NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Occupation (1) In his book The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq, Patrick Cockburn strives to provide readers with the insight on why the escalation of violence in Iraq, under American occupation, only seems to be gaining momentum, despite the continuous assurances of our politicians the that objectives of Iraq War have been fully accomplished. Cockburn has spent many years in Iraq, as journalist, prior to the outbreak of war with U. S. , which enabled him to have a good understanding of what defines socio-political dynamics in this country. Author suggests that it was wrong to think that democracy, in traditional context of this word, could be established in Iraq, because Iraqis simply to not have a genetic inclination towards it. Throughout his book, he comes up with numerous examples of sectarian violence among Iraqi citizens, which was made possible by removing Saddam Hussein, who alone knew how to keep citizens destructive drives under control. By doing it, Cockburn makes it clear to the readers that Americas foreign policies simply cannot be based on wishful thinking of some of our politicians, because the price for it, are the lives of American soldiers.
Apparently, it was not the Iraqis former totalitarian government that prevented ordinary citizens from being able to enjoy civil liberties, but Iraqis themselves, who are deeply divided along cultural and religious lines: Sectarian hatred was escalating rapidly. Until a few months before the bomb in Samarra, Iraqi friends used to say to me that Iraq was not like Lebanon. Now they were silent. Districts where Sunni and Shia had lived together peacefully for decades, if not centuries, were torn apart in a few days (Cockburn, p. 35). Apparently, it is impossible to instill people with the spirit of tolerance and respect for democracy in countries that did know any other form of government but Asiatic despotism, regardless of whether it assumes the form of peoples republic or monarchy blessed by Allah. It is peoples biological essence that defines their mode of existence and not the other way around.
The main idea of Cockburn's book is that reliance on superior technology alone, on the part of invading forces, cannot guarantee victory, if these forces are required to operate in hostile social environment. Cockburn talks about overwhelming majority of Iraqis as such that hate America with passion: I had often watched crowds dancing with delight among the burning remains of a US Humvee blown apart by a roadside bomb (Cockburn, p. 36). These people cannot be appeased and they cannot be bargained with. Author often comes up with a rhetorical question how is it possible to intimidate potential terrorists who have no other purpose in life then to die and to take as many infidels with them as possible? How these terrorists can be dealt with, if they are nothing but the embodiment of death itself? Given the fact that Cockburn is a left-winger, it is explainable why he spends a great deal of time, in his book, while describing atrocities that were committed by American troops.
He talks about it as something utterly inappropriate, even though atrocities have always been a part of wars, since the dawn of civilization. Therefore, we can hardly agree with the author when he says that American soldiers in Iraq actually provoke suicide bombings. However, there can be no doubt that Cockburn is making a good point when he says that Americans soldiers simply do not have any idea why they were being sent to Iraq in the first place. It is not just that they are being required to constantly risk their lives, because of politicians abstract considerations, but they are also being ordered not to resort to drastic measures, while fighting partisans.
In other words, American soldiers are being required to play in democracy, even at expense of losing their lives, in the war that does not make any sense neither to attackers nor to defenders. This is the reason why America can never win in Iraq. Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, voted in favor of sending our troops to Iraq in 2003, because of being on the payroll of Jewish lobby in the Senate. However, once it is being done, they started to stab our troops in the back, while trying to pretend that they had nothing to do with Iraq War, because the well-being of this nation is the last thing they care about. Even though Cockburn is affiliated with Democrats, the hypocrisy of many American politicians that consider themselves as progressive, is being fully exposed in The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq, despite authors original intentions. We can say that Cockburn did a good job, explaining the reasons why American troops need to be pulled out of Iraq, which is why his book must be recommended for reading by great many ordinary citizens, who grow increasingly dissatisfied with ideological brainwashing, on the part of their own government. (2) When it comes to assessing the true meaning of historical events, we need to understand that these events only reflect socio-political realities; therefore, their essence is objective.
Ancient Romans, who were known for their supreme ability of logical thinking, used to insist that, in order to point out at the root of every social or political problem, we need to come up with a question quo bono? , which means who will gain out of situation? Let us apply this principle, during the course of discussing similarities and differences between Vietnam War and Iraq War. What is the first thing that comes up in mind when we mention Vietnam War? It is strong opposition of American Medias to this war. There was practically no single day, during the course of war, when American newspapers, TV channels and radio stations would not report the horrendous crimes, committed by American soldiers against peaceful Vietnamese. The Hollywood used to exploit and still exploits these themes in such movies as Platoon, Hamburger Hill or Apocalypse Now.
During seventies, it became a statement of good taste to badmouth our soldiers, on the part just about any Liberal wacko, who happened to be elected to the Senate. The flower children used to expose their unwillingness to serve in American army, as something to be proud of. These cowards were happy to pour dirt on American troops, while hiding in Canada, to avoid draft. Now, what is the first thing that comes in mind when we mention Iraq War? It is complete Medias support of American aggression.
The countless experts were never getting tired of telling us a horror stories about international terrorism, its connection to Saddam Hussein and about the weapons of mass destruction. Even today, a great many Americans seriously believe that the reason we attacked Iraq was to establish democracy there. If any politician happened to refer to American soldiers in Iraq as cannon meat, which used be a common thing, during Vietnam War, he would be torn apart by angry crowd. Why such a big difference in popular attitudes towards both wars? This is because, during Vietnam War, American troops were trying to stop the spread of Communism, with which many chosen people in this country, who accidentally own 95 % of American Medias and Hollywood, have strong affiliation.
The spiritual and often biological descendants of Bolshevik commissars in America were not interested in exposing the crimes of Communism in the world, because it would cause many ordinary Americans to wonder whether it is very beneficial for U. S. to have the agents of foreign influence here in the first place. This is why deserters from American army, at the time Vietnam War, used to be praised as heroes by very same Medias that nowadays refer to such deserters in Iraq as cowards.
The fact is, Vietnam War had nothing to do with protection of Israel, and therefore, it was unnecessary. Iraq War, on the other hand, is very necessary, because American troops in Iraq were needed to destroy Saddam's SCUD missiles, which used to pose great danger to Israel. This is the reason why our troops are still in Iraq, even though that their presence there is not associated with even slightest benefits to our country. Did we see prices for gas going down? Maybe geopolitical situation in Middle East improved as result?
Maybe America benefited from alienating such countries as France, Germany or Russia, because of its attack on Iraq? The answer is negative. American troops remain in Iraq to protect Israel from geopolitical instability in the reason. This is why it is highly unlikely that they might ever be pulled out of there, despite the fact that more and more Americans begin to realize the sheer absurdity of Iraq War.
The process of Globalization changes the very essence of international politics. Independent countries cease to think of protecting their national interests, as their foremost priority. National governments slowly begin to represent the interests of worlds financial elite on the local level. Throughout the history, it used to be a common thing for small countries to be exploited by their bigger neighbors.
Britain, for example, always strived to fight wars by using Canadians, New Zealanders, Arabs and Indians as cannon meat. This practice might not be described as moral, but it certainly did make sense at the time. What does not make sense is that dwarf-state of Israel is using the most powerful country in the world as its puppet. This is the main difference between Vietnam and Iraq Wars. Our analysis has proved once again that the principle of quo bono still defines the dynamics on the arena of international relations.
The similarities between two wars can be identified more easily, because they are obvious. In both wars, American soldiers had to fight amidst hostile environment, while being surrounded by enemies, which nullified their chances for victory. In both cases, there was no a stable frontline, which is why our troops could be attacked from just about any direction. In both cases, our troops were dealing with Asiatic mentality, on the part of indigenous population, which is why it was often impossible to distinguish civilians from guerillas, because they are the same. The very same person can be a peaceful civilian, by day, and bloodthirsty terrorist, by night, and there no way to tell the difference. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why in both wars, our soldiers would rather throw grenade into the building, before entering it, then taking a chance of being shot by 12 years old boy.
War is a dirty business. This statement is equally applicable to both wars analyzed in this paper.
Free research essays on topics related to: american troops, ordinary citizens, vietnam war, iraq war, saddam hussein
Research essay sample on Saddam Hussein Ordinary Citizens
