The Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace

intimately people would think that wars atomic number 18 launched because a country needs more territory, or because a countrys borders are exist, or because of appeasement. The real reason for war is that countries begin to feel that their honor is threatened they feel that other nations are non giving them the worth and high-handedness they deserve, and so they analyse to the battlefield. On the Origins of fight and the Preservation of Peace, Dr. Kagan is a serious music scholar who hopes to get politicians and statesmen to comprehend archives so as not to repeat it.He re geniuss that this was the intention of Thucydides of ancient Greece who wrote a history of the Peloponnesian state of wars for those who wish to keep a clear understanding both of events in the past and of those in the future which will, in all human likelihood, elapse again in the same or a corresponding fl note. His tidings starts with the Peloponnesian struggle of the fifth centimeury B. C. - the subject of a four-volume history Kagan finished in 1987and ends with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.He also analyzes the guerilla Punic struggle of 218 to 201 B. C. World fight I, and World War II. War usually arrives over long distances and long stretches of time. For instance, in 226 B. C. Rome was by far the close decently state in the Hesperian world, yet it think a accordance with Carthage which was expanding its influence in what is now Spain. The accord sought to preserve the ataraxis. Eight historic period later, after many pass and turnings and concessions by Rome, it led to war. Rome particular the expansion of Carthage to the area federation of the Ebro River, and it looked like an order de endurered by Rome, not a concession.Actually, Kagan writes, it was an strain at appeasement in a moment of promiscuousness and fear, the effect of which was to uncomp allowe soothe nor deter moreover to inflame and encourage the Carthaginians. The aftermath i nclude events, which almost destroyed Romes fortunes Hannibals arrival at the head of a powerful army in Italy itself and the beginning of the 18-year Second Punic War. Two wars, the basic Opium War 1839-42 and the Second Opium War 1856- 60, waged by Britain against chinaware to enforce the porta of Chinese ports to trade in opium.Opium from British India paid for Britain s imports from important impart China, such(prenominal) as porcelain, silk, and, above all, tea. The First Opium War, between Britain and China, resulted in the cession of Hong Kong to Britain and the inception of five treaty ports. Other European states were also subsequently effrontery concessions. The Second Opium War followed between Britain and France in alliance against China, when in that respect was hike Chinese resistance to the opium trade. China was constrained to give the European states greater trading privileges, at the expense of its people. 839-42 and 1856-60, two wars between China and Wes tern countries.The initiatory was between Great Britain and China. Early in the 19th cent British merchants began smuggling opium into China in order to balance their purchases of tea for export to Britain. In 1839, China enforced its prohibitions on the importation of opium by destroying at Guangzhou (Canton) a large quantity of opium confiscated from British merchants. Great Britain, which had been look to end Chinas restrictions on foreign trade, responded by sending gunboats to attack several(prenominal) Chinese coastal cities.China, unable to withstand modern arms, was defeated and forced to sign the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the British Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue (1843). These provided that the ports of Guangzhou, Jinmen, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and Shanghai should be open to British trade and residence in addition Hong Kong was ceded to the British. indoors a few years other Western powers write similar treaties with China and received commercial and residential privile ges, and the Western domination of Chinas treaty ports began.In 1856 a second war broke out succeeding(a) an allegedly illegal Chinese search of a British-registered ship, the Arrow, in Guangzhou. British and French troops took Guangzhou and Tianjin and compelled the Chinese to accept the treaties of Tianjin (1858), to which France, Russia, and the get together States were also governmental party. China agreed to open 11 more ports, permit foreign legations in capital of Red China, sanction Christian missionary activity, and legalize the import of opium.Chinas subsequent attempt to block the entry of diplomats into Beijing as well as Britains decision to enforce the new(a) treaty terms led to a mutation of the war in 1859. This time the British and French occupied Beijing and burned the imperial summer palace (Yuan ming yuan). The Beijing conventions of 1860, by which China was forced to reaffirm the terms of the Treaty of Tianjin and make additional concessions, concluded the hostilities. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a dangerous and volatile situation that has attracted American charge for some decades.The remainder is a sensitive subject that produces self-coloured emotions in people. This contravention deals with Jewish nationalism, dispersal of resources, and politics. About a hundred years ago, Jews underwent a drastic change in their view of themselves. At first a few, and therefore more, began to call themselves Zionists. Zionism is a term that in its broadest and beforehand(predicate) sense meant simply the return of Jews to their ancestral folk demean. That homeland was called Zion (or Israel) and its heart was Jerusalem, cognize as the City of Zion.Early Zionists were simply pious, non semi policy-making, ghostlike Jews who estimate they could leaveper practice their faith in the Land of Zion. Some went primarily to pray, to show their religious books, and to await the arrival of the Messiah. Politics played an influential place in their thinking. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, Zionism came to have a political meaning that Jews were not just a religious or hea thenish group but were a nation of people who should have their induce state. Today Zionism is the term for Jewish nationalism.Not all Jews agree upon what Zionism is, but to a point there is agreement, it is upon three things there should be a Jewish state it should be permanent, independent, and secure and Jews who are threatened anyplace in the world should be able to go there to be safe. All other issues-the boundaries of the state, the nature of government, relations with the Palestinians, relations with American Jews, religious law-are in struggle. It is important to understand the Palestinian views . Keep in mind two points. First, people respond to the serving in which they live.If wholeness is rich, one sees problems one way if one is unemployed, one sees it a second way if one protests a small shop, one sees it a third way. mavin must understand the circumstances in which Palestinians live if we are to understand their positions and actions. Second, there are closely five million Palestinians. Like Americans, they protest on political issues. They also change their minds as new circumstances develop. It is wrong to think Palestinians have a common view that corpse unchanged. Their view changed considerably over the years.They view that the Israelis are taking the land right all-encompassingy theirs, and are universe bullied by Israelis. They are the ones who had their land taken away from them and are left with no where to live. In 1948, there were nigh 860,000 Palestinians inside todays Israel. About 700,000 were driven out or fled during the bit that followed the firmness of purpose of Israeli statehood. The Palestinian population of Jerusalem went from 75,000 to 3,500 of Jaffa from 70,000 to 3,600 of Haifa from 71,000 to 2,900 of Lydda-Ramle from 35,000 to 2,000 of Tiberias from 5, 300 to zero.All refugees lost their home (about 800,000 acres were taken for Israeli use. ). The 160,000 Palestinians still in Israel in 1949 when the fighting degreeped lost another 250,000 acres. The Palestinians in Israel were left without resources or strong leading. When the Likud Party took power in 1977, it intensified colonization, pouring some $1 billion into dipment building over the next seven years. Today, land taken from the Palestinians and earmarked for armament purposes or Jewish settlements amounts to more than 52% of the most fertile areas of the West money box and 40% of the Gaza Strip.Only a really small percentage of this land was sold willingly by Palestinians. Most of it was confiscated, and is held to be for Jews still-not-just Jews from Israel, but Jews from anywhere in the world. Many newly arrived immigrants from the United States and Russia are given heavily financed housing in the settlements built on seized Palestinian land. 1990, according to I sraeli estimates, will divert 83% of the weewee from the West Bank to Jewish settlements and Israel. The indigenous Palestinians will get only 17% of their own water.This taking of natural resources from the Palestinians, are the reasons for the rise in conflict. To a large extent Jews and Palestinians are geographically concentrated. Most Jews live in Israel and most Palestinians live in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. at that place are exceptions of course. Many Jews live in the new ring of suburbs or so East Jerusalem and in the new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. And many Arabs live inside of Israel, particularly in Galilee, including Nazareth, and in the Negev recant in the southeast.The first comprehensive peace talks between Israel and delegations representing the Palestinians and inhabit Arab states began in October 1991. subsequently Likud lost the parliamentary election of June 1992, Labor party leader Yitzhak Rabin formed a new government. Rabin too k a more compromising line toward the Palestinians and imposed strict limits on new Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. In 1993, after decades of violent conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, leaders from each side agreed to the signing of an historic peace treaty. nirvana Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin met in the United States on September 13 to witness the signing of the treaty, which pave the way for limited Palestinian self-rule in Israeli-occupied territories. The Gaza-Jericho Agreement was signed in Cairo on May 4, 1994, and applies to the Gaza Strip and to a outlined area of about 65 square kilometers including Jericho and its environs. The Gaza-Jericho agreement addresses four main issues-security arrangements, civil affairs, legal matters, and economic relations.The document includes agreement to a withdrawal method of Israeli armament forces from Gaza and Jericho, a transfer of authority from the Is raeli urbane Administration to a Palestinian role, the structure and composition of the Palestinian Authority is a Palestinian jurisprudence force, and relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. later on intensive diplomatic efforts by the United States, Prime Minister gum benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Yasser Arafat agreed on September 29, 1996 to go to Washington the following calendar week to seek ways out of a war that has put the broad(a) Israeli-Palestinian peace in jeopardy.Despite the historical tensions of the oculus East, recent issues have arisen to intensify the conflict. Angry Palestinians protested Israels decision to open an archeological site, the issue fair one more in a growing number of Middle East tensions. The Muslim crowd feared the excavation of an ancient tunnel, right beside the foundations of Jerusalems al Aqsa Mosque compound, would undermine what is the third-holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina. The tunnel excavation dis pute is only the in vogue(p) indication of rising tension between Arabs and Israelis.And the latest death count is 76 (as of October 1, 1996). In conclusion, this is an issue that deals with politics, uneven distribution of resources, and nationalism, and will take a great effort to come to an agreement. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a battle that has a long history that will act till a mutual understanding and agreement is settled. Until the Israelis and the Palestinians can settle their differences and cooperate with each other, the battle will continue on. No new taxes. This is a quote that most all of us remember from the1992 presidential election. Along with it we remember that there were new taxes during that presidents term in office. there are a myriad of promises made and things done in a presidential election year that have questionable motives as to whether they are done in the best interest of the people or in the interests of the presidential candidate. These private interests are one of the biggest problems with the political aspects of government in modern society.One of the prime examples of this is the Vietnam War. Although second Vietnam asked for our help, which we had previously promised, the entire conflict was managed in order to meet personal political agendas and to remain politically correct in the worlds eyes rather than to bring a ready(a) and decisive end to the conflict. This can be seen in the selective go wronging of Hanoi throughout the course of the Vietnam War. Politically this strategy looked genuinely good. However, militarily it was ludicrous. War is the one arena in which politicians have no place.War is the war machines sole purpose. in that respectfore, the U. S. Military should be allowed to conduct any war, conflict, or police action that it has been committed to without political interference or defy because of the problems and hidden interests which are always present when dealing with polite United States interestingness in the Vietnam War actually began in 1950 when the U. S. began to subsidize the French phalanx in South Vietnam. This matter continued to escalate throughout the 1950s and into the early(a) 1960s.On August 4, 1964 the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in which American naval Vessels in South Vietnamese waters were fired upon by magnetic north Vietnam. On August 5, 1964 President Johnson requested a resolution expressing the inclination of the United Sates in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia (Johnson). On August 7, 1964, in response to the presidential request, Congress authorized President Johnson to take all necessary measures to beat back any attack and to prevent aggression against the U. S. n southeast Asia (United States).The selective bombing of North Vietnam began immediately in response to this resolution. In troop of the following year U. S. troops began to arrive. Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution specificall y verbalise that we had no force, political, or territorial ambitions in southeast Asia, the interests back home were quite a different story (Johnson). The political involvement in Vietnam was about much more than just promised aid to a weak country in order to prevent the spread of communism.It was about money. After all, wars require equipment, guns, tools and machinery. Most of which was produced in the United States. It was about proving Americas commitment to stop communism. Or rather to confine communism in its present boundaries tho most of all it was about politics. The presidential political involvement in Vietnam had little to do with Vietnam at all. It was about China for Eisenhower, about Russia for Kennedy, about Washington D. C. for Johnson, and about himself for Nixon (Post).The last two of which were the major players in Americas involvement in regards to U. S. Troops being employ (Wittman). The armed services involvement in Vietnam is directly related to the po litical management of the military throughout the war. The military harbourled by the politicians. The micro management of the military by the White put up for political gain is the primary reason for both the length and cost, both monetary and human, of the Vietnam War (Pelland). One of the largest problems was the lack of a clear intention in the war and the support to accomplish it.The predominant military idea of the militarys role in Vietnam in respect to the political involvement is seen in the following quote by General Colin Powell, If youre going to put into something then you owe the armed forces, you owe the American People, you owe just youre own desire to succeed, a clear statement of what political objective youre hard to achieve and then you put the sufficient force to that objective so that you know when youve accomplished it.The politicians dictated the war in Vietnam, it was a limited war, the military was never allowed to fight the war in the manner that they thought that they needed to, in order to win it (Baker). To conclude on the Vietnam War, the political management of the war made it unwinnable. The military was at the mercy of politicians who knew very little about what needed to be done militarily in order to win the war. There is an enormous difference between political judgment and military judgment. This difference is the primary reason for the outcome of the Vietnam War (Schwarzkopf).The United States policy of Vietnamization was a good idea, but the time was not ripe for it to best be used. Nearly all experts in South Vietnam as incapable of handling a combined threat rated Saigons military strength. True, Vietnamization was not what led to the total withdrawl of troops from Vietnam, but the opinions pressed by Laird had somewhat of an affect on our agreeing to sign a cease-fire agreement. Also, if we had used Vietnamizations program of building up South Vietnams armed forces more extensively, South Vietnam might still be in existence today.The Gulf War in the Middle East was almost the exact opposite in respect to the political influence on the war. In respect to the military objective of the war the two are relatively similar. The objective was to unfreeze a weaker country from their aggressor. The United Nations resolution was explicit in its diction regarding military force in the Persian Gulf. The resolution specifically state by all means necessary. (Schwarzkopf). The President was very aware of the problems with political management of warfare throughout the war.He was very determined to let the military call the shots about how the war was conducted. He made a specific effort to prevent the suggestion that civilians were going to try to bear the war (Baker). Painful lessons had been take oned in the Vietnam War, which was still fresh on the minds of many of those involved in this war (Baker). The military was given full control to use force as they saw fit. Many of the top military leaders had also been involved in the Vietnam War. These men exhibited a very strong never again attitude throughout the prep stages of this war.General Schwarzkopf made the following statement about the proposed bombing of Iraq in regards to the limited bombing in Vietnam, I had no doubt we would bomb Iraq if I was going to be the Military Commander. He went on to severalise that it would be absolutely stupid to go into a military play against his, Iraqs, forces who had a tremendous advantage on us on the ground, total wise. It would be ludicrous not to fight the war in the air as much, if not more, than on the ground (Schwarzkopf). The result of the Gulf War in which the military was given control, as we know, was a quick, decisive victory.There were many other featureors involved in this than just the military being given control, particularly in contrast to Vietnam, but the military having control played a major part in this victory. In conclusion, although there are some major di fferences between the two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that the military is best accommodate for conducting wars. Politicians are not. It is not the place of a politicians to be involved in the decision making process in regards to war or military strategy. The White House has significant control in military matters.That control should be used to help the military in achieving its goals, as it was in the Gulf War where George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the same way that it was used in Vietnam. If we do not learn from these lessons that are so obvious in the differences between these two conflicts then we are condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Lets just pray that it does not take the death of another 58,000 of Americas men to learn that the politicians place is not in war but in peace (Roush).