibliography

Adams, Jefferson. Historical Dictionary of German Intelligence. New York: Scarecrow Press, 2009.

Axelrod, Alan. The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past. New York: Sterling Publishing Company, 2009.

Dallas, Gregor. 1945: The War That Never Ended. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.

Gilbert, Martin. Winston Churchill – the Wilderness Years: A Lone Voice Against Hitler in the Prelude to War. London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2011.

Kaufman, Will. Britain and The Americas: Culture, Politics, And History: A Multidesciplinary Encyclopedia. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2005.

Knight, Nigel. Churchill the Greatest Briton Unmasked. London: David & Charles, 2012.

Footnotes

1. Nigel Knight, Churchill the Greatest Briton Unmasked. (London: David & Charles, 2012), 74.
2. Martin Gilbert, Winston Churchill – the Wilderness Years: A Lone Voice Against Hitler in the Prelude to War. (London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2011), 127.
3. Jefferson Adams, Historical Dictionary of German Intelligence. (New York: Scarecrow Press, 2009), 186.
4. Will Kaufman, Britain, and The Americas: Culture, Politics, And History: A Multidesciplinary Encyclopedia. (New York: ABC-CLIO, 2005), 527.
5. Alan Axelrod, The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past. (New York: Sterling Publishing Company, 2009), 292.
6. Gregor Dallas, 1945: The War That Never Ended. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 399.

According to the BBC, Winston Churchill spearheaded one of the most iconic battles against the Germans soon after France signed an armistice (par 1). The battle started in favor of the Germans, who had already overpowered Poland and France. Some of the key figures in the battle include Churchill, Dowding, and Göring. Despite the advantage of German over the British air forces, Britain focused on its unity and the capabilities of the royal air force to defeat the Germans.

According to the A&E Television Networks, Churchill started by outmaneuvering all the politicians supporting negotiations with Hitler (par 1). He convinced his people to support him in protecting, and fighting for their cause. After winning over the politicians, Churchill capitalized on the RAF fighter commands to frustrate the German’s efforts of taking over the southern channel. The command used the hawker hurricane and the spitfire to counter the air strikes from German soldiers.

Additionally, one of Britain’s greatest leaders, Hugh Dowding, led the command and applied some of the best tactical skills that involved the separation of the command into several units to cover the most vulnerable regions.

In one of Churchill’s speeches, he rallied the soldiers and citizens into a mindset of war when he declared that France’s war was over, and it was time for Britain’s war. Dowding capitalized on some of the best fighter pilots and tactical leadership that generated significant losses to the German forces. In fact, the separation of the command into defensive military units covered southeast England, the northern region, and Scotland from attacks. Additionally, Britain changed its strategies from the defensive to an offensive attack on Berlin. The attack was one of the most significant in the battle because it crippled the German air forces.

According to MacKay and Price, Britain had one of the most sophisticated air defense systems when fighting with Germany (312). In fact, it had some of the most effective radar tracking and guidance systems that prevented the long-range German attacks from hitting its territory. Although the country lacked civil-defense mechanism, it had the advantage of fighting over friendly territories. The mechanism minimized their loss rates because they could manage to recover the wounded soldiers.

Additionally, Germany’s aircrafts were not designed for long-range attacks. They had to fly closer to the British territory to execute their attacks. However, British fighters used their numbers to shoot down the German planes. In fact, Germany lost very many planes before initiating a close escort strategy to their bomber formations. The British defense system frustrated the German commander, and he changed tactics by engaging in a series of attacks on London and other civilian towns. However, the strategy was not successful because the British command relocated to London and used their numbers to bring down a significant number of the German bomber formations.

Churchill relied on the relentless royal army to frustrate all German intentions. Additionally, he used the defense system to detect and suppress most of the attacks. The command’s dedication and resilience caused massive losses to the Germans. After the greatest defeat of German air forces in London, Hitler gave up and postponed his attacks. In fact, his withdrawal served as an end to the battle of Britain. Churchill recognized the great dedication and resilience of the RAF commands and celebrated the great victory over the Germans.

Works Cited

A&E Television Networks, LLC. Battle of Britain. 2009. Web.

BBC. The Battle of Britain. 2015. Web.

MacKay, Niall, and Christopher Price. “Safety in numbers: Ideas of concentration in Royal Air Force fighter defence from Lanchester to the Battle of Britain.” History 96.323 (2011): 304-325. Print.

The antiterrorism effort is one of those themes that is widely distributed both by the mass media and the scientific community. In other words, it is the point of concern of the entire global society. In the meantime, the question arises regarding the value of the active social discussion in terms of problem resolution.

Thus, the articles under analysis are devoted to the examination of the factors that determine the longevity of the terrorist groups. Hence, Phillips and Jordan offer their theories aimed at raising the effectiveness of the common anti-terrorist effort. On the face of it, the articles might elucidate different problems, and no parallels can be possibly drawn between them. However, a closer analysis shows that they have more common traits than it may seem at first sight.

The first article under discussion is devoted to the problem of the interconnections that exist between terroristic groups and the impact they have on the longevity of the latter. Thus, Brian Philips tries to fill in the gaps that the relevant scientific knowledge has in terms of analyzing the role of the interconnection between terroristic groups. The author offers a series of critical insights into the framework of this theme.

First and foremost, it should be noted that the author is probably the first to apply the social network theory to the examination of the collaboration between terrorists. Besides, he puts a particular focus on group collaboration rather than the individual support that terrorists might provide one to another. Hence, according to the author, this collaboration contributes to prolonging the longevity of terroristic groups by facilitating access to the resources essential for their survival (Philips 337).

Generally speaking, Philips’s speculations rely on the four main hypotheses. Thus, his research is designed to check the correlation between the size of the network and the longevity as well as the interconnection between the type of the state’s regime and the longevity.

As a result, the two principal conclusions are drawn relying on the research findings. First of all, Philips finds empirical proof for the beneficial role of the collaboration between terrorists in assuring a longer existence (343). Secondly, the author points out that active cooperation and support between terroristic groups are more significant in authoritarian regimes where terrorists experience more powerful pressure on the part of the government.

It should be necessarily noted that the core value of Philips’s article resides in his complex and scientific approach in addressing the analyzed problem. Hence, the article has a consistent structure, and all the author’s assumptions are accompanied by relevant statistical data or case studies.

The second article is devoted to the analysis of the same problem that Philips discusses – the factors that determine the resilience of terroristic groups. In the meantime, Jenna Jordan addresses this problem from a different perspective. Thus, the author tries to elucidate the impact that the elimination of a group leader has on the longevity of a terroristic community.

As well as Philips’s analysis, Jordan’s article has several logical parts. First of all, she provides a detailed overview of the relevant research and studies. The core idea that might be retrieved from this part resides in the fact that the leadership does not have such significant importance for the resilience of terrorism as the USA counterterrorism strategy implies (Jordan 11). The clear and concise structure is the first common point that might be noted in terms of comparison. Thus, both authors stick to a well-structured format that ensures better perception of the ideas in the readers.

In the second part of the article, the author develops her theory regarding the groups’ resilience to the leaders’ elimination. As well as Phillips, Jordan is an innovator, to a certain extent – thus, she does not summarize the existing knowledge but prefers to formulate some fresh presumptions. According to Jordan, a leader’s decapitation does not have such a significant impact on the group’s activity as it might be presumed (11). The author believes that other factors determine the group’s ability to survive: a consistent bureaucratized structure and reliable social collaboration. These factors, according to Jordan, allow terrorists to recover successfully in case their leader is decapitated.

At this point, it is critical to note that social networks are the central point that draws the parallel between the two articles. Thus, Phillips’s assumption about the meaningfulness of the social networks for terrorist group’s resilience finds support in Jordan’s article where she insists that the importance of the networks dominates over that of the leadership.

One of the pivots of Jordan’s analysis is the examination of the Al-Qaeda case in the framework of the advanced theory. The author employs this example to support her arguments. It should be admitted that this reference proves to be an excellent illustration of the theory’s concepts: both the Al-Qaeda’s bureaucratized structure and its social connections allow the group to survive despite the elimination of its leaders. A detailed case study is what differentiates Jordon’s article from Phillip’s analysis. Whereas the latter is a more general synthesis of various case studies, Jordan’s paper is, on the contrary, a focused examination of a single case.

On the face of it, the reader might think that the authors target different objectives. Unlike Philip’s article, which is mainly aimed at providing some guidelines for working out an effective anti-terrorist strategy, Jordan’s paper focuses on proving the counter-productiveness of the existing one. As a result, Philips’s analysis is naturally more general. It seems that the principal objective that the author targets is to offer some hints on how the longevity of terroristic groups can be reduced.

Jordan, in her turn, points out the drawbacks of the USA strategy by rebutting its core principle – the terrorists’ resilience can be reduced by the elimination of their leaders. However, a closer analysis of the two articles essentially shows that the authors share a common aim – contributing the anti-terrorist effort, each in their manner.

In terms of style, some distinguishing features might be pointed out. Thus, it seems that Jordan’s general style is more descriptive – the author provides some evaluative remarks while analyzing the current anti-terrorism effort that the USA makes. Phillips’s language is more restrained and concise. The author does not criticize any existing approaches; instead, he concentrates on pointing out some new perspectives within the relevant frameworks.

The contrast in the styles might be determined by one of the key differences between the two articles – their structure. Thus, Phillips offers a classic research paper that includes all the relevant elements: the background, the advancement of the hypothesis, the research design, the findings’ analysis, and the conclusions. Jordan’s paper is more descriptive – the author examines the problem from different perspectives, gradually narrowing the analysis to the particular case study.

The most significant similarity that should be pointed out is the social value of the elucidated data in the context of the common anti-terrorist effort. In other words, it is the novelty of the authors’ findings that is the principal advantage of the papers. Thus, both Phillips and Jordan try to contribute to raising the efficiency of counterterrorism by developing their theories. Also, it is evident that their ideas are not unjustified assumptions but the well-grounded theories that rely on the relevant scientific evidence base. The authors’ analyses help to identify the most crucial flaws in the existing strategies and provide consistent guidelines for their improvement.

In conclusion, it should be noted that there is a large scope of scientific literature devoted to the analysis of counterterrorism. Meanwhile, few articles perform a considerable contribution to the problem resolution. In other words, most of the papers elucidate the already existing findings and summarize the relevant data. The articles under discussion, on the contrary, offer some new approaches to the problem of counterterrorism.

Both authors have carried out a complex work and managed to develop the innovative theories aimed at raising the efficacy of counterterrorism. Thus, these articles show that the contribution to the common antiterrorist effort might be performed not only at the governmental level but the local one as well. Otherwise stated, they emphasize the meaningfulness of scientific research in the context of global problems.

Works Cited

Jordan, Jenna. “Attacking the Leader, Missing the Mark.” International Security 38.4 (2014): 7-38. Print.

Phillips, Brian. “Terrorist Group Cooperation and Longevity.” International Journal of International Studies Quarterly 58.1 (2014): 336-347. Print.

“American Experience: The Berlin Airlift” has a clear flow of events that helps the audience to understand the issues that unfolded during the Berlin airlift in 1948. After watching the video, I realized that the World War II led to the division of Berlin by four super powers at that time. They included America, Russia, France, and Britain. However, as time went on, it emerged that Russia under the leadership of Stalin was trying to sideline all the other three countries. At this time, there was tension between Russians and the rest of the countries that were controlling Berlin. The tension grew when Russians initiated a blockade and stopped shipments from East Berlin.

In response, American, Britain, and France initiated airlifts inside of Berlin in protest of Russians’ plan to control Berlin. The differences between these two groups created an immediate friendship between America and Germany. To the Germans, America, Britain and France became close allies because they defended the nation from Russia’s intended control. This movie has great historical events that explain the current relationship between Germany and the three allies. It gives the audience an immense feeling and experience of the real situation during that time as the cold war began. However, the most interesting event in the entire story is how the Germans lost the battle and influence to become a needy country.

Germany was among the leading military power during the World War II. However, after its defeat, the country was taken over by allied nations who divided it into military zones. The beginning of the famous airlift as it is clearly depicted in the movie began when the Soviet Union decided to block the rest of the Germany’s allies from accessing the city through railways, highways, and canals. Since all the possible ways of supplying goods for their people were closed, the Soviet Union hoped that the other allies were going to starve and leave the city. However, this was not the case. Tones of food supplies and other necessities were flown into the city by air and this continued for almost a year.

As the survival strategy seemed to bear fruits, the Soviet Union gave up and dropped the siege. The movie has clearly demonstrated the events that lead to the formation of the current powerful Germany. It shows how the country was rebuilt through efforts from allied countries especially the United States, France, and Britain. However, it also shows that the Soviet Union was opposing the unification efforts by the other allied countries. The Soviet Union was afraid that Germans unification would destroy their influence. In another light, one can argue that the Soviet Union had no interest in helping the Germans to rise again. Maybe this is because the Germans had invaded the Soviet Union.

This movie is a good documentary that shows the historical events of a nation that has been through many faces of military and political power changes. It is interesting to see how simple human decisions can affect and cause global conflicts within a very short period of time. Politics and military decisions are very crucial to the stability and well-being of a nation and the world at large. I think this movie is the best historical tool that the young generation can use to understand how the past political decisions have affected the way we live today.

Versailles Treaty is the most significant agreement of the early twentieth century, designed the results of the World War I and established the first international organization, the League of Nations, founded to prevent major conflicts in the future (Goldstein 9). Germany signed peace on the terms of the winners, the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, etc. Its supporters experienced political turmoil, their states broke up, and territorial claims were raised against them.

The burden of reparations, restrictions, and occupation laid on Germany. Moral responsibility for the war was imposed on them. The Entente rallied the defeated countries against itself and caused their hatred. On the other hand, differences within the Entente did not allow it to build a solid guarantee against German revenge. Each of the winners was negotiating with Germany without the knowledge of the partners and biased her against the allies. The German army was not finally crushed. Its personnel structure survived (Fawcett 65). Entente itself helped to save it (Slavicek 82). As a result of the war and the Versailles Treaty, contradictions between the allies deepened.

The sharp struggle between England and France, the U.S. and Britain, the US and Japan, finally, between Italy and the leading powers of the Entente. To all this was added the root contradiction of two systems — capitalism and socialism (Sondhaus 455). From the German perspective, the Treaty was the “Versailles diktat” of the winners. The majority of the population embraced democracy as a foreign order imposed by Western countries.

Fatal was the fact that the struggle against Versailles meant the fight against the democracy. Politicians, who have called for restraint and compromise with the West, immediately were accused of shameful weakness or betrayal. It was the ground for totalitarian and aggressive Nazi regime (Graebner and Bennett 108). The Versailles Treaty was to end the war. In reality, he turned it into a constant threat hanging over the world.

The article “Two Cheers for Versailles” by Mark Mazower introduces a new look at the events followed the Versailles Treaty. The author of this paper suggests a point of view that these agreements were the basis for the development of current politics and international relations. Major political scientists and historians zealously criticize the items of these agreements ant their consequences. However, this article shows the inevitability of the major events.

The alternatives to them might be even more tragic and shattering for the world. In comparison to the text, which contains more critical and one-sided look at the events of those years, the author of the article tries to foresee the outcome of events without Versailles Treaty. Mark Mazower (par. 12) claims that return to old traditions was impossible. Thus, Versailles Treaty was the logical and the only possible way out for all the parties. I liked the informal style of the article presentation.

The information suggested by the author is rather detailed, supported with evidence and author’s ’personal conclusions and judgments. I appreciated the attempt of the author to look forward and presuppose the development of the situation without the agreements. From this point of view, all the participating countries had rather unattractive alternatives. The information of the text is rather categorical concerning the Versailles Treaty. It is presented in a rather official way and does not contain the direct attitude of the author to the events described by him. It looks more like a presentation of historical events while the article is vivid analyses of the Versailles Treaty’s after-effects.

Works Cited

Fawcett, Bill. 100 Mistakes That Changed History. New York: Berkley Books, 2010. Print.

Goldstein, Erik. The First World War Peace Settlements, 1919-1925. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Graebner, Norman A, and Edward M Bennett. The Versailles Treaty And Its Legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Mazower, Mark. “Two Cheers for Versailles.” History Today 49.7 (1999): n. pag. Web.

Slavicek, Louise Chipley. The Treaty of Versailles. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2010. Print.

Sondhaus, Lawrence. World War I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Introduction

When 21^st century people think about the word Kamikaze, the image that comes to mind is a fanatic group of the Japanese Armed Forces whose members were willing to lay down their lives for the purpose of demonstrating extreme devotion for a particular cause. Kamikaze fighter pilots are therefore lumped into the same category as Islamic extremists. However, a relatively new documentary film reveals another side to the story (Wings of Defeat).

For the purpose of accurate historical documentation of the Second World War, it is important to point out that Kamikaze fighters are not comparable to religious extremists, because they plunged to their deaths on the strength of a military command.

Main Body

The realization was made after watching the said documentary film, especially in the episode that featured the Kamikaze pilot Kazuo Nakajima (Wings of Defeat). Kazuo Nakajima revealed that they were soldier obeying orders. He refuted the idea that they were fanatics. In fact, Nakajima expressed how much he loathed the former Emperor of Japan. He pointed the blame at Emperor Hirohito. Nakajima said that the country’s top leader had the power to end the war six months earlier (Hasegawa 2900. If Japan surrendered to the Allied Forces six months earlier, there was no need for Kamikaze pilots to die in vain.

Nakajima’s testimony strengthened the argument that if these men were under able leaders, there was no need to embark on suicide missions (Nakamoto 210). At the same time, his testimony magnified Emperor Hirohito’s pride and vanity. Japan’s top leader during World War II was desperate and his solution was to send young Japanese soldiers into a fiery and cataclysmic death (Stille 368). However, he did not have to do that only if he had the moral fortitude to accept defeat. Nakajima’s bitter response summed up the world view of Emperor Hirohito, because he treated soldier’s lives like waste paper (Wings of Defeat).

The proponent of this study decided to choose this particular episode because it provides clear evidence that Kamikaze pilots were forced to die against their will. It is therefore difficult to develop a positive narrative to describe the contribution of the Kamikaze pilots in World War II history. On the other hand, one can argue that there is at least one redeeming quality of the Kamikaze pilots, and it was their burning patriotism that enabled them to make the ultimate sacrifice (Zaloga 4). At the same time, commentators and historians can reinterpret the meaning of the term Kamikaze based on the testimonies of the Kamikaze pilots. Thus, at the end they can be portrayed as heroes who fought for a lost cause (Kuwahara and Allred 19).

Conclusion

The episode that featured Kazuo Nakajima enabled a change of perspective and a reinterpretation of the meaning of the word Kamikaze. These men must not be branded as fanatics and lumped together with the religious extremists that plague the contemporary world. A deeper analysis of their actions will reveal that they were following orders. Kazuo Nakajima clarified that they questioned the wisdom and the sincerity of Emperor Hirohito when he did not end the war six months earlier, because there was no need to send young pilots to their tragic deaths. It is therefore important to change how the world sees them, because they need to be celebrated as heroes, patriots willing to die for love of their homeland.

Works Cited

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Print.

Kuwahara, Yasuo and Gordon Allred. Kamikaze. Clearfield, Utah: American Legacy Media, 2007. Print.

Nakamoto, Jack. Jack’s Japonica. New York, NY: Xlibris, 2011. Print.

Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. New York, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2013. Print.

The Wings of Defeat. Ex. Prod. Linda Hoaglund. Morimoto, Risa.: Edgewood Pictures, 2007. DVD.

Zaloga, Steven. Kamikaze: Japanese Special Attack Weapons 1944-45. New York, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2011. Print.

The political and military tension between the United States of America and the Soviet Union soon after the end of the Second World War made it necessary for the United States to spread its influence in Europe. Most of the European countries in both the Allied and Axis forces had been devastated by the war, and their economies were crippled. The United States was concerned that in the event of another major war, most of the nations that were capable of giving it the necessary support would either be too weak to fight or join the new enemy, the Soviet Union.

As such, the government, under the leadership of President Harry Truman needed a plan that would help strengthen its allies in Europe. The plan also had to ensure that these nations would support the United States in case it went to war with the Soviet Union. After a wide consultation among the top government officials and other technocrats, a plan was hatched. It was proposed that the government should come up with an economic relief plan to help its allies in Europe to develop their economies that had been destroyed during the war.

The plan was taken to the Congress, which was dominated by Republicans at that time, as Economic Corporation Bill.¹ The government, led by the Democrats, had to convince the Congress that the plan would have direct benefits to the country and its strategic allies in Europe. It was passed by both houses and later renamed Marshall Plan in reference to George Marshall, who was then the Secretary of State.

The Marshall Plan outlined a number of benefits that were to be granted to nations around the world, which were adversely affected by the Second World War. Given that the world was still gripped by fear of the possibility of another major war, the United States did not want to create tension by Balkanizing the world using this plan. As such, the plan stated that all the nations that were affected by the war would receive some form of financial aid to help them in their economic recovery.

The government of the United States invited the Soviet Union- the other superpower and its archenemy- to participate in this economic recovery plan. The government knew very well that the Soviet Union would reject the plan because of a number of fundamental reasons. The Soviet Union, unlike the United States, was affected adversely by the war, just like many other European nations. It emerged as a world power militarily, but economically it was struggling.

Accepting the invitation to participate in the recovery plan would require it to make financial contributions equivalent to that of the United States to have equal bargaining power. It lacked this capacity. The Soviet Union was also not comfortable being part of a plan that had been developed by the United States. As was expected by the United States, the Soviet Union rejected the plan. However, the United States was determined to proceed with the economic stimulus plan with or without the support and approval of the Soviet Union.²

In this plan, the United States set aside $13 billion (an equivalent of $ 130 billion today) to be distributed fairly among the affected countries, including nations outside Europe, such as Japan.³ In spirit, the top government officials were keen on supporting its allies in West Europe to recover economically and militarily so that in case of war, they would be in a better position to support the United States. This was not just a reward meant for every single nation irrespective of their allegiances during the war.

It was meant for the nations loyal to the United States. It was meant to help spread the influence of the United States in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world. The Soviet Union knew about this plan and had to act to protect its sphere of influence. The Soviets knew that they lacked military and economic power to stop the United States from implementing the plan. However, they knew that they had the capacity to restrict the United States from infiltrating into its sphere of influence. As such, it prohibited the implementation of the plan in countries that were under its control, especially the Eastern Bloc countries, which included Poland and East Germany.

The United States was comfortable with the restrictions because it was not ready to help countries that may turn against it in case a major war broke out. The Soviet Union’s restriction was a perfect excuse to ignore these countries, although they were faced with serious economic problems.

The manner in which the plan was implanted left no doubt about the intentions of the United States to curtail the influence of the Soviet Union, and communism in general, in Western Europe. The first countries to receive the financial aid were Turkey and Greece, although they were not the major allies targeted by this plan. The United States believed that these were the front line nations in the fight against communism.⁴ The aid was to ensure that they remained loyal to the United States and its allies.

The aid was then spread to entire Western Europe, with strategic partners receiving most of this aid. The United Kingdom, believed to be the most strategically of the United States, received 26% of the total amount that was set out in this plan. France, another strategic partner, received 18%. Germany was a strategic country both to the United States and the Soviet Union. However, it had been divided into two, with the United States controlling West Germany and the Soviet Union East Germany.

The United States had no choice but to limit its aid to West Germany. It made a significant contribution of 11% of the plan’s total budget to help spur growth in West Germany. This was a strategic move that was meant to convince the Germans- both in East and West- that it was better to align with the United States than the Soviet Union because of the financial benefits.⁵

The Marshall plan had a massive impact on the influence of the United States in Europe and, by extension, the rest of the world. It was successful in fighting communism that the Soviet Union was trying to spread around the world. Scholars have argued that it was this plan that handed the United States the victory in spreading capitalism in Europe and around the world, including in the Soviet Union itself as it later emerged.

By late 1948 and early 1949, countries that had benefitted from the plan were recording impressive economic recovery. On the other hand, countries that had remained loyal to the Soviet Union were still reeling from the effect of the Second World War.

The Marshall Plan clearly gave the impression that economic recovery could easily be achieved by accepting the aid, which meant aligning with the West. Yugoslavia, one of the countries that had previously rejected the plan, broke ranks with the Soviet Union and requested the aid despite being a member of the Eastern Bloc that was controlled by the Soviet Union. Keen on spreading its influence in East Europe, the United States went ahead and offered it the much-needed aid.⁶

The United States had everything well planned, and it was keen to ensure that its primary aim of forming a strong economic and military alliance in Europe against the Soviets was a success. Once the beneficiaries of this plan were convinced of its relevance, the United States went ahead and formed an economic bloc that was named Organization for European Economic Corporation, later renamed Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.⁷

The primary objective of the organization, as stated during its formation, was to help in coordinating the financial aid and economic development among the participating countries. However, the United States knew that it was developing a strong military and economic alliance capable of destroying Russia in case the two countries had to go to war. It laid a perfect ground for the United States and allies to form North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance that required member countries to work as a unit in times of war. The organization was formed in 1949 at a time the implementation of Marshall Plan was in progress. It was this plan that helped the United States to remain the only superpower when the Cold War ended.

Bibliography

Arkes, Hadley. Bureaucracy, the Marshall Plan, and the National Interest. New York: Springer, 2012.

Lambers, William. The Spirit of the Marshall Plan: Taking Action against World Hunger, Expanding the Mcgovern-Dole Global School Feeding Program. New York: Lambers, 2007.

Marshall, Evan. The Marshall Plan for Novel Writing. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books, 2001.

Reader, Capitol. Summary of the Noblest Adventure. Cork: Primento Digital, 2013.

Sørensen, Vibeke, and Mogens Rüdiger. Denmark’s Social Democratic Government and the Marshall Plan 1947-1950. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2001.

Footnotes

1. Evan Marshall, The Marshall Plan for Novel Writing (Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books, 2001), 34.
2. Ibid, 33.
3. William Lambers, The Spirit of the Marshall Plan: Taking Action against World Hunger, Expanding the Mcgovern-Dole Global School Feeding Program (New York: Lambers, 2007), 45.
4. Hadley Arkes, Bureaucracy, the Marshall Plan, and the National Interest (New York: Springer, 2012), 44.
5. Ibid, 65.
6. Capitol Reader, Summary of the Noblest Adventure (Cork: Primento Digital, 2013), 87.
7. Vibeke Sørensen and Mogens Rüdiger, Denmark’s Social Democratic Government and the Marshall Plan 1947-1950 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2001), 21.

Introduction

A history of almost four decades of conflict culminated in South Sudan achieving autonomy from Sudan. The expectation was that an autonomous Sudan would be a peaceful nation. However, the violence that broke out in South Sudan in 2013 brought a new dimension into this persisting Sub-Saharan conflict. The new conflict consists of political disputes that are intertwined with ethnic and political issues. In the past, there have been a few attempts to associate social anthropology and policies in South Sudan. This anthropological association begins with the colonial era, post-colonial developments, and lengthy conflicts about resources. Various scholars have attempted to form the missing link between the conflict in Sudan and cultural issues. This paper is a report on the situation in South Sudan from a historical and current events standpoint. The paper will also curve out an anthropological perspective from the situation in South Sudan in a bid to explain why this conflict has persisted.

Environment and Natural History

Geographically, South Sudan is a landlocked country that is situated in the Northern part of Africa. The country’s vast geographical area borders six other East African countries. The White Nile also passes through South Sudan including the country’s capital city, Juba. The country has a large and complex eco-system that includes wetlands, grasslands, national parks, escarpments, woodlands, deserts, and rivers. Currently, the country has a population of close to ten million people, although there has not been an official census to confirm these statistics. One of the most notable aspects of South Sudan is the country’s lack of basic infrastructure (Deng, 2011).

Decades of conflict have left the country virtually without development. Currently, South Sudan has close to five million refugees and internally displaced persons, most of whom live in camps across the country and in the neighboring countries of East Africa. Dinka is the most dominant ethnic group in the multi-ethnic country followed by the Neur, Bari, Azande, and Shilluk. Most of the country’s social and institutional systems mimic those of their neighboring country Kenya, as opposed to those of Sudan. Although the country’s official language is English, there are approximately 50 indigenous languages in Kenya. On the other hand, the country’s policies have been aimed towards a shift from Arabic to Swahili in a bid to fit the country into the East African Community.

The Pre-Colonial Era

In the pre-colonial era, South Sudan has never had a legitimate connection to the geographical area of Northern Sudan. The two regions were only united by the ambitions of the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, in the pre-colonial times, South Sudan has gone from being part of Mahdist, Anglo-Egyptian, and British regions (Middleton & O’keefe, 2006). The earliest forms of civilization in Sudan consist of Kush Kingdoms, which were constantly in conflict with Arabic Egyptian Kingdoms. Christianity’s influence in South Sudan dates back to medieval times. Nevertheless, for a long time, South Sudan formed a major passage for pilgrims to the Hajj. The interactions between the dominant North and the traditional South started in the 1800s. Prior to the nineteenth century, most of the native South Sudanese tribes had limited contact with the North and the rest of the world. Furthermore, most of the area that is now South Sudan remained protected by swamps, rivers, and mountains.

The Colonial Era

Colonization of South Sudan first occurred under the Turko-Egyptian rule, which took place from 1820 to 1882. Under this regime, Sudan’s way of life involved trade in slaves, ostrich feathers, and ivory. This regime also marks the beginning of the Northern exploitation of the Southern regions. The rulers were able to penetrate the traditional non-Islamic and non-Arabic South Sudan by successfully forming trade routes and pushing the current borders towards East Africa. The Turkiyya was unpleasant for South Sudan mostly because of its hunger for the slave trade (Middleton & O’keefe, 2006).

The next colonial invasion of South Sudan occurred under Britain. However, the British first concentrated their attention on the North, where they built infrastructure and social amenities in a bid to capitalize on the resources of the White Nile. Initially, Britain governed the North and South using separate borders that were instituted in 1922. This system of colonization segregated the South from the North. Consequently, South Sudan’s provinces “were largely ignored in terms of social and economic development and the few social services such as schools and clinics that were available, were provided by Christian missionaries for the most part” (Collins, 2008).

A controversial policy that was known as the “Southern Policy” initially severed partnerships between Sudan and South Sudan. This legislation prevented those in the North from venturing into the South and forced most of the Arab merchants to leave. On the other hand, “native Southerners were prohibited to travel or seek employment in the North” (Kebbede, 1997, p. 3). Another impact of the British colonization in South Sudan was the shift of the official language from Arabic to English. The main goal of the colonial powers was to integrate South Sudan with the British East African Federation, in a bid to harness the resources of the region.

Independence and After

The “Southern Policy” was reversed a few years before Sudan was granted independence amid opposition by the residents of the South. Britain nullified the restrictions that had been imposed through the “Southern Policy” thereby ignoring the concerns of the Southerners while fulfilling all the demands of the Northerners. The reversal of the policy brought significant shocks to the South including the imposition of the Arabic language and domination of Northern Arabs in both government institutions and private commerce. South Sudan cited the dishonesty of the northerners in their bid for self-determination. The fears of the southerners were confirmed when northern nationalists locked out the South from self-determination negotiations. Eventually, these issues led to an armed struggle that sought to agitate for secession in 1955 and a full-blown military conflict in 1962.

After Sudan gained independence from Britain, the leaders from the North continued to pursue a process of forceful Islamization and Arabization in South Sudan whereby the identities of the South were suppressed. One of the most adverse effects of post-independence domination by the northerners is that they “closed mission schools and restricted Christian missionaries and later expelled them from the country” (Sharkey, 2008, p. 21). All these developments accelerated the secessionist war in the South with the Anyanya Guerilla becoming the more formidable Southern Sudan Liberation Movement.

An Anthropological Perspective

Over the years, the armed conflict in South Sudan has taken various forms including flaring instances of genocide. To understand the full anthropology of the South Sudanese society, it is important to re-evaluate the assumptions and practices that have fueled the conflict. For instance, policymakers tend to frame their actions based on “flawed situational framing, informing a dominant theory of change that disregarded key elite interests, misjudged the main conflict driver, promoted a culture of appeasement, and obscured symptoms of a deeply rooted crisis of governance” (Natsios, 2012, p. 134).

The assumption was that after independence, South Sudan would develop in an independent and governable nation. However, the general assumptions have undermined smaller ideologies and beliefs that have been the cause of conflict, including prevailing narratives such as the Kuna narrative. Another anthropological cause of the conflict in Sudan is the country’s pre-colonial enmities, which are still reflected in today’s political alignments. The main political opponents in the conflict are President Kiir and Vice President Machar. These individuals come from tribes that have had changes in fortune over the course of history; the Dinka and the Neur. Historically, “the Dinka and the Nuer resulted from resource conflicts among the three cousin groups, provoked by harsh geo-ecology and the need for migratory survival” (Pantuliano, 2006, p.709). These faults of these initial interactions are still relevant in present-day South Sudan. Sudan is not an isolated case as other countries in sub-Saharan Africa have witnessed inter-tribal warfare, such as Uganda, Ethiopia, and Somalia.

Conclusion

The conflict in South Sudan is an example of a clash that has persisted longer than expected. Consequently, the situation in South Sudan has attracted the interest of anthropologists owing to its complexity and ever-changing dynamics. Sudan has experienced a perpetual conflict that has become impossible to solve using political means. Therefore, an anthropological study of the South Sudanese culture is important because it reveals the tribal and policy dynamics that have continuously fuelled violence.

References

Collins, R. O. (2008). A history of modern Sudan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Deng, F. M. (2011). War of visions: Conflict of identities in the Sudan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kebbede, G. (1997). Sudan: The north-south conflict in historical perspective. Contributions in Black Studies, 15(1), 3.

Middleton, N., & O’keefe, P. (2006). Politics, history, & problems of humanitarian assistance in Sudan. Review of African Political Economy, 33(109), 543-559.

Natsios, A. S. (2012). Sudan, South Sudan, and Darfur: What everyone needs to know. Boston, MA: OUP USA.

Pantuliano, S. (2006). Comprehensive peace? An analysis of the evolving tension in Eastern Sudan. Review of African political economy, 33(110), 709-720.

Sharkey, H. J. (2008). Arab identity and ideology in Sudan: The politics of language, ethnicity, and race. African Affairs, 107(426), 21-43.

Introduction

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has become among the best-recognized issues of the contemporary political landscape. Since its emergence, ISIS was subject to close attention to numerous international actors due to the potential threats it poses on the local and international scale. However, despite the best efforts of the policymakers of several states, it continues to flourish relatively uninhibited by the efforts. In order to address the shortcomings of the existing policies, it is necessary to create a coordinated effort that combines the military, economic, and ideological aspects of the counteractions and aims at a long-term effect in a comprehensive and sustainable way.

Analysis

Since its emergence, ISIS has continuously amassed military and political power and expanded its ideological influence. In its current state, it is a theocracy which adopts the extremist interpretation of Islam that recognizes violence as both acceptable and preferable in dealing with the infidels (the individuals or groups that do not recognize the religious doctrine). Under such conditions, it poses a real direct threat to nearby states. It is also reasonable to expect the creation of a similar threat on the international scale once the capacity of the organization reaches a necessary amount. It should be pointed out that while such motivation is not new and has been observed in other groups, the unique setting contributes to the unparalleled scale of the phenomenon. Specifically, the neoliberal approach to the reformation of the Arab World that aimed at creating a society with modern identity and culture resulted in the deterioration of the existing historical values without offering a viable alternative to the population (Khalil). Such a situation eventually created a sort of ideological vacuum that was readily filled in by the straightforward re-articulation of the universal state backed by the support of the religious texts (Khalil). Essentially, the neoliberal reform in the Middle East contributed to the buildup of the ISIS’ power and influence.

Immediately after the recognition of the threat posed by ISIS, several key actors in the global arena responded with the policies aimed at suppressing its power. Their most recognizable aspect is the military effort, with airstrikes being the best-publicized iteration. The participants of the campaign include the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, and numerous members of the respective coalitions. However, while the impact of such an approach is unmistakable, the actual outcome of the event is questionable. Numerous reports and analyses reveal that despite their potential, airstrikes do not have a significant impact on the ideological influence of ISIS and may even have enhanced it. In addition, on several occasions, the strikes have done significant damage to the infrastructure and resulted in civilian casualties (Sanger et al.). In addition, numerous countries decided to assist the military forces, either by providing arms and equipment or by training troops. This policy also resulted in a mixed outcome, as some evidence suggests that arms intended for allied use often end up in the hands of ISIS militants (Amnesty International). Finally, some experts suggest that the policy of ground troop deployment was suggested as a way to circumvent the limitations of the airstrikes. However, such a move can also result in backlash. Specifically, it was argued that military intervention of such a scale could serve as a catalyst for the emergence of similar formations as well as the increase in ISIS’ influence (Saul).

It is worth pointing out that the interventions are not limited to military action. Some attempts were made to undermine the financial capacity of ISIS by cutting their sources of income. This was done both directly, through destruction of oil industry infrastructure, and indirectly, by imposing sanctions. Unfortunately, the exact impact of the latter is unclear since ISIS does not operate through official channels (Myers and Kulish). In addition, such sanctions can have an adverse impact on the regional economy and need to be further refined to reach the necessary level of efficiency. Next, attempts were made to limit the traveling of the ISIS members to other countries. While such a move could be useful as a limiting factor, there is currently no evidence of its successful implementation. In addition, the policy in its current state is fragmentary and does not display the level of consistency necessary for the prevention of ISIS members’ travel (McCaul). Finally, negotiations were suggested as a plausible alternative to the straightforward military opposition. Such a suggestion was met with severe criticism as it is believed to empower the terrorist formations. Nevertheless, some experts state that the most likely outcomes of military conflict are pessimistic enough to consider diplomatic solutions a plausible alternative (Smith). Currently, there is no evidence of this policy’s efficiency.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the information presented above, both the existing and theorized policies have two common weak points. First, they show an insufficient level of planning and coordination. Second, and, perhaps, more importantly, they fail to acknowledge the ideological background of the formation caused by the neoliberal orientation of the reforms in the Arab World. The easiest example is the unintentional increase in the appeal of ISIS’ ideology as a result of the airstrikes. Therefore, it is necessary to coordinate the military and economic policies of various countries and organizations and thus ensure their synchronicity and alignment with the ideological background. Admittedly, such an effort requires a significant amount of collaboration between the key actors. Nevertheless, the growing threat of ISIS and continuous inconsistencies in existing policies suggest that such an approach is both justified and necessary for ensuring political and economic stability.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. “Iraq: Taking stock: The arming of Islamic State.” Amnesty International, Web.

Khalil, Yousef. “ISIS and the Neoliberal State.” The New Context, Web.

McCaul, Michael, et al. “Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel.” Homeland Security Committee, 2015, Web.

Myers, Steven, and Nicholas Kulish. “‘Broken System’ Allows ISIS to Profit From Looted Antiquities.” The New York Times, Web.

Sanger, David, et al. “How a U.S. Airstrike Missed ISIS, but Damaged U.S. Policy in Syria.” The New York Times, Web.

Saul, Heather. “President Obama Claims Rise of ISIS is ‘Unintended Consequence’ of George W. Bush’s Invasion in Iraq.” Independent, Web.

Smith, Dan. “Syria: Geneva III, the Nettle of Negotiation (Again), and ISIS (Again).” Dan Smith’s Blog, Web.