...our first point New Zealand shouldn’t be getting involved with Iraq. Let us be clear about what we are dealing with. They call themselves Islamic State, but they are not a State. They want to establish a caliphate, a medieval form of social organization and control. They are not within a single border; they run across borders. They are cultural, they are ethnic, they are religious, and they are driven by a number of different motivations. They are not a nation State in the way that we typically recognize; they are a grouping, an organization, a movement, and they draw their support accordingly. By getting involved in this we are putting our own people and country at stake. Isis adherents can turn up anywhere in the world. Islamic State is a repository of the dispossessed, the marginalized, the fanatical, the extreme, and, yes, the evil, but it is not a conventional enemy and the circumstances in which we are being asked to fight it or train others to fight it in Iraq are not conventional. We are told we are sending troops to train the Iraqi army. The Prime Minister says they will be behind the wire but we know they will not be. They cannot stick there; they cannot stay there, that is not all they will do. They will not just be behind the wire; they will be exposed to the much wider conflict. What is it that our troops will do that will succeed where others have failed? After 10 years of training of the Iraqi army by the US army, after $25 billion of assistance to the Iraqi...
Words: 743 - Pages: 3
...they are one, the outcome of World War II and two, how the President at that time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt handled conflicts at home as well as conflicts overseas. During that time the United States was going through some challenges dealing with the Great Depression and the difficulties of Germany beginning to start conflicts in Europe where there was nothing being done about it. World War II was a situation America had stayed out of for about three years, but when the U.S. finally did get involved the balance was then tipped in the favor of the allies due to the U.S. involvement. Also, as it was shown in World War I, when the United States gets involved with conflicts dealing with issues overseas we are very effective and are resolute on becoming triumphant. This resolve continued with a Reaganite point of view, it was president Regan who responded to the Soviet proxies with a proxy war built on the Nixon doctrine of preparing to wage low-intensity conflicts against military nationalist regimes in the Third World. Although by 9/11 the methods changed drastically from low-intensity proxy war to high-intensity direct warfare. [1] No different than the conflict the U.S. has dealt with and continues to deal with today in Iraq and Afghanistan. The era of proxy wars began with America’s defeat in Vietnam and closed with the invasion of Iraq. [2] Iraq became the real launching pad for a brazen U.S. intervention undertaken in the midst of international opposition. [3]...
Words: 1707 - Pages: 7
...advisement on the international affairs going forward in Ukraine’s Crimea region. This as you know, is a hot button issue and should definitely be handled with kid gloves. You are under the watchful eye of the United States and the world; every move you make may have its consequences. It is of my opinion that the consequences may be tolerable based on the actions taken. The United States is a Nuclear nation therefore you must make a calculated decision based on the risk. This is not the first time that the United States and Russia have been locked at odds, with nukes just a push of a button away. This situation would have been mutually assured destruction. (1) This was during the Cold War era however and the presidents of the day were to say the least, realist. They would have jumped at the chance to get into a conflict with one of the few super powers of the day. This would have given the winner the superiority that all had desired. That scenario may not be the same as the circumstances of today. President Obama is in no way a Hawk; he is by all accounts a Dove and will probably avoid an all out war at all costs. Based on the most recent history President Obama has tried to remove the US from any conflict they have been involved in. This has been proven by the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the spin down of troop numbers in Afghanistan. These are two Conflicts that he had inherited and really wanted nothing to do with. This has been the way he has operated and I believe it will...
Words: 1019 - Pages: 5
...Question- Should we intervene in the Syrian civil war? Hypothesis- Intervening in Syria would only cause more harm than good. Aims- Find out the pro’s and cons of the UK involving itself in Syrian matters. * Find out the negative effects involving ourselves would cause. http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/10-good-reasons-uk-should-not-take-military-action-in-syria/ * We have no common cause with either side in the conflict. We do obviously not want to support Assad’s murderous regime backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah but more importantly we do not want to assist rebels some of which have with links to Al-Qaeda who want to create a militant Islamist state. This is not a simple case of ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’ and there are also sectarian issues we don’t even fully understand. We cannot even be sure the chemical attack was carried out by the regime – it could be a desperate ploy by rebels to produce exactly this response. * Whatever level of action we take, whether it’s firing off a few Tomahawk missiles or sending in troops it will result in further civilian deaths. Although we may aim at ‘military’ targets there is always ‘collateral damage’ in fact the regime may even force civilians into military installations as ‘human shields’. Will the long-suffering people of Syria welcome yet more ordnance raining down on their country, however carefully targeted? * The most obvious lessons from the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we should not get involved in a war...
Words: 1307 - Pages: 6
...We are presently living in a world full of turmoil, conflict, and confusion, continually engulfed in various power struggles and wars of all kinds. As a result of this never-ending, widespread violence and corruption, we are also living in a world of refugees. According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: a refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country (Refugee, 2008). The current crisis of refugees around the world is overlooked by average, first world citizens every day. The topic of refugees, besides bringing up obvious issues of human rights, also involves numerous other global issues and raises countless questions. In this paper, we will discuss issues revolving around the history of refugees, refugee warehousing and its alternatives, as well as three individual case studies of current refugee crises around the world and how they connect to other global issues. Refugees were first defined and acknowledged as a legal group in the aftermath of World War II, due to the vast number of people fleeing Eastern Europe (Refugee, 2008). While it is clearly impossible to account for all of the world’s refugees, when this estimate is combined with the...
Words: 4779 - Pages: 20
...War Past and Present Through out time man has been involved in many wars due to man wanting to protect what is theirs or to gain more power and wealth. No matter how or why a war is started one thing that is clear, war has an ever-lasting effect on everything and everyone. By true nature man is genital but man is also protective and man will fight to protect what is right or what man holds dear. War has taking a toll on land across the world that war has been fought on, and war has also taken an even bigger toll on those who were involved and those who have yet to be involved in war. For century’s war has played a large part in our history and with the most resent war in Iraq this couldn’t be more true. War is something that can bring things together that might not of been on any regular day and yet war has the power to rip it all apart. War has been here since the beginning and war will be here till the end there for lasting forever in our history. War Past and Present When World War 1 began many thought that the soldiers would return home to their families by December 1914 victorious, yet what started out with high expectations ended more than four years later than the original hope. According to Jennifer Rosenberg (n.d), “World War 1 was an extremely bloody war, with huge losses of life and little ground lost or won“ (para 1). Soldier’s that fought in WW1 were fighting their enemies by hiding trenches firing artillery and lobbed grenades, but when ordered the...
Words: 2760 - Pages: 12
...The Importance of Military Professionals to Study Military History SGM United States Army Sergeants Major academy Class SGM March 28, 2011 Abstract Studying military history is essential for our military professions. Military history tells us a great deal about our countries past conflicts and gives us a better understanding of how we operated in them. It tells us what Soldiers had to face in the different wars and conflicts our forces have been engaged in. From the Soldier’s on the beaches of World War II, to the foot patrol in the streets of Mosul, Iraq. Military history enables us to understand how the military used a tactics, techniques and procedure (TTP’s) to fight in the past conflicts. Military history has a strong heritage that should be studied by our soldiers in our professional development courses. ARGUMENTIVE ESSAY SGM Ricky A. Nottingham Class 37 Today’s Non Commission Officer and Officers alike should take time out of their schedule to study military history. Through the studies of military history all should learn way the past could apply to the battle fields of today. Conflicts have been won and lost throughout military history. The tactics, techniques and procedure (TTP’s) applied in today battle field have been developed from lessons learned from the past. Today’s leadership must have a board knowledge of tactics and understanding of the environments they are in. they must have a understanding of the culture they are going against. We...
Words: 1494 - Pages: 6
...IRAQ FINAL PAPER Events in Iraq have prompted some people on the left to make comparisons to the American experience in the Vietnam War. These people argue that the United States has put itself into an in-extractable “quagmire” from which there is no feasible withdrawal. This type of reasoning by historical comparison is not wise because no two historical events are completely alike. In the case of Iraq and Vietnam, extreme caution should be exercised in comparing two wars so far apart in historical circumstances, geography, and time. It becomes pretty obvious that the differences between the two conflicts greatly outnumber the similarities. This is especially true in the strategic and military dimensions of the two wars. There is simply no comparison between the environment, the scale of military presence, losses incurred over time, the quality of enemy resistance, the role and scope of enemy allies, and the duration of open warfare style combat. There are, however, two political parts of the Iraq and Vietnam wars that are similar in nature: our attempts at nation-building in a foreign culture, and our trying to sustaining domestic popular support in a long and drawn out war against insurgents. Policymakers should have an understanding of the reasons for U.S. political failure in South Vietnam, as well as for the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ failure to sustain popular support for the accomplishment of U.S. military objectives in Vietnam. A repeat of those failures...
Words: 1628 - Pages: 7
...Uncovering The Truth: Wars, Media and Metaphors “If only you can get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion” (Lakoff, 138). In the world today there are many examples via news reports, newspaper articles, and documentaries etc. that support George Lakoff’s claim that “Metaphors Can Kill”. More specifically written works like War Media and Propaganda: A Global Perspective, “Metaphors That Kill”, and The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq, and Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and his article “What Is Terrorism?” provide perspectives on the impact of wars such as the ongoing American involvement in Iraq and the repercussions that ensue because of them. These exposés also vividly emphasize the important issue of media coverage furthering the interests of government. By using examples of war and tone, media and methods of development, and metaphors and lies, these articles vividly emphasize the importance of the issues involved with governments, as well as the media and clearly educate the audience towards a better understanding of the problems and lies surrounding them. ‘War’ can be defined as a state of open armed conflict between one or more nations over a disputed disagreement. Hidden within this word comes thousands upon thousands of deaths, excessive amounts of wasted money, and immeasurable quantities of losses. The average person would find it incomprehensible to imagine why all this destruction...
Words: 2008 - Pages: 9
...However, under The Hague Convention no. 5 mercenaries are illegal organizations but the role and responsibility of private military organizations is unknown in the international law which gives them free reins to operate in a way which fulfills their greed to make abnormal profits. The operations of private military companies is controversial, their contracts with the governments and other non-state actors is discreet in nature which confines the mass media to focus on their operations. The lack of information and lack of oversight under international law makes people all around the world unaware of private military industries. The war on terror executed by the United States empowered PMCs and for profit maximization motives these organization get the job done over the cost of innocent civilian lives. Introduction: The questions below...
Words: 6059 - Pages: 25
...Events in Iraq have prompted some people on the left to make comparisons to the American experience in the Vietnam War. These people argue that the United States has put itself into an in-extractable “quagmire” from which there is no feasible withdrawal. This type of reasoning by historical comparison is not wise because no two historical events are completely alike. In the case of Iraq and Vietnam, extreme caution should be exercised in comparing two wars so far apart in historical circumstances, geography, and time. It becomes pretty obvious that the differences between the two conflicts greatly outnumber the similarities. This is especially true in the strategic and military dimensions of the two wars. There is simply no comparison between the environment, the scale of military presence, losses incurred over time, the quality of enemy resistance, the role and scope of enemy allies, and the duration of open warfare style combat. There are, however, two political parts of the Iraq and Vietnam wars that are similar in nature: our attempts at nation-building in a foreign culture, and our trying to sustaining domestic popular support in a long and drawn out war against insurgents. Policymakers should have an understanding of the reasons for U.S. political failure in South Vietnam, as well as for the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ failure to sustain popular support for the accomplishment of U.S. military objectives in Vietnam. A repeat of those failures in Iraq could have...
Words: 3524 - Pages: 15
...would be eradicated from world. “John Lennon” sings in one of his songs “Imagine no religion” implying that without religion no wars would be fought. So how can all these “atheist” and political figures think that a majority of wars are fought over religion? I in fact think the opposite and would like to share some of my ideas with you. If wars were fought mainly over religion than history has deceived us. A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, “Encyclopedia of Wars” by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered being "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare. These numbers show a staggering truth in the matter that most wars are not fought over religion. Wars are fought to protect and or promote ideas and a way of life. Let's look at some of the wars the US has participated in. Civil War: Was fought between the confederate and union armies over slavery, secession, and economic power. World War I: Many complex reasons dealing with colonial control, expansion of trade, free...
Words: 1179 - Pages: 5
...Should the US put boots on the grounds in their attempts at defeating the Islamic state? The humanitarian catastrophe created by Sunni jihadist rebels; publicised as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has necessitated a military intervention by the US. The extremist group aims to create a worldwide caliphate where Muslims will unite under Sharia Law and ‘’challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West’’ (Brandon, 2006). There has been much debate as to whether the US should authorize the use of military ground forces due to the atrocities against civilians and barbaric killings against soldiers and journalists. However this essay contends, that despite the actions perpetrated by this terrorist group, a war will not put an end to the caliphate, therefore the US should not seek to put boots on the ground in attempts at defeating the Islamic extremists. It is right to say that the actions of jihadists cannot go unpunished, but the US putting boots on the ground will not defeat the Islamic state. If one understands the reason as to why the terrorists are obligated to what they do, then it is clear to acknowledge that a war will not stop them. As globalization spreads and societies become increasingly interconnected, Muslims have a choice; accept western beliefs to better integrate or preserve their spiritual purity by rebelling (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, p. 371) And this is why for many years, Muslims have fought...
Words: 2178 - Pages: 9
...The United States has been a constant participate in war time affairs. In the start of the country the US has been involved in dozens all stemming from the protection of thave been instilled upon by the forefathers, the country's core value: liberty, justice, and freedom. Fighting for the core vaules of thenation have been a forfitted responsibility put on by the forefathers. Protecting the nation from any from of attack on the vaules have been challenged. In the past century the unethical business process of war profiteering has risen, leading to the unjust profiting during a time of crisis. War profiteers have made billions of dollars during war since the beginning of war time fighting in the United States. The overall economic gain of oneself...
Words: 1896 - Pages: 8
...XXXXXX University Abstract The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional, had no real justification for happening and has severely damaged relations with our allies. Most importantly, Saddam Hussein was considered a threat and it was believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, would take on the U.S in an instant and was accused of having ties to the events of September 11, 2006 and the Al-Quaeda terrorist network. None of this could be proved and it appears as if it were all just convenient statements made by the administration to find a way to make it a justifiable cause. The Iraqi War: Was it the Right Thing to Do? The invasion was unconstitutional, against international law, violated the Christian doctrine of "just war" and has damaged U.S. relations with its allies. It has wreaked havoc in the Muslim world, where there's plenty of havoc already, and most importantly, it has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Frankly, it’s surprising it hasn’t resulted in dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. Claims made prewar regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have all proved to be wrong; the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased rather than decreased and the abuse inflicted on Iraqi detainees contradicts the most basic values the Administration claimed it would bring to Iraq (Savoy, 2004). President Bush’s actions portray him as an individual that has the right to attack Iraq anytime he wants to due to his position. It's...
Words: 3164 - Pages: 13
