The War on Terror may be regarded as something of a failure in those regards. The undemocratic Musharraf regime has been supported; Iraq has become more violent, captured Iraqis have been tortured and terrorism has become more rampant there.
Relations with Iran are deteriorating, and many in the world fear the U. S more than terrorism. In those regards too the War in Iraq seems to have been a failure. The War on Terror as Defensive: The War on Terror is a preventive defensive strategy. The second is ostensibly preventive defense, the third may be interpreted to be so as may the fourth. The first and the fifth do not involve merely the use of force, and do not fall into the categories of defense, compellence, deterrence or swaggering.
It is plausible that the war is aggression mixed with defense, with the pretext of being entirely defensive. This would be supported by the observation that one and possibly another war has been initiated by the U. S without provocation, and statements have been made casually that show a willingness to disregard the sovereignty of other states, national integrity and human rights.
The war in Iraq is a case of failed deterrence, though the motives and outcomes in the situation are complex. American actions in the War on Terror are acting as demonstrations of power in some respects, as well as weakening in others loss of soldiers, vehicles, fuel, money etc. They might be instilling fear in some actors in the world, but are also arousing hatred and anger among others, many of whom are not easily intimidated.
If you need a custom essay, research paper, thesis, dissertation, term paper on Politics, Economics, Management or other discipline — feel free to contact our professional custom writing service. Order a custom written paper of high quality Professional Writers only. Free Quote or Order now. In what forms does it manifest itself, and how will war be considered by world leaders in the post-industrial era?
Within each of these incarnations, the paper discusses how these specific types have affected the social landscape. As the reader will glean, war has long been an integral part of the creation and alteration of countless societies and nations and will likely continue to impact humanity for generations to come.
Why do people initiate war when the implications are potentially devastating? After all, even the victors of a modern war may consider the spoils of victory to be, at least in the interim, pyrrhic at best. To define war is a challenge in and of itself. War is conflict between two or more parties, but how it is manifest depends on a certain point of view.
Some, like Karl von Clausewitz, would assert that it is a conflict between two or more political organizations, such as states or nations. Others would view it as a human condition, pitting not just political groups against one another but also humans. The roots of the English are nebulous: One major cause of war is relatively simple: When two or more stable, organized groups are forced into coexistence with each other, conflict can be avoided if each group is satisfied with their comparative situations.
Conflict is given life, however, when superiority or inferiority complexes, aggression, or perceived inequities enter the mix. In many cases, these factors combine with one another to create irreconcilable differences.
To understand war, it is necessary to study its instances and ask about its roots. Does the conflict stem from sociological differences? Is combat a means to acquire greater resources or repel an oppressive government.
Under this model, wars begin because nations have reasons to go to war, the resources to wage a war, and the resolve to do so.
As is made evident in the following examples, examples of the Triple-R model can be found throughout the history of warfare.
Many types of conflicts can occur within a nation's borders, such as rebellions and riots, but few of these can be identified as civil wars. Some recent examples of such battles include police clashes with immigrant groups in France, the separatist movement in Tibet, and ethnic violence in Kenya.
Divisive and often brutal as these incidents are, they do not yet fall under what is known as a full "civil war. The distinction between such types of conflict and an internationally-recognized civil war is based on five important elements:. These distinctive qualities are important because, as an aggregate, they tend to have a deeper social impact within the nation and can also have international consequences.
For instance, no revolutionary forces are seeking the dismantlement of the French or Kenyan governments; even though they do seek change, none of the protesting groups have formed militias or staged planned assaults on government forces. Similarly, the Dalai Lama may be the leader of the Tibetan people, but he has not made any effort to assert himself or his government as the leader of China, which oversees Tibet; no international organization has recognized the legitimacy of his regional leadership; and any major violence that has occurred has happened during protests, not in major combat situations.
Each of these incidents may, if unattended or exacerbated, lead to civil war in the future, but, they are not causing widespread social and political disruption as civil wars do. In the early s, slaves who had been freed in the United States emigrated to what is now the West African country of Liberia. The ex-slaves and their descendants established a new republic of which they were firmly in control, keeping at bay the indigenous population.
One hundred-fifty years later, a military coup led by Samuel Doe removed the previous regime but retained the same authoritarian style of government, violently suppressing rivals and galvanizing ethnic groups.
In , Doe was killed by one such group, which installed its own leader in his place. Neighboring African states contributed a peacekeeping force to the region, but they were unable to keep the warring factions apart nor help establish a coalition government.
Countless refugees fled into other countries, and potential investors and business groups avoided doing business in Liberia. Extremely tentative accords were struck in the mid- to lates, but the regimes that held power during that time continued to disenfranchise and repress rival groups, each of which waited in the wings for the opportunity to overthrow the incumbent government Carter Center, Several nations in Africa continue to struggle with civil war, as rival, tribally-based factions vie for power in a number of nations and refuse to engage one another in peaceful arenas.
The research paper on war should highlight the destructiveness that a war causes and it should also end up in a message that wars should be avoided as much as they can be. Research paper on war is an exercise that needs a student’s skill in terms of good reading and understanding.
Research within librarian-selected research topics on Peace and War from the Questia online library, including full-text online books, academic journals, magazines, newspapers and .
Aug 08, · Research Paper on War Many a wars have been fought throughout history with many underlying causes. These causes of war are kindling to a fire that only requires a spark to light. Writing about the Vietnam War? Read this sample research paper on the Vietnam War and how Johnson made a bad decision during his presidency/5(10).
Paper Masters Custom Research Papers on War in Iraq. Paper Masters writes custom research papers on War in Iraq and illustrate that firm lines have been drawn between supporters and those who oppose military action. Post-Civil War - Research papers on Post Civil War examine the era that focused on the process of Reconstruction after the South lost the Civil War. Reconstruction After the Civil War - A research paper on the reconstruction after the Civil War will go into Lincoln's process of readmitting the Confederate states to the national fold.