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
... cultures that are separated by the diagonal North-East South-West. In this relation we have to answer the question whether this Anglo-Saxon, materialistic culture based partially on Christian values reminds us the egoistic culture that correlates to no other world cultures. However, the major part of Western political elite raises heated debates under the principle: there are two points of view, one it mine and the second is wrong. The West, actually, is indifferent to the problems of the East in their integrity.
At the same time, the East, being a bearer of other cultural and moral values, still strives to use technological and information technologies of the Western world. In these conditions it is very important to correlate the reasons and consequences of collisions that occur in the modern world. Economic interests always were located at the other side of the wars. The analysis of situation occurs in the Middle East region related to Iran and Lebanon, confirms this thesis. In the modern world the confrontation between Israel and Palestine originates from the desire to achieve control over real economic resources (territories and water) in this overpopulated region. The Iraq war is the war for global economic resources: supplies, cheap and easily accessible oil.
The tragedy of this situation is that conflict involved religious issues: Jews - Muslims and Christians Muslims. There is an opinion that Americans cannot speak sincerely as they fight not against the international terrorism, but against the world intervention of Islam in Christian civilization. At least, it corresponds to the conclusions derived from report made by National Intelligence Council in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. According to this report, the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives (Mazetti 1). In case this opinion is correct, it is difficult to imagine that the mechanism and methods of protection were chosen correctly and safely for Christian civilization itself. In case the opinion is truthful, we shouldnt realize Hantingtons theory about confrontation of civilizations.
We rather have to search for the variant of World public agreement between Christianity, Islam and other world religions and ideologies that will relate to division of spheres of influence. It means that each confession lives according to their religious rules in its canonic territories and never enters the territories of neighbor religions. At the same time, such approach leads to further intensification of the conflicts and, as a result, to global threat. What is global threat? This term is used by politicians mainly to find additional excuse but not explanation of the events taking place in the modern world. Global threat will remain abstraction that is easy to use for propaganda and support of brutal force used for regulating conflicts, especially when it implies the reasons of energetic safety of the U.
S. and the interests of the main players at the stage of globalization transnational economical and political monsters. Military actions in Iraq were mainly explained by a certain global threat in virtual image of weapons of mass destruction. During the course of active discussions on the eve of attack nobody had doubt in idea of necessity to put an obstacle in way of distribution of weapons of mass destruction and find the mechanisms of its total annihilation. However, aggression against Iraq showed that the war cannot solve the problem, because the war is just a beginning of a cycle (Kolko 291).
Before the conflict UNO tried to solve the issue, but interests of getting control over the economical resource got a victory and America attacked the country that was a UNO member. Besides, America often experiences difficulties in relations with regimes and leaders that were formed and used by America as a certain alternative to real political processes in various regions. For example, Hussein was a counterbalance to Iran in American foreign-political game. Yet, he was removed due to reason that Hussein was unable to compensate for the American loss in the region after collapse of Shah pro-American government in Iran. It is easy to understand that conditions of force policy increases chances of use of the weapon of mass destruction in contrast to policy of strict international control. However, American government doesnt want to listen to that fact, probably, due to their assurance that it will never occur.
The next issue also has no solution. As a matter of fact, all governments and organizations that exposed interest to possession of the weapons of mass destruction (or those who didnt put obstacles in the way), bear responsibility for it. It is known that many component parts of weapon of mass destruction became easily accessible by the countries that are criticized and threatened by the West with direct and indirect assistance of U. S. , Great Britain and other NATO countries. Iraq war is a tragic reality and a reproach to the modern civilization. Pentagon started to recruit peaceful civilians as it claimed that the country is not able to cope with Iraq problem without involving private contractors (Censored 2006).
Peaceful civilians deaths put the blame for the Iraq war on NATO countries that had to control and allowed no distribution of weapon of mass destruction. Nevertheless, the world expressed no protest concerning this war that had no excuse and justification. Such attitude shows the weakness of the modern global world regime and absence of effective institutions and instruments of control over the politicians. The Iraq problem wasnt created by Hussein. It was created by the forces striving to formation of total economic and energetic control over the world community. In such a way, it confirms thesis that Iraq is the reflection of danger that is carried by globalization.
As the U. S. counterattack against Afghanistan demonstrates, the nature of the war in Iraq, rather than war itself, will be the key determinant to the impact of any U. S. action in Iraq. While the prospect of an Afghanistan war initially elicited heated responses from Muslims in Southeast Asia, the relatively easy dispatch of the Taleban by the Northern Alliance, the clear rejoicing at the end of Taleban rule (or at least the impression that the war to defeat the Taleban enjoyed popular legitimacy), and the U.
S. success in minimizing civilian casualties, worked to undermine public anger. How a war with Iraq will affect Muslim populations in Southeast Asia already jaded towards U. S.
foreign policy will depend greatly on the perceived conduct of the war itself. Overall, war in Iraq will increase anger directed at the United States. War in Iraq is an unknown entity. A critical question is, will the removal of Saddam Hussein be supported by the majority of Iraqi people?
While military estimates of victory against Iraq in a full-scale invasion range from 2 weeks to a month, lack of domestic legitimacy in Iraq for any action by the United States could lead to widespread low level opposition (including the hard core of the Republican Guard or general insurgency) to the U. S. -led occupation. A further complication will be providing for the 60 percent of the Iraqi population who rely on government distribution for food needs with sustenance once the Iraqi lines of distribution have been disrupted. If Saddam Hussein were to employ WMD whether in the battlefield, against Israel, or the United States, governments throughout Southeast Asia would accept that Iraq represents the same type of terrorist threat that al Qaeda poses (bearing in mind that some Southeast Asian governments do not accept a Saddam-bin Laden link at present). They also would largely go along with the UN resolution which would surely result, enabling the United States and its allies to occupy Iraq.
In the court of public opinion within Southeast Asia, massive attacks by Saddam Hussein would not play well, however some more radical groups would perceive such attacks as justice for America's singing fact, some Islamist groups may wholly support a WMD strike on Israel, in particular. On balance, most mainstream Muslim opinion, as wary as it is of U. S. policy (especially on Israel/Palestine), would be as critical of Saddam's use of WMD as it was of the al Qaeda attacks.
Works Cited Censored 2006. # 12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators. 7 November 7, 2006 < web >. Jackson, Richard. Between Iraq and a Hard Place: Richard Jackson Suggests That the United States Is Losing Its War on Terror. New Zealand International Review 29. 4 (2004): 8. Kolko, Gabriel.
Iraq, the United States and the End of the European Coalition. Journal of Contemporary Asia 33. 3 (2003): 291. Mazetti, Mark. Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat. The New York Times. September 24, 2006: 1.
Mcmillan, Stuart. Is the Non-Proliferation Regime at Risk? Stuart McMillan Explores the Threats to the Existing System of Arms Control Posed by Recent Events. New Zealand International Review 29. 3 (2004): 2.
Millen, Raymond A. What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building. Parameters 35. 4 (2005): 133. Wish nick, Elizabeth.
Strategic Consequences of the Iraq War: U. S. Security Interests in Central Asia Reassessed. lisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2004.
Free research essays on topics related to: war in iraq, southeast asia, iraq war, saddam hussein, weapons of mass destruction
Research essay sample on Weapons Of Mass Destruction War In Iraq
