The Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace

closely mess would think that contends ar launched beca hold a domain needs to a coarseer extent territory, or because a countrys b localizes ar menace, or because of appeasement. The real reason for fight is that countries beget to tonus that their honor is threatened they feel that around other nations be non talent them the worth and dignity they deserve, and so they dupe to the encounterfield. On the Origins of cite of struggle and the Preservation of Peace, Dr. Kagan is a classical scholar who hopes to get politicians and raisesmen to suitable write up so as non to repeat it.He reminds that this was the intention of Thucydides of antique Greece who wrote a history of the Peloponnesian strugglefargons for those who wish well to baffle a clear arrest both of events in the past and of those in the future which will, in exclusively kind likelihood, happen a elucidate in the aforementi adeptd(prenominal) or a similar representation. His declargon starts with the Peloponnesian war of the fifth carbon B. C. -the eccentric of a four-volume history Kagan immaculate in 1987and ends with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.He in addition analyzes the sanction Punic contend of 218 to 201 B. C. World war I, and World War II. War usually arrives over bulky distances and long stretches of time. For instance, in 226 B. C. capital of Italy was by far the most stringy state in the horse opera world, however it cogitate a treaty with Carthage which was expanding its influence in what is now Spain. The treaty sought to deal the pause. Eight courses later, subsequently many twisting and turnings and concessions by Rome, it led to war. Rome limited the expansion of Carthage to the knowledge base s come forbiddenheastward of the Ebro River, and it looked like an order de proceedred by Rome, not a concession.Actually, Kagan writes, it was an attempt at appeasement in a moment of helplessness and fear, the effect of which wa s to neither soothe nor disapprove but to inflame and encourage the Carthaginians. The slipstream included events, which around destroyed Romes fortunes Hannibals arrival at the head of a powerful army in Italy itself and the beginning of the 18-year endorsement Punic War. Two wars, the early Opium War 1839-42 and the Second Opium War 1856- 60, waged by Britain against china to en strength the hypothesis of Chinese ports to mickle in opium.Opium from British India paid for Britain s imports from chinaw be, such as porcelain, silk, and, above all, tea. The First Opium War, in the midst of Britain and china, resulted in the cession of Hong Kong to Britain and the opening of five treaty ports. Other European states were also concomitantly granted concessions. The Second Opium War followed between Britain and France in adhesion against China, when in that appreciate was further Chinese defense to the opium heap. China was wedged to give the European states greater t rading privileges, at the outlay of its people. 839-42 and 1856-60, dickens wars between China and western sandwich countries.The premier(prenominal) 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 moment of opium by destroying at Guangzhou (Canton) a bountiful quantity of opium confiscated from British merchants. Great Britain, which had been flavor to end Chinas restrictions on foreign trade, responded by sending gunboats to attack several Chinese coastal cities.China, unable to withstand sassy(a) arms, was defeated and forced to sign the pact of Nanjing (1842) and the British Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue (1843). These provided that the ports of Guangzhou, Jinmen, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and move should be open to British trade and residence in addition Hong Kong was ceded to the British. at heart a few years other Western powers sign(a) similar treaties with China and received commercial and residential privileges, and the Western domination of Chinas treaty ports began.In 1856 a second war broke out pursuit an allegedly il licit Chinese search of a British-registered ship, the Arrow, in Guangzhou. British and cut soldiers took Guangzhou and Tianjin and compelled the Chinese to bring the treaties of Tianjin (1858), to which France, Russia, and the join States were also disclosey. China agree to open 11 much ports, allow 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 inclination to enforce the new treaty name led to a renewal of the war in 1859. This time the British and French occupied Beijing and burned the over-embellished summer palace (Yuan ming yuan). The Beijing conventions of 1860, by which China was forced to reaffirm the wrong of the Treaty of Tianjin and make additional concessions, reason the hostilities. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a dangerous and mercurial situation that has attracted Ameri substructure attention for some decades.The conflict is a sensitive subject that produces toughened emotions in people. This conflict deals with Judaic nationalism, dispersion of resources, and politics. About a hundred years ago, Jews underwent a drastic tack in their notion of themselves. At first a few, and then more, began to call themselves Zionists. Zionism is a line that in its broadest and early wiz meant simply the return of Jews to their ancestral home subvert. That homeland was called Zion (or Israel) and its heart was Jerusalem, kn bear as the metropolis of Zion.Early Zionists were simply pious, non policy-making, religious Jews who popular opinion they could better(p) practice their faith in the Land of Zion. Some went primarily to pray, to bailiwick their religious books, and to await the arrival of the Messiah. semipolitical relation played an influential percentage in their thinking. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, Zionism came to have a political meaning that Jews were not f bank line a religious or ethnic group but were a nation of people who should have their witness state. Today Zionism is the term for Jewish nationalism.not all Jews agree upon what Zionism is, but to a point there is discernment, it is upon three things there should be a Jewish state it should be permanent, independent, and secure and Jews who ar threatened anywhere in the world should be able to go there to be safe. each(prenominal) other resigns-the boundaries of the state, the nature of government, dealings with the Palestinians, relations with American Jews, religious law-are in dis framee. It is important to understand the Palestinian views . accommodate in mind both points. First, people respond to the share in which they hot.If unrivaled is rich, peerless sees problems one way if one is unemployed, one sees it a second way if one owns a small shop, one sees it a third way. integrity must(prenominal) understand the circumstances in which Palestinians alive(p) if we are to understand their positions and motions. Second, there are some five million Palestinians. alike(p) Americans, they disagree on political issues. They also change their minds as new circumstances develop. It is wrong to think Palestinians have a common view that remains unchanged. Their view changed considerably over the years.They view that the Israelis are taking the land rightfully theirs, and are macrocosm bullied by Israelis. They are the ones who had their land assimilaten away from them and are go forth with no where to live. In 1948, there were slightly 860,000 Palestinians inside todays Israel. About 700,000 were driven out or fled during the fight downing that followed the declaration 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 property ( almost 800,000 acres were taken for Israeli use. ). The 160,000 Palestinians allay in Israel in 1949 when the fighting s authorizeped lost another(prenominal) 250,000 acres. The Palestinians in Israel were left without resources or strong attracters. When the Likud Party took power in 1977, it step up colonization, pouring some $1 one thousand million into settlement make over the adjacent seven years. Today, land taken from the Palestinians and earmarked for host purposes or Jewish settlements amounts to more than 52% of the most fertile areas of the West camber and 40% of the Gaza Strip.Only a real(prenominal) small percentage of this land was sell willingly by Palestinians. more or less of it was confiscated, and is held to be for Jews only-not-jus t Jews from Israel, but Jews from anywhere in the world. more newly arrived immigrants from the unite States and Russia are given heavily financed housing in the settlements built on seized Palestinian land. 1990, according to Israeli estimates, will divert 83% of the pee from the West Bank to Jewish settlements and Israel. The endemic 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 giant extent Jews and Palestinians are geographically concentrated. Most Jews live in Israel and most Palestinians live in the West Bank, Gaza, and eastside Jerusalem. in that location are exceptions of course. Many Jews live in the new ring of suburbs around 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 Desert in the sulfur.The first comprehensive examination peace talks between Israel and delegations representing the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states began in October 1991. After Likud lost the parliamentary election of June 1992, Labor party leader Yitzhak Rabin formed a new government. Rabin took a more conciliatory line toward the Palestinians and oblige 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 subscribe of an historic peace treaty.Palestine arc Organization leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli underfur minister Yitzhak Rabin met in the fall in States on folk 13 to witness the signing of the treaty, which paved 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 defined area of more or less 65 square kilometers including Jericho and its environs. The Gaza-Jericho agreeme nt addresses four main issues-security arrangements, civil affairs, legal matters, and economic relations.The document includes agreement to a withdrawal of Israeli host forces from Gaza and Jericho, a transfer of authority from the Israeli courtly Administration to a Palestinian Authority, the building and composition of the Palestinian Authority is a Palestinian police force, and relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. After intensive diplomatic efforts by the United States, Prime see Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Yasser Arafat agreed on September 29, 1996 to go to Washington the follo bring forwardg workweek to seek ways out of a war that has put the wide-cut Israeli-Palestinian peace in jeopardy.Despite the historical tensions of the center of attention East, recent issues have arisen to intensify the conflict. huffy Palestinians protested Israels decision to open an archeological site, the issue becoming one more in a growing number of pump East ten sions. The Muslim crowd feared the excavation of an ancient tunnel, right beside the foundations of Jerusalems al Aqsa Mosque compound, would disobey what is the third-holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina. The tunnel excavation dispute is only the current 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 continue 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 retell 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. in that location are a myriad of promises do and things done in a presidential election year that have questionable motives as to whether they are done in the best occupy of the people or in the interests of the presidential candidate. These hidden interests are one of the biggest problems with the political aspects of government in modern society. wholeness of the prime examples of this is the Vietnam War. Although South 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 quite than to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This can be seen in the selective attack of Hanoi throughout the course of the Vietnam War. Politically this strategy looked real good. However, militarily it was ludicrous. War is the one landing field in which politicians have no rate.War is the armed servicess sole purpose. Therefore, the U. S. array should be allowed to dispense any war, conflict, or police action that it has been committed to without political interference or escort because of the problems and hidden interests which are forever and a day present when dealing with polite United States involvement in the Vietnam War rattling began in 1950 when the U. S. began to subsidize the French legions in South Vietnam. This involvement go on to escalate throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s.On August 4, 1964 the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in which American Naval Vessels in South Vietnamese waters were fired upon by North Vietnam. On August 5, 1964 professorship Johnson requested a resolution expressing the intention of the United Sates in supporting liberty and in protecting peace in southeast Asia (Johnson). On August 7, 1964, in response to the presidential request, Congress countenance President Johnson to take all inevitable measures to repel any attack and to go on aggression against th e U. S. n southeast Asia (United States).The selective breaking of North Vietnam began immediately in response to this resolution. In March of the following year U. S. troops began to arrive. Although the Gulf of Tonkin contract specifically stated that we had no soldiers, political, or territorial ambitions in southeast Asia, the interests digest home were quite a assorted story (Johnson). The political involvement in Vietnam was about much more than just promised aid to a weak country in order to prevent the disruption 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 consignment to stop communism. Or rather to suppress communism in its present boundaries entirely most of all it was about politics. The presidential political involvement in Vietnam had critical to do with Vietnam at all. It was about China for Eisenhower, about Russia for Kennedy, ab out 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 apply (Wittman). The military involvement in Vietnam is directly related to the political circumspection of the military throughout the war. The military controlled by the politicians. The micro vigilance of the military by the clean-living House for political gain is the uncreated 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 impersonal in the war and the support to perform it.The predominant military opinion 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 contestation of what politica l bearing youre trying to chance upon and then you put the sufficient force to that objective so that you know when youve realized 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 musical theme 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 truly 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 manipulation 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 passably 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 liberate a weaker country from their aggressor. The United Nations resolution was explicit in its articulate regarding military force in the Iranian Gulf. The resolution specifically stated by all means necessary. (Schwarzkopf). The President was very aware of the problems with political management of state of war throughout the war.He was very resolved to let the military call the shots about how the war was conducted. He made a specific effort to prevent the steer t hat civilians were going to try to run the war (Baker). Painful lessons had been subscribe toed in the Vietnam War, which was still fresh on the minds of many of those manifold 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 bear on in the Vietnam War. These men exhibited a very strong never again placement throughout the planning 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 say that it would be absolutely stupid to go into a military campaign against his, Iraqs, forces who had a nasty advantage on us on the ground, numbers 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 con trol, as we know, was a quick, decisive victory.There were many other factors 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 differences between the two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that the military is best suited 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 scrubbing said specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the very(prenominal) way that it was used in Vietnam. If we do not learn from these lessons that are so obvious in the diff erences between these two conflicts then we are condemned to repeat the kindred 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).