Category: Warfare

A lot of concerns have been raised on the entry and withdrawal of America’s troop in Iraq. It is believed that United States of America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake, and so was its withdrawal in 2011.¹ Numerous opinions have been provided regarding this assertion. However, US’s act to invade Iraq and its subsequent withdrawal is criticized because instead of building Iraq, US-Iraq war led to numerous problems in the country.

As such, after the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, it is likely that a breakup of the Iraqi state is inevitable. According to a report released by the United Nations, many people in Iraq lost their lives after the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq following the protests of Sunni against the central government. This came at a time when the government of Iraq was supposed to start a process of reconciliation and inclusion.² Since then, the country has experienced numerous political unrests and conflicts.

Partly, such cases are attributed to fact that the Sunni community is still marginalized since the supposed inclusiveness was never achieved. However, the question that many people have been searching for answers is the reason for Iraq’s state of turmoil.

It has been argued that the withdrawal of US from Iraq and the shutdown of Sunni protest camps in Iraq led to entry of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is linked to the feared al Qaeda group, in Iraq. The ISIS, in a previous version formed a great percentage of the insurgents in Iraq that the Americans were fighting against during the US-Iraq war. The regrouping of the ISIS and other terror groups in Iraq has increased the number of conflicts in Iraq and its borders.

Following the withdrawal of the US’s troops from Iraq, such groups became strong, and have led to the extension of such fights to Iraq and Syria’s border.³ The grievances of the Sunni community are yet to be met and this has contributed to a great extent to the fights in Iraq. While the government of Iraq is struggling to deal with the ISIS, it still receives a lot of opposition from the Sunnis since they consider the ISIS as partners-in-arms against a common enemy.

As such, it can be seen that the continuous fights in Iraq are yet to end given the magnitude of the demands from both the Sunnis and the ISIS. For this reason, it suffices that the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq has been instrumental in the state of Iraq, since it occurred before the country could stabilize.⁴ Such a move gave the ISIS a chance to reenter Iraq, and the Sunnis to continue with their fight in opposition to their marginalized state and the fulfilment of their grievances. If such a condition remains, a breakup of the Iraqi state is inevitable, given that the civil war in Syria has adversely affected Iraq in various aspects of the country’s economy.

The current state of Iraq in terms of social, political and economic affairs has been largely influenced by the antagonistic relationship that exists between the Shia and Sunni.⁵ For example, the central government has lost control over Fallujah and Ramadi regions, which has led to the rule of ISIS militants, local police who are tribally-influenced and the Sunni militiamen. Such a state of affairs prevents any form of development in the country, as all resources are channeled into stabilizing the troops and working towards eliminating any threats. Nonetheless, Iraq has been struggling to gain its national identity.

Its main aim as a country is to ensure that the identity obtained can help in solving the differences that exist between its Kurds, Arabs and other minority divisions.⁶ Altogether, Iraq has come to the realization that it must focus on the development of a new government and economic structures as well as social order after it has gone through a period of sanctions, dictatorship, war civil conflicts and occupation conflicts since the late 1970s.

For Iraq to attain the required level of peace and unity, it must be in a position to cope with the ever increasing changes in population, political and economic conditions.⁷ In addition, it must be involved in the diversification of its economy which is heavily relies on the exportation of petroleum products. However, the struggle to attain the above benefits may lead to more civil wars and further divisions in the country, as evident in the regions of Fallujah and Ramadi.⁸ Nevertheless, the political stability in Iraq has high chances of being recovered since the fact that it has numerous cases of violence does not mean that it can never succeed in the establishment of security, better life and stability for its people.

The tension level between the political, parties and the major ethnic groups in Iraq has been rising. The main aspects of conflict have been the control, autonomy and authority over the natural resources in Iraq that have led to strenuous relationships between individuals from both sides. All the groups have been suspecting one another and the strength of competition for dominance has been increasing.

However, the withdrawal of the US forces together with the diminishing role at international level has led to the likelihood of new cases of civil strife and internal violence. The participation of international relations reduced at a time when the region was facing the crisis of declining aid and political instability. As a result, various issues have led to the constant testing of the Iraq government. For instance, the implementation of the Erbil power-sharing agreement of 2010 has been the main area of focus by those testing the government.

The current occurrences in Iraq increase the tension between the factional groups and the central government has led to the feeling of lack of authority from both the political and economic systems of Iraq. In reality, the tension leads to factions between the political and ethnic groups in Iraq that lead to threats by Kurds and Sunnis over the withdrawal of their support to the government as the crisis in the political arena seems to be unavoidable.⁹

The domestic challenges of Iraq are involved in interactive relationships with the extensive models of instability within the region. For a long time, Iraq has been caught up in between the political fights of other countries as evident in the case of US and Iran.¹⁰ In addition, Iraq is drawn closer to the civil conflicts that are constantly experienced in Syria.

Even though the government of Iraq has been active in trying to eliminate ISIS militants in the country, the present civil war in Syria has adverse effects on the stability of Iraq. The crises experienced within the boundaries of Iraq have a lot of impact in the future of Iraq, as well as the interest of other countries in the region. However, the role played by the US in Iraq is far much better than that of Iran. For instance, US’s presence in Iraq was entirely to prevent the influence of Iran over Iraq.

For instance, US claimed that it is the major source of income for Iraq, and helps in training the security officials of Iraq and the provision of other forms of assistance through the use of information operations. However, the main goal of America in Iraq in 2003 was not only to contain the influence of Iran, but also to help in the creation of a stable democratic government in Iraq. It further aimed at ensuring that the country was in a position to defeat the remaining insurgent and extremist groups, have self-defense against threats from foreigners, participate in the development of a sustainable society and finally develop effective relationship with other countries.

US forces in Iraq since 2003 up to 2011, had been very instrumental in the partial suppression of the extent of the internal challenges in Iraq that affected the economic, political and military aspects of the country. This can be attributed to the fact that there were increased tensions in Iraq following US’s withdrawal, which was an indication that the presence of US’s forces in Iraq prevented the terror acts of the Sunnis and the ISIS.¹¹

The increased cases of civil conflicts and war in Syria have undermined the plans to form a stable government. The coalition government was expected to be formed in 2012, alongside setting up of strategic plans in Iraq to deal with the economic, political and military challenges in the country. Nonetheless, the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq was followed by the revival of the fight for power between the Sunnis and the central government, and the increase in terror attacks from extremists groups such as the ISIS.¹²

Presently, the struggle to gain power still continues and is now more divisive and violent. Concerns have been raised that point out to the possibility of a collapsed democracy in Iraq and complete breakup of Iraqi state if such political situation remains unresolved, as evident in the current civil war in Syria.

Bibliography

Al-Hamid, Raed. “The American Withdrawal from Iraq: Ways And Means for Remaining Behind”. Contemporary Arab Affairs 5, no. 2 (2012): 230-251.

Avant, Deborah and Lee Sigelman. “Private Security and Democracy: Lessons from the US In Iraq”. Security Studies 19, no. 2 (2010): 230-265.

Davidson, Jason. “Heading For The Exits: Democratic Allies And Withdrawal From Iraq And Afghanistan”. Democracy and Security 10, no. 3 (2014): 251-286.

Rubin, Barry. “Reality Bites: The Impending Logic of Withdrawal from Iraq”. The Washington Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2005): 67-80.

Van Creveld, Martin. “The Fall: Consequences of US Withdrawal from Iraq”. New Perspectives Quarterly 24, no. 1 (2007): 41-42.

Visser, Reidar. “Taming the Hegemonic Power: SCIRI and the Evolution of US Policy in Iraq”. International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies 2, no. 1 (2008): 31-51.

Footnotes

1. Raed al-Hamid, “The American Withdrawal from Iraq: Ways and means for remaining behind”, Contemporary Arab Affairs 5, no. 2 (2012): 251.
2. Deborah Avant and Lee Sigelman, “Private Security and Democracy: Lessons from the US in Iraq”, Security Studies 19, no. 2 (2010): 236.
3. Reidar Visser, “Taming the Hegemonic Power: SCIRI and the Evolution of US Policy in Iraq”, International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies 2, no. 1 (2008): 35.
4. Deborah Avant and Lee Sigelman, “Private Security and Democracy: Lessons from the US in Iraq”, Security Studies 19, no. 2 (2010): 236.
5. Raed al-Hamid, “The American Withdrawal from Iraq: Ways and means for remaining behind”, Contemporary Arab Affairs 5, no. 2 (2012): 232.
6. Martin Van Creveld, “The Fall: Consequences of US Withdrawal from Iraq”, New Perspectives Quarterly 24, no. 1 (2007): 41.
7. Reidar Visser, “Taming the Hegemonic Power: SCIRI and the Evolution of US Policy In Iraq”, International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies 2, no. 1 (2008): 39.
8. Barry Rubin, “Reality Bites: The Impending Logic Of Withdrawal From Iraq”, The Washington Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2005): 68
9. Jason Davidson, “Heading For the Exits: Democratic Allies and Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan”, Democracy and Security 10, no. 3 (2014): 256.
10. Raed al-Hamid, “The American Withdrawal from Iraq: Ways and means for remaining behind”, Contemporary Arab Affairs 5, no. 2 (2012): 230.
11. Jason Davidson, “Heading For The Exits: Democratic Allies And Withdrawal From Iraq And Afghanistan”, Democracy and Security 10, no. 3 (2014): 251.
12. Deborah Avant and Lee Sigelman, “Private Security and Democracy: Lessons from the US in Iraq”, Security Studies 19, no. 2 (2010): 265.

Abstract

In this paper, the effects of the invasion of the Bay of Pigs has been discussed and the role of the United States of America. The role of American government largely influenced the invasion although it was meant to be a discreet and secret action. This was actually one of the reasons that led to the failure of the invasion. Cuban relationship with the American government is even today very shaky.

The Cubans have ever since remained paranoid of every action the Americans take. Business dealings between the two countries are flawed due to the fallen relationship and mistrust between the two countries. Being a super power, America was badly tainted by the fail of the invasion. Most people anticipated for an easy overthrow of the president. This defeat was a great embarrassment to the American government. Political decisions are critical and may have negative long term effects that may hurt a countries integrity and security measures.

The effects as discussed in the above research are too risky and destructive. It is apparent that political alignment may also lead to war. Politics is a major aspect of any republic and sound and careful decisions should be made. Every political decision has a potential to lead a country to war or cause destructive effects on the economy as well as social interactions with other countries. As discussed in the paper, American government was in the losing end due to careless political decisions made by the then president J.F. Kennedy.

His approval for the recruitment of the Cuban rebels and supply of American weapons were uncovered. His determination to conceal American role in the invasion was not successful. This not only humiliated the country, but also limited the Americans from effecting full military actions on the invasion. In the attempt to conceal their involvement, the Americans used obsolete air craft to launch air attacks but were overwhelmed by Fidel’s troops who had their air space under tight surveillance.

The Americans anticipation of a rebellion fro within the government was also another uncalculated move that led to the failure of the invasion. The effects of the invasion were severe on both sides as the Americans suffered humiliation and public condemnation from all over the world. Cuba on the other also suffered distraction caused by bombings and deaths of some of its troops although the ordeal left the country stronger than before. As discussed below the Bay of Pigs was an event influenced by political actions ad the effects there of are as a result of politics.

Brief historical account

Every time the Bay of Pigs invasion is mentioned, the first thing that runs through people’s mind is the iconic involvement of the American government under the stewardship of the late president J.F. Kennedy. The whole event is a past that the American government would wish to forget but nothing can unwind the hands of time, history was written then and this will always be in the minds of generations to generations.

The unsuccessful invasion to oust the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro destroyed the relationship between the two states and up to date the countries’ relation remains sour. The failure of this invasion was a huge blow to the Kennedy’s administration which was an embarrassment in the global scene. The Cuban exiles who received military training in the United States of America were overpowered by the Fidel Castro’s troops with some getting kill while others were taken as hostages.

This took place in 1961(Vandenbrouche). Fidel Castro rose to power through military action after overthrowing Fulgencio Batista. Due to his close ties with the Soviet Union, Fidel did not enjoy warm relations with the United States which is why they supported a group of rebels to oust him. However, the invasion was challenged by the Cuban troops and defeated. This was following some mishaps in the planning of the invasion that gave the Cuban troops an advantage to stand against the rebels.

The invasion

The Americans started making faulty moves just at the beginning of the invasion. First was the disguise to facilitate deniability. This was a failed plan that led to inadequate commitment to the battle by the American forces. The need to keep American’s involvement discreet limited their action in the battle field and hence the rebel troops were overwhelmed.

First was the use of obsolete aircraft in order to make the invasion look like a Cuban affair. The obsolete aircraft were even painted to have them look like Cuban aircraft. The guise effect led the use of less military power which did not even bare much fruits. The cover-up was exposed in the end and this made the struggle to remain anonymous not worth the pain.

Castro’s troops took advantage and counter attacked the rebel troops maintain tight security on its air space and on the ground, the troops suppressed the rebels overwhelming them. So many were killed and others captured. The American government had to negotiate and pay ransom for the captured rebels and American troops to be released by the Cuban government.

Reasons influencing the invasion

The Bay of Pigs invasion was a military blue print that was underway even before the J.F. Kennedy came to power (Pessen, 25). The main reason why the American government gave their support to the Cuban exiles to launch an invasion in their home country was to dismantle the communist government miles away from their shores. The government acted in their own interest anticipating support from the locals. The anticipation however was wrongly placed as event turned differently when the American trained rebels landed on Cuban soil.

The American government having seen their mistake quickly withdrew from the promised air strike support hence giving Fidel’s troops an upper hand in winning the battle. Another reason why the Americans supported the invasion was because the Cuban communist administration was a threat to the larger Latin American countries. Allowing Fidel Castro to reign would mean allowing communism to thrive in the Latin American countries which would create problems for the United States.

The Cuban communist influence was threatening to get out of hand. In addition to all this considerations, the United States found it necessary to strike and overthrow the president Castro due to his close ties with the Soviet Union. They could not stand to have a friend of the Soviet Union close to their border. The relationship between the Castro’s administration and the Soviet Union was a security threat for the Americans.

American involvement

The Bay of Pigs invasion could not have happened without the backing of the United States. The United States had everything thing to do with the invasion. The troops that landed on the bay pigs were 1500 in number all were heavily armed with American weapons. The troops also received special training from a United States government’s military wing called the Central Intelligence Agency “CIA” (Craughwell, and William 22).

Camps were set in Guatemala and by November 1960, a small army was already trained in preparation to launch an attack on Fidel’s administration (Knorr, 10). The American administration was doing everything possible to cover up their involvement in these attacks (Lynch 11). Landing on the Bay of Pigs for instance was a way to disguise the American involvement through by entering the Cuban territory through an insignificant point in a swampy remote area.

This was to create a notion that the invasion was being carried out by inexperienced and weak troops. To further hide the involvement of the United States, president J.F.Kennedy declined to offer the troops an air strike support as it was plan and he pulled out from the agreement. All of this was done to try and hide the American participation in the attempt to overthrow Castro’s government. Unfortunately, president Castrol had already received this information that the Americans were helping a group of exiles to launch an attach in his country and consequently judging from the ultimate results of the invasion he took precautionary measure that put him a head of the Americans and brought him victory.

Why the invasion failed

Despite the long and perceived careful planning of an invasion, the ordeal never succeeded. The Americans as well as the rebels anticipated a successful mission but they were both disappointed by the turn of events. One of the reasons that led to the unsuccessful invasion was the fact that the American government tried everything possible to avoid the exposure of their involvement (Howard 25).

This limited their actions since they did not want the world to now that they were actually aiding the rebels to overthrow Fidel Castro. The implications of their exposure could have caused friends of Cuba to hold the United States in contempt (Vandenbrouche 11). The majority of the Latin American countries by then were having good relations with Cuba and America could not risk create enemies around itself. Nonetheless the truth came out and the cover-up did not allow the USA to engage full military force to help the rebels.

They had agreed to help the rebels through air attacks but J.F. Kennedy chose to protect his administration and save the image of the country which consequently led to an embarrassing loss. The American trained Cuban exiles were overwhelmed by Castro’s troops immediately they landed on the bay of troops. The anticipated support from some members of Fidel’s government did not happen. The rebels and Americans never took time to carefully examine Fidel’s strong points and weakness instead they assumed they would get support from the locals which was not the case.

The failure of the invasion was phenomenal considering the backing of the United States a world’s superpower. The American government was mocked for the loss in the battle. Fidel’s troops received heroic comments for defending its country and consequent created new friendship with the Russian who were long time American enemies. Fidel’s troops became even stronger and loyal to their country after defeating the Americans and all of the other rebels in the government were frightened to show their intentions

Effects of the invasion

After this invasion, the American government was determined to make the Cuban suffer as a way of revenge. Plans to even assassinate the Cuban president were deliberated though they all failed. The lasting impact of this was that the two state’s relationship remains strained up to date. The failed invasion tainted a bad image on the American power making the super power seem incompetent.

The American failure to oust President Castro strengthened his government and made the Cuban government look like the victim of American invasion. This increased the loyalty to Fidel’s governance hence promoting communism which was one of the reasons the American government had agreed to get involved in the attack. Many people lost their lives especially civilians a factor that led the locals condemn the American government.

The Kennedy’s administration was condemned all around for its involvement in the attack. Cuban government wary of future attacks from the Americans pursued relations with the Soviet Union and sought their counsel. This improved the relationship between the Soviet Union and the Cuban government which was partly for protection purposes. This posed a threat to the American government.

The Soviet Union and the United States were had no close relations and the Americans were not comfortable with the close ties between Cuba and the union. This led to the Cuban missile crisis which further destroyed completely the relationship between America and the Cuban government. There was an element of distrust that exists even to date. The troops that fought the battle remained loyal to their government making the Fidel Castrol’s administration even more powerful.

Economic and Social repercussions

The failed invasion was too embarrassing to the American government. As a retaliation process, the Americans wanted to completely destabilize Cuba. This led to sanctions imposed against the Cuban government. The economic repercussions experienced during this time were severely felt by the Cuban citizens and the Cuban government was critically affected by these sanctions.

On the other hand, supplies to the American’s that were shipped via Cuban waters were jeopardized and this affected business in the unite states as well. This led huge economic losses to both countries with the Cuban people suffering the most due to the invasion. The whole incident led to strained social ties between the two countries a factor that goes on to date. The relationship between the two countries was destroyed. In this event however, the American image in the global view was tainted as the world sympathized with the Cuba and condemned American actions.

With every instance of a battle or military invasion, most activities that are paramount in driving the economy cease. This brings countries economic activities to a halt hence inflation rates escalate rapidly. This was the same effect on Cuba during the time of these attacks backed by the American government. The deaths that occurred and injuries affected the two countries severely as families lost dear ones. The kind of damage caused by the war at the Bay of Pigs was so devastating.

Conclusion

The effects as discussed in the above research are too risky and destructive. It is apparent that political alignment may also lead to war. Politics is a major aspect of any republic and sound and careful decisions should be made. Every political decision has a potential to lead a country to war or cause destructive effects on the economy as well as social interactions with other countries. As discussed in the paper, American government was in the losing end due to careless political decisions made by the then president J.F. Kennedy.

His approval for the recruitment of the Cuban rebels and supply of American weapons were uncovered. His determination to conceal American role in the invasion was not successful. This not only humiliated the country, but also limited the Americans from effecting full military actions on the invasion. In the attempt to conceal their involvement, the Americans used obsolete air craft to launch air attacks but were overwhelmed by Fidel’s troops who had their air space under tight surveillance.

Works Cited

Craughwell, Thomas and William Phelps. Failures of the Presidents: From the Whiskey Rebellion and War of 1812 to the Bay of Pigs and War in Iraq. NY: Fair Winds, 2008. Print.

Howard, Jones. The Bay of Pigs. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

Knorr, Klaus. “Failures in National Intelligence Estimates: The Case of the Cuban Missiles.” World Politics. 16.3 (1964): 1-13.

Lynch, Grayston. Decision for Disaster: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs. Boston: Potomac Books, Inc., 2000. Print.

Pessen, Edward. “Appraising American Cold War Policy by its Means of Implementation.” Reviews in American History. 18.4 (1990): 22-30.

Vandenbrouche, Lucien S. “Anatomy of a Failure: The Decision to Land at the Bay of Pigs.” Political Science Quarterly. 99.3 (1984): 52-73.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River began at the end of the nineteenth century when a group of European Jews started to settle in Palestine, aiming to seize control over the territory. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a protracted, deadly, and costly confrontation that involved many participants among the Middle East and Western countries. While the countries of Europe decided to withhold relations with Jewish settlements in 1967, when Israel occupied Sinai, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the West Bank, the United States has remained the peace broker that initiated negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians in 2014. Although some political analysts believe that the reconciliation between Israel and Palestine will not bring peace to the Middle East, the comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if conducted within the appropriate framework, may pacify the tension in the Middle East and the international political arena.

For decades, the international community attempted to reconcile Israel and Palestine without tangible results so that the peace process seemed to be elusive. The lack of trust between the longstanding enemies and the permanent power disparity in the negotiations that was caused by Israel’s military and economic preponderance did not allow for effective bilateral political dialogue. The lack of comprehensiveness in the U.S. peace-making strategy prevented the possible compromise between Israel and Palestine as it could not assist both parties in making the necessary concessions to reach an agreement. Moreover, the unconditional but noticeable support of the U.S. for Israel has created the anti-American backlash among the Middle Eastern countries since the overwhelming majority supported the Palestinians, who were seen as “victims of an all-powerful colonizing Israel” (Cleveland and Bunton 536). All these factors made it possible for some political analysts to conclude that the U.S.-led settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will deteriorate the situation in the Middle East; however, others admit that successful settlement is possible under certain conditions (Yambert 101).

In 2002 the Arab League introduced the Arab Peace Initiative, which suggested a proposal for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the successful comprehensive settlement, the negotiations between the two parties should be strictly based on the Arab Peace Initiative (Cleveland and Bunton 517). The negotiations should start with the discussion of borders, which will persuade the Palestinians that the re-establishment of their state is already at hand. The negotiations should be held in Jerusalem, where the number of Jews and Palestinians is almost equal since it will serve as a symbol of their possible coexistence.

The negotiations should have a specific time limit because both parties’ interests in the protraction of time in the hope of improving their position took the conflict settlement longer than was appropriate. Moreover, the negotiations should be assisted by independent parties, and since it is believed that the U.S. is a supporter of Israel and the EU is a supporter of Palestine, the assistance may need to be provided by four of the most influential members of the Arab League: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar. The negotiations should be based on the prior agreements that were reached in 2000 and 2010 as well as receive positive media coverage. All these conditions will provide for the successful comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite to peace for the international community, the Middle East, and the U.S. Given that this confrontation of two nations continued throughout more than a century, separating the Arab nations and Jews and involving a large number of Western and Eastern participants against their will (e.g., Syria’s civil war), the eventual settlement of the conflict seems to be one of the few political events that will significantly contribute to the relaxation of political tension (Cleveland and Bunton 550).

Moreover, the Palestinians saw the Israeli occupation as colonization because many Jews that started to settle in Palestine were of European origin and supported by the UK and other European countries (Yambert 68). The Arab nations that support Palestine associate themselves with it, and given that the Palestinians are seen as victims, the Middle East does not accept the Western interference in the conflict, which has developed an anti-American backlash. If the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is conducted according to the conditions that have been discussed above, the tension between the Middle East and the U.S. will be relaxed. Thus, the comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be a prerequisite for restoring the regional and international peace.

Despite the fact that some political analysts and members of the international community do not believe in the peace-making power of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settlement, one cannot deny the fact that it will ease the political tensions in the Middle East and the international arena. Besides that, if the reconciliation is assisted by the Arab nations without direct American influence, the Arab grievances against the U.S. will also be settled. Thus, the comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be considered as a prerequisite to peace for the Middle East and the U.S.

Works Cited

Cleveland, William L., and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East. 6th ed., Westview Press, 2016.

Yambert, Karl, editor. The Contemporary Middle East: A Westview Reader. 3rd ed., Westview Press, 2013.

Introduction

Since the exit of the US troops from Iraq in 2010, questions have been raised regarding the effectiveness of the withdrawal. During the withdrawal of troops, there was moderate stability in the region with moderate peace and a newly formed democratic government in power. However, there was always the fear of how the Arab and non-Arab neighbors would react to the American military withdrawal from Iraq. Today, when the fear of ISIS looms large on Iraq and Syria, many argue that the time of departure of the American troops from the Iraqi soil was hasty and their work there was left unfinished. However, there are still others who argue that the misadventure did not start when US troops were withdrawn, but when they landed in the country in 2003. The US failed whenever it tried to intervene in the nation-building process (e.g. South Vietnam and Haiti).¹

This trend seems to have continued in Iraq. This is because the desire to change the country’s regime radically has lead to administrative failures. Therefore, when the US tried to change the authoritarian regime in Iraq, it prompted a stressful realignment of the Iraqi politics. The presence of the US troops and the lack of a stabilizing-force in Iraq led to the Iraqi troop’s demise, and the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Consequently, was the breakup of Iraq inevitable after the withdrawal of US forces from the country? Further, how far is such a breakup more likely with the civil war in Syria? This paper will try to answer these questions using Bueno de Mesquita’s selectorate theory model and historical perspective.

Theory of Foreign Intervention

Exogenous state-building attempts in Iraq have failed, historically. According to the selectorate theory presented by Mesquita and Downs, a majority electorate that comprises of the people of the nation chooses a leader.² The leader remains in office and retains support by creating public policies and goods for the people. When he loses support due to failed policies, an autocrat is likely to become the leader. Intervening states, which try to establish a democratic government by overthrowing a non-democratic state structure (e.g. communism or autocracy), often face problems, as they are not part of the selectorate. Thus, the actions taken for the target country may directly affect the prospects of the intervening nation’s foreign policies.³ A democratic intervener convinces its electorate that such intervention in a foreign country is essential to provide certain public good, such as safety of national security.⁴

The main interest of an intervening state is to change the policies of the target country, and in certain cases, create a democracy as has been observed in the case of Vietnam and Iraq. However, uncertainty becomes the biggest hurdle for such policies, as it is impossible to ensure if the target state will adopt the policies of the intervener.⁵ According to the selectorate theory, a democratic intervener will leave a symbolical democratic trait in countries that have negligible democracy vis-à-vis countries that have not experienced intervention.⁶ In addition, in countries that have some degree of democracy, the intervener is more likely to leave a symbolic democratic traits and nothing more.⁷ Thus, in the case of Iraq, the democracy that should have been left behind by the US in 2010 was not close to what the selectorate theory demands. In the end, the stability of the state will depend on the perception of legitimacy of the majority of the target country’s electorate. Therefore, the state-building process in Iraq was symbolically successful in creating a symbolic democracy when the US troops were withdrawn in 2010. However, as predicted by the selectorate theory, the majority of the people were not happy with the government supported by a foreign country, representing only a part of the population.⁸ This led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the country, which eventually took the form of ISIS.

Historical Outlook of Democratization of Iraq

Historically, if the process of democratization of Iraq is observed, it is seen that both the US and the UK failed to establish legitimate democracy in the country as they failed to gain support from the majority of the population. State building in Iraq by the British in the 1920s and the US in 2003, tried to form a coalition with a section of the indigenous population. As both Britain and the US were foreign countries, with the support of a local ally, the majority of the people of the country perceived their intervention undesirable. Their effort was to rebuild the collapsed state machinery and help the people.⁹ However, the ideologies of the intervening country, and not that of the target country, drive external state-building effort. The democratization process in 2003 created a gap between the intervener and the population, thus, alienating the external state-builders from the electorate. This is one of the crucial errors committed by the US in its state-building efforts in Iraq.

Iraq: A Case Study

When the US troops were withdrawn from Baghdad, the half-baked state-building effort had left the country vulnerable. The US successfully overthrew Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian government, only to form a government exposed to the often competing self-interests of the regional powers.¹⁰ The Iraqi politicians were trampled by the interests of their neighboring Arab nations and the US along with the expectations of the people of the country. Therefore, when the US withdrew its forces from Iraq, the political system in Iraq remained volatile and fell prey to the growing Islamic sentiments. The different facets of the post-withdrawal Iraq were the US-Iraq relations, Shia community’s political proclivities, oil producing block and federalism, the role of women in Iraqi politics, and the issue of Kurdistan.¹¹ Some other factors that played a major role in determining peace in the country were Shia-Sunni dynamics, nascent Iraqi armed forces, and the opposing political blocs.

Further, the rise of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has changed the political map of the Middle East as it strives to claim a free land.¹² The reason for this sudden upsurge in regional militant unrest, especially in Syria and Iraq, is due to the absence of a legitimate government.¹³ Iraq and Syria both have been haunted by the rise of a number of political ideologies such as such the Arab nationalism, Islam, jihad, and Salafism.¹⁴ The people of Iraq have started trusting the religious groups and parties to provide services that the state machinery is supposed to provide. The issue is related to the inclusion of Kirkuk, which is an oil-rich region, in Kurdistan.¹⁵ This problem is one of the most serious difficulties after the departure of the American troops from Iraqi soil. Saddam had subdued the Kurds. However, when the US forces overthrew him in 2003, these regional Kurdish leaders set aside their differences and started to form a strong presence in the region. In the 2005 elections in Iraq, the Kurdish leaders gained 26 per cent of the votes due to high Kurdish and low Sunni turnout. This gave them the power to choose a leader they preferred – Jalal Talabani.¹⁶

The rise of ISIS poses a threat to the Syrian, Iraqi Kurds, as well as the political scenario in the Middle East. On one side are the Kurds, who want to establish the teaching of Abdullah Ocalan’s philosophy of a bottom-up democratic autonomy free from the oppressive nation-state, while on the other side is ISIS that aims to establish the rule of the caliphate.¹⁷ Thus, both Syria and Iraq have become stateless regions with no governmental system.

Conclusion

The departure of US forces from the Iraqi soil led to the uprising of the opposing Kurdish and the Sunni Islamist leaders who fought against one another to gain control over the regions of Syria and Iraq. This was an inevitable consequence as the US troop’s departure left a vacuum for the rising militant groups to take over, as the Iraqi army was too young to fight them. Thus, the uncertainty of the Kurds and the Sunnis in Iraq led to the rise of the conflict between the Kurds and ISIS. The reason for this unrest is the intervention of an external country to establish democracy. Once the Saddam regime was overthrown, the incumbent intervener favored the Kurds and formed an alliance with them. However, this move isolated the Sunnis, thus creating distrust between a group of the host population and the intervening country. Thus, when the government was formed with the Kurdish leaders at the helm of power, it did not gain legitimacy among the Sunni population who rebelled immediately after the departure of the US forces. Therefore, the US had created a symbolic state in Iraq, which was not sustainable.

References

Brownlee, J. (2014). Was Obama wrong to withdraw troops from Iraq?. The Washington Post. Web.

Dodge, T. (2006). Iraq: the contradictions of exogenous state-building in historical perspective. Third World Quarterly, 27 (1), 187-200.

Gunter, M. M. (2015). Iraq, Syria, ISIS and the Kurds: Geostrategic concerns for the U.S. and Turkey. Middle East Policy, XXII (1), 102-111.

Mesquita, B. B., & Downs, G. W. (2006). Intervention and Democracy. International Organization, 60, 627-649.

Romano, D. (2010). Iraqi Kurdistan: challenges of autonomy in the wake of US withdrawal. International Affairs, 86 (6), 1345–1359.

Stansfield, G. (2010). The political parameters of post-withdrawal Iraq. International Affairs, 86 (6), 1261-1267.

Footnotes

1. Jason Brownlee (2014). Was Obama wrong to withdraw troops from Iraq?. The Washington Post. Web.
2. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita and George W. Downs (2006). Intervention and Democracy. International Organization, 60, 627-649, 629.
3. Ibid., 629-30.
4. Ibid., 630.
5. Ibid., 631.
6. Ibid., 632.
7. Ibid., 632.
8. See Mesquita and Downs (2006) to understand the ethnic and Islamic political unrest in Iraq and Syria, 632-635.
9. Toby Dodge (2006). Iraq: the contradictions of exogenous state-building in historical perspective. Third World Quarterly, 27 (1), 187-200, 190.
10. Gareth Stansfield (2010). The political parameters of post-withdrawal Iraq. International Affairs, 86 (6), 1261-1267, 1262.
11. Ibid., 1263.
12. Michael M. Gunter (2015). Iraq, Syria, ISIS and the Kurds: Geostrategic concerns for the U.S. and Turkey. Middle East Policy, XXII (1), 102-111, 102.
13. Ibid., 103.
14. Ibid., 103.
15. David Romano (2010). Iraqi Kurdistan: challenges of autonomy in the wake of US withdrawal. International Affairs, 86 (6), 1345–1359, 1346.
16. Ibid., 1349.
17. Gunter, 102.

Introduction

The causes of World War 2 were actively discussed. Among the arguments, there was one which related the way World War 1 finished the inevitability of World War 2. In 1919 at the Versailles Peace Conference in Paris, the German delegation announced their objections to the Treaty of Versailles which treated Germany rather harshly. This document is known as “Comments of the German Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference on the Conditions of Peace” and some of its issues are discussed in this paper.

The Treaty of Versailles and the German Economy

The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 in Paris and is considered to be a document that ended World War 1. Apart from some sound decisions, the Treaty claimed that Germany had the major “war guilt” and had to provide reparation payments for the reconstruction of Europe (Sanders, 2014). However, the punishment was too harsh for Germany because apart from compensation payments, the punishment included the withdrawal of German colonies and some of its territories as well as reduction of the size of the German army.

Such a decision was a disaster for the German economy. Compensation payments will not allow the country to provide restoration of its industries. Withdrawal of colonies and other territories will deprive the country of resources necessary for production and a significant part of the outlet area. On the whole, according to “Comments of the German Delegation” (n.d.), the Treaty violated Germany’s fundamental right “of self-preservation and self-determination” (para. 1).

Germany’s View on Possible Application of President Wilson’s Principles

President Wilson believed that World War 1 was not caused by a single fact, and the whole of Europe was “in a deeper sense responsible for the war” (“Comments of the German Delegation,” n.d., para. 1). Moreover, he considered that the actions of the commission which was to decide on the size of German compensation payments were not fair because the commission consisted of German enemies only. According to Wilson, every county involved in the war had to take equal blame and responsibility. In case Wilson’s principles had been applied, Germany would not have been treated as a single country responsible for the war.

Moreover, peace and equal rights for all countries would have allowed the recovery of all European economies including German. As a result, the whole world could have benefited, because Germany’s economy had a significant impact on European and world economies.

The Higher “Fundamental Laws” to Strengthen German Assertions

According to “Comments of the German Delegation” (n.d.), the war gave rise to a new fundamental law “which the statesmen of all belligerent peoples have again and again acknowledged to be their aim: the right of self-determination” (para. 7).

Also, the right to self-preservation was considered to be another “fundamental law.” German delegation claimed that these fundamental laws should have been a common practice to strengthen their assertions. The facts of taking away German territories and colonies as well as making the country guilty of World War 1 and forcing to pay compensations and reduction of the army were violating these higher fundamental laws. Under the decisions of the Treaty, Germany could not make any decisions about its future or plan the restoration of the country because of outside interference.

Reflection on the Treatment of Germany

I believe that Germany was being poorly and unfairly treated according to the decision of the Treaty of Versailles. World War 1 exhausted and devastated all the countries involved in the war. Their economies were weak, the industries were ruined, and millions of people were killed. Consequently, every country needed time and resources to restore its potential and return to a peaceful life. Certainly, the guild of Germany in starting the war could not be denied.

Still, there are always at least two opponents in any war, and Germany cannot be the only party to blame. However, the enemies of Germany desired to make the country the only responsible party for the war and destroy its economy. The fact of taking away territories and colonies as well as compensation payments were killing the economy, which was already weak. However, the situation could have been changed if the defenders of the Treaty responded to Germany’s complaints by reducing their blame and punishment. It would have allowed the quicker restoration of Germany’s economy to the benefit of the whole of Europe.

Conclusion

On the whole, the issue of Germany’s treatment by its enemies after World War 1 is a case for many arguments. On the one hand, the supporters of the Treaty of Versailles and its decisions wanted to punish the country which started World War 1. On the other hand, the harsh punishment applied to Germany hurt not only the country it was aimed to punish. The economies of all European countries have always been interconnected, and problems of one frequently influence the others. Moreover, the unfair treatment led to the desire of Germany’s leaders to return the country’s positions, which, after all, led to World War 2.

References

Comments of the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference on the conditions of peace. (n.d.). Web.

Sanders, T. (2014). The world in the twentieth century: From empires to nations (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Australia is on the 59th place among the countries affected by terrorism, but even being at its current position, it faces increased rates of terrorism that are close to those observed in Iran. Even though only 2 people died in 2015 because of terror attacks, police claim that the country would have experienced 15 more cases of these adverse events if they had not been foiled (Brook, 2016). Thus, it is not surprising that Australia develops initiatives to counter associated threats, including those posted by improvised explosive devices. Moreover, it develops projects to support other countries in their fight against terrorism.

The representatives of the government state that the population of Australia is not likely to be affected by improvised explosive devices. Nevertheless, two men from Sydney tried to smuggle this device and brought it to an airport. Fortunately, their actions were revealed, and they were arrested (Smyth, 2017). In addition to that, many Australian soldiers perform their duties in Afghanistan. During their missions, men are killed by improvised explosive devices as well. In this way, Australia and its population are affected by terrorism because of different reasons, including those associated with political and ideological beliefs.

Australia believes that terrorism is a global issue that should be overcome in order to ensure population’s safety. In particular, the country develops anti-terrorism legislation that focuses on offenses, organizations, financing, and violence associated with this issue. It is based on the Criminal Code Act 1995 and powered by Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 (“Australia’s counter-terrorism laws,” 2018).

The legislation includes safeguards that guide professionals’ actions in case of terrorism offenses and lists those procedures that should be conducted to obtain warrants or use tracking devices, etc. Of course, it also discusses limitations and prohibitions needed to prevent dangerous situations.

Realizing the necessity to oppose terrorism and threats posed by improvised explosive devices, Australia does not only resort to appropriate legislation but also develops those programs that counter such issues. For instance, Defense’s Joint Counter Improvised Threat Task Force was created to protect military, police, and security workers who performed their duties in battlefields like Afghanistan and Iraq. With the course of time, a similar project known as Redwing was developed.

It is believed to be an improved version of its predecessor that provided an opportunity to use minimal operator training and logistical support (“Countering the threat of improvised explosive devices,” 2016). Moreover, the representatives of the general public can access a guideline that should be followed in case of facing a threat posed by improvised explosive devices.

While Task Force was used at the beginning of the 2000s, the Redwing program is a current resolution that has been used only since 2015. Nevertheless, both of them managed to save numerous lives and protected people from improvised explosive devices. These programs are considered to be an advantageous innovation in UN Peacekeeping, and their use is highly recommended. Currently, Australia tries to focus more on the protection of its own territory because the majority of its efforts were put on military actions outside of the country. It develops guidelines to teach its population to survive if they face improvised explosive devices. Moreover, it continues using Redwing as the major solution to the problem.

References

Australia’s counter-terrorism laws. (2018). Web.

Brook, B. (2016). Global Terrorism Index reveals how impacted Australia is by terrorist atrocities. Web.

Countering the threat of improvised explosive devices. (2016). Web.

Smyth, J. (2017). Two charged in Australia airline terror probe. Web.

Approaches to Reducing Direct Violence in Liberia

Considering the initiatives and strategies that various parties and organizations have taken to ensure a peaceful environment in the framework of the war in Liberia, it becomes clear that they are insufficient. The first approach to solving a direct conflict is adopting a unified vision, which sometimes requires government renewal. Thereupon, in 1990, ECOWAS put forward a strategy to end violence. The strategy entailed forming a new government, which was enacted in 1993 (Shilue and Fagen 7).

Given that various armed groups have entered into a battle for power, a full-fledged peaceful atmosphere was impossible without reconciliation of all parties (Shilue and Fagen 9). Due to the insufficient involvement of all parties of the conflict as well as external organizations in coordinated activities, formal peace was not attained.

Further, the introduction of a complete ban on fire and external monitoring of compliance with this plan is essential for ensuring a peaceful situation in society. The UN has been monitoring the implementation of the peace treaty in Liberia since 2003, and strengthening this approach is vital to avoiding new conflicts (Shilue and Fagen 9). However, the situation in the country requires more attention to the control of hostilities.

The security approach is a measure to improve the situation of the country and the exclusion of new potential uprisings. Moreover, given a large number of victims, that is, more than three million people, a strategy to ensure security and adequate living conditions for victims is obligatory (Shilue and Fagen 1). For instance, a US-based humanitarian organization Hopes International has been providing orphaned Liberian children with food, water, mattresses, and school supplies since 2008 (“Humanitarian Aid in Liberia”). Humanitarian aid can have a significant impact on disadvantaged people’s lives. However, relying on external sources is not sustainable and does not help to build a resilient, self-reliant support system within the country.

The most effective approach to solving the war conflict in Liberia should be large-scale and attract all parties. The two other approaches – external supervising and ameliorating living conditions – are only auxiliary tools that may provide temporary relief but not change the situation in a long perspective. In any case, only joint coordinated actions by all parties to the conflict can ensure an end to violence.

Conflict in Liberia and Violation of Human Rights

The long civil war in Liberia led to brutal outcomes, violating many civil rights and leading to uncontrolled direct violence affecting a huge number of innocent people. Even though the war had a duration of 14 years, and officially ended in 2003, attempts to secure peace are still not successful (Shilue and Fagen 1). Therefore, Liberia, during and after the war, needs to adopt a practical approach to eliminating direct violence and agreement of all parties and coordinated control of the situation may be most effective.

The war, which took an extended period, entailed many violations of Liberian rights and uncontrolled violence. Hence, three million people died, children became victims of violence and sexual slavery, and many people fell victim to torture or lost their homes and were forced to flee the country (Shilue and Fagen 1). Such a provision indicates a critical violation of human rights, including the rights to freedom and life, the choice of a place to live, the inviolability of property, and the like.

The violation of these fundamental rights causes uprisings, which contributes to the constant threat of the intensification of military conflicts. Given that a full-fledged peace is a complex concept that includes not only social but also political and economic aspects, solely a comprehensive regulation of Liberia’s internal processes can eliminate violence (Kurtenbach 1). In this case, each party that has interests in rebuilding the country and providing its people with decent living conditions should take part in a multi-level, unified approach to the elimination of conflicts. Thus, calling on all concerned to provide the people of Liberia with their rights in social, political, and economic contexts can bring the peace that minimizes possible violence.

Works Cited

“Humanitarian Aid in Liberia.” Hope International, n.d. Web.

Kurtenbach, Sabine. “No One Size Fits All – A Global Approach to Peace (GIGA Focus Global, 5).” GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, vol. 2017, no. 5, 2017, pp.1-11. Web.

Shilue, James Shah, and Patricia Fagen. “Liberia: Links between Peacebuilding, Conflict Prevention and Durable Solutions to Displacement.” Brookings-LSE, Project on Internal Displacement, 2014, pp.1-26. Web.

There was a biological attack on Americans in September 2001. Letters laced with Anthrax spores were mailed to different locations in the country. Those near the letters when they were opened suffered harsh consequences. Five people died while under medication. This was because the doctors did not understand what they were trying to treat this treatment was more of a fire fighting exercise than an exercise with a purpose.

Seventeen others fell seriously ill and were admitted to hospitals across the country. However, these people recovered and returned to their normal lives. This incident scared Americans so much that a 9-year long investigation was launched and formally concluded in February 2010. This investigation was run by the DOJ in conjunction with the FBI(Gottlieb, Arenberg, & Singh, 1994).

The letters containing the anthrax spores were sent in two shifts. The first set was sent to media houses in the US. The media houses were ABC News, AMI, New York Post, CBS News, and NBC News. The authorities believed that they had been posted from Trenton as they each had a New Jersey postmark. The second round of letters was sent to Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. The two were Democrat senators of South Dakota and Vermont.

Both the senators were lucky since they did not personally open the letters. One letter got lost in the mail and was discovered a month later by a postal worker who was not so lucky. He contracted the disease via inhalation. The second was discovered just in time by a government aide. This letter was isolated and its contents were cleaned. The aide was wearing protective clothing and was not harmed by the spores.

The anthrax spores sent to the senators were more harmful than those sent to the media houses since they were almost pure. This led scientists to wrongly conclude that the spores had been laced with silica. The FBI and the United States Department of Justice are the agencies that carried on with the investigation until the end. The conclusion reached was that one Dr. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the biological attack. He was a 62-year-old scientist who worked at a government laboratory. He had worked at the same biodefense center for over twenty years. The suspect committed suicide in 2008 before the case was closed.

Dr. Ivins is hiding some hate messages in the letters which were photocopies. The handwriting looked like a child’s and some letters were traced over with tracing paper as if to highlight them. One of the hate messages was an insult to the City of New York. Colleagues confirmed that the doctor hated the city. This would explain why he sent four letters to media houses in the city. The second coded message translated to the doctor’s nickname.

When the FBI concentrated the investigation on him, the doctor threw a book in his trash which had lessons on coded language, the kind that had been used in the letters. He also sterilized his lab twice in an attempt to cover his tracks.

The suspect was reported to have several mental health problems which could have led to his suicide. His psychiatrist also reported to the police that the doctor had expressed an intention to poison his assistant the year before the attacks. However, he did not make good on this threat. His colleagues also pointed out that the Ivins had a habit of driving long distances to post letters so that they could not be traced to him (Analysts, Massachusetts Association of Crime, 2008).

The agencies constructed a schedule for Bruce Ivins. This schedule indicated that he worked for more than double his overtime in the months preceding the attacks. This gave him sufficient time to experiment with and prepare the anthrax spores in time for the attacks. Laboratory records also showed that the only flask containing anthrax spores was under Dr. Ivin’s care and he worked unsupervised. These factors together with his suicide which could have been an act of guilt led to his being declared the sole suspect for the investigation in 2008.

The destinations to which the contaminated letters had been sent had to be cleaned up with chlorine dioxide gas. This was a costly exercise and cost up to $1billion. One media house had to relocate. The cleaning was time-consuming and it took up to 26 months per building. Some of the victims never fully recovered from the attacks, reporting instances of fatigue, and loss of memory (United States Department of Justice, 2010).

There were more than 1000 suspects at the beginning of the investigation. The FBI and DOJ were trying to catch the perpetrator of this crime and establish the motive. Several times they were misled by copycat criminals who sent similar letters. However, eventually, all the evidence pointed to Dr. Ivins. The Doctor’s wife also ran a day-care center for children under 6 years. The handwriting on the letters resembled a child’s and the doctor could easily have got one of the day-care children to write the letters before photocopying them. Though the agencies finally concluded that Dr. Ivins was the perpetrator, they will never know why he committed the crime.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation worked alongside several other agencies in this case. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed the scientific methods used by the FBI in analyzing the spore samples. The latter agency is a branch of The National Research Council. The U.S Postal Inspection Service assisted in checking the mail in the postal system for traces of anthrax. The Department of Justice also provided some full-time detectives to assist in the case (Analysts, Massachusetts Association of Crime, 2008).

There are still some questions left unanswered though the case was formally closed. There are speculations as to whether the White House had intelligence concerning the attacks well in advance. This is because all the staff in the White House was put on a compulsory antibiotic two weeks before the attacks began. This was a preventive measure of some sort. However, no evidence to support this allegation has been uncovered yet. Therefore, Americans can only believe the FBI’s report and hope this never happens again (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010).

References

Analysts, Massachussets Association of Crime. (2008). Introduction to Crime Analysis. Web.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). FBI Official Website. Web.

Gottlieb, S. L., Arenberg, S., & Singh, R. (1994). Crime Analysis : From First Report to Final Arrest. Montclair: Alpha Publishing.

United States Department of Justice. (2010). Department of Justice. Web.

Lessons Learnt from Halberstam’s “The making of a quagmire”

Vietnam War was probably the most controversial war in the history. Beginning with the first attempt of the South Vietnam to become independent, until the moment when America entered the war, it took many turns. After reading the book by David Halberstam, “The making of a quagmire”, I changed my opinion about this war. First of all, it should be mentioned that this war made American people be more interested in the external politics and it provoked the birth of the major youth movement in the American history, hippie.

It was the movement for peace. So, the book gives an insight into the war, together with the journalists we observe the actions of American and Vietnam soldiers, life of peasants and all terrible pictures of that war. Now, I believe that all wars have a political basis. It was not just war against the enemy or war for independence. It was war of politicians who wanted to grasp the power in their hands. People were just puppet, “the war was entirely political: its military aspects were simply a means to permit them to practice their political techniques” (Halberstam and Singal 13). In addition, very few American soldier, as well as people, understood adequately this political context.

However, I understood that no matter what the objectives of politics are, one should have his/ her own point of view on everything. And if you are told to do something, you should think twice before doing it. Another thing that I understood is that humanism is very important. The NFL cadres tried to live among people, work with them in fields and provide education and medical aid (Halberstam and Singal 13).

It was a great step to reconciliation. I guess that the Vietnam governments should have acted like this too. The book showed me that war could never solve the conflict. Only understanding and mutual aid can bear some fruit. I guess that the main objective of the book was to show people that they were not marionettes in the arms of the government and that war was not the way to solve the conflict.

The evaluation of the actions of Buddhists in the book

Halberstam does not judge in his book, he just provides evidences and events as he saw them during the war. He provides the actions of different people who played their roles in it. Among them were Henry Cabot Lodge, Ngo Dinh Diem, John Paul Vann and Madame Nhu. There were another people who made their contribution to this war and who fought for their independence – the Buddhists. 60% of the country were the Buddhists. But when the Catholics were announces to take leading positions in the government, the Buddhist began their “war”. “The Buddhist movement was the primary cause of political instability: (Moyar 750).

It is hard to say nowadays what they were fighting for. The magazines wrote that they fought for the religious independence, but I would go as far as to say that their primary objective was to take the power in their hands. They burned themselves in hope that it will help them taking the power. I do not thing that it could help. In addition, Madame Nhu did not react to this, saying: “Let them burn and we shall clap our hands” and then she added that the Buddhist should be beaten and these words provoked further horror (Halberstam and Singal 148).

So, I do see sense in their actions. One more thing comes to my mind, another sort of manipulation appears in Buddhists actions. People killed themselves, but what for? Consequently, politicians “played” with lives of simple people. As a group of people, the Buddhists fought for the religious freedom and as the leader of the group wanted to grasp the power. Moreover, “the Buddhists practiced a form of political activism that was inconsistent with traditional Vietnamese Buddhism” (Moyar 749).

Press Versus Government in the Vietnam War

In his book, Halberstam, says that press cannot make the government better than it is, “news management cannot turn a bad government into a good one” (7). Government always used media as a means to influence on people, there always was a sort of “collaboration” between press and government during the war. However, in Vietnam, there were no such relationships, “the split between the reporters and the mission was basic” (Halberstman and Singal 7).

Harberstman says that it was the result of the American traditional freedom. The media tried to show a real war to American people. The journalists depicted the rude pictures of it. So, the effect was quite contrary: the government wanted to encourage people to participate in war, and press did an absolutely contrary job. People did not want the war to continue and there were mass demonstrations and movements. I guess that press was right. It did a great mission to stop that war. That was the work of young and emotional journalists, in particular, Browne, Sheehan and Halberstam.

They played a great role in the evolution of the Vietnam War. “The split between the American press and the American officials in Vietnam continued throughout the bitter years of the Indochina war and it continued to exist during the war of the Vietnamese government against the Vietnam congress” (Halberstam and Singal 6). Halberstam, in particular, criticized the American policy. His intention was to win the war against the NFL, not to curtail American involvement (20).

Singal says that Halberstam also believed that only a compromise could solve the conflict and that all that the American government should do was to study the mistakes done and avoid them in future (Halberstam and 20). This is the main idea he followed in his articles. And this is the idea I support as well.

Works Cited

Moyar, Mark. Political Monks: “The Militant Buddhist Movement during the Vietnam War”. Modern Asian Studies, 38 (2004), pp 749-784.

Halberstam, David and Joseph Singal. The Making of a Quagmire: America and Vietnam During the Kennedy Era. The United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008.

The entire world being in ruins after the WWII, the necessity for integration was obvious. It was only with the help of cooperation that people could restore the societal order and renew the economy. However, the integration processes in the city differed from those in the suburbs greatly. Because of the greater challenges, which stood in front of the residents of the city, they had to make a much greater effort in striving for integration compared to the dwellers of the suburbs.

The process of suburbanization, which swept the entire United States, explained the emphasis that was put on the U.S. suburbia at the time (Sugrue 210). The phenomenon of Baby Boom, which occurred after the end of the WWII in the epoch of the same name, also contributed to creating the gap between the development of suburbia and the city centers. With a much stronger stress on family values as opposed to the concerns related to business, the Baby Boom Era has launched a major campaign for restoring the U.S. suburbia from the devastation that the WWII had led it to. The integration of the economy, on the contrary, was occurring at a much slower pace, which resulted in the delay of the urbanization process (Jackson 230).

Likewise, the politics of homeownership and the principles of race segregation, which were dominant at the time, posed a range of obstacles on the way of the state’s urbanization (Surgue 211). As a result, the lack of quality in the execution of these policies could be observed; by enhancing care for the suburban residents, the U.S. government brought the quality of the services provided by the state industries down a few notches: “In each case, the actual design features were less important than the fact that they were mass-produced and thus priced within the reach of the middle class” (Jackson 236). The resulting lack of struggle for integration within the city as opposed to the one in the country was the outcome. In order to launch the urbanization process, the United States needed to reconsider the social principles that the postwar society was guided by.

Responses to Other Students

Student #1 has outlined the conflict between the postwar cities and suburbs in a rather clear and concise manner. The key factors affecting the phenomenon have been listed in the response; more to the point, the Student #1 has managed to tie in the political, economic, and sociocultural factors into the analysis in order to provide a single background for the struggle for integration to develop in the post-WWII era. Particularly, the mentioning of the open housing issue is a major advantage of the argument, since it helps gain a better understanding of the economic implications of the post-WWII policies.

(Response to Student #1)

By shedding light on the discrimination issue, which was a common phenomenon in the Baby Boom epoch, Student #2 provides an in-depth social analysis of the suburban integration phenomenon that could be observed after the end of the WWII. The social concerns, particularly, the emphasis on the family values, and the ensuing policies regarding the economic facilities for the suburbia residents, have been explained with an outstanding clarity and in a very graphic manner. Student #2 has proven that the post-WWII economic strategies featured a considerable lack of justice when considering the situation that the urban residents had to deal with.

Works Cited

Jackson, Kenneth T. “The Baby Boom and the Age of the Subdivision.” Grabgrass Frontier: the Suburbanization of the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1985. 231–244. Print.

Sugrue, Thomas J. “’Homeowners’ Rights’: White Resistance and the Rise of Antiliberalism.” Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. 209–229. Print.