Free Essay

Kargil War

In: Business and Management

Submitted By network
Words 4137
Pages 17
The Kargil War (Hindi: करगिल युद्ध kārgil yuddh),(Urdu: کارگل جنگ kārgil jang), also known as the Kargil conflict,[note (I)] was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir and elsewhere along the Line of Control (LOC). The conflict is also referred to as Operation Vijay (Victory in Hindi) which was the name of the Indian operation to clear the Kargil sector.[12]

The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the LOC,[13] which serves as the de facto border between the two states. During the initial stages of the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan's Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staffshowed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces,[14][15][16] led by General Ashraf Rashid.[17] The Indian Army, later on supported by theIndian Air Force, recaptured a majority of the positions on the Indian side of the LOC infiltrated by the Pakistani troops and militants. With international diplomatic opposition, the Pakistani forces withdrew from the remaining Indian positions along the LOC.

The war is one of the most recent examples of high altitude warfare in mountainous terrain, which posed significant logistical problems for the combating sides. This was only the second direct ground war between any two countries after they had developed nuclear weapons; it is also the most recent. (India and Pakistan both test-detonated fission devices in May 1998, though the first Indian nuclear test was conducted in 1974.)

Location

Before the Partition of India in 1947, Kargil was part of the Baltistan district of Ladakh, a sparsely populated region with diverse linguistic, ethnic and religious groups, living in isolated valleys separated by some of the world's highest mountains. The First Kashmir War (1947–48) concluded with the LOC bisecting the Baltistan district, with the town and district of Kargil lying on the Indian side in theLadakh subdivision of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.[18] After Pakistan's defeat in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the two nations signed the Simla Agreement promising not to engage in armed conflict with respect to that boundary.[19]

The town of Kargil is located 205 km (120 miles) from Srinagar,[20] facing the Northern Areas across the LOC. Like other areas in the Himalayas, Kargil has a temperate climate. Summers are cool with frigid nights, while winters are long and chilly with temperatures often dropping to −48 °C (−54 °F).[21]

An Indian national highway (NH 1D) connecting Srinagar to Leh cuts through Kargil. The area that witnessed the infiltration and fighting is a 160 km long stretch of ridges overlooking this only road linking Srinagar and Leh.[13] The military outposts on the ridges above the highway were generally around 5,000 metres (16,000 ft) high, with a few as high as 5,485 metres (18,000 ft).[22] Apart from the district capital, Kargil, the populated areas near the front line in the conflict included the Mushko Valley and the town of Drass, southwest of Kargil, as well as the Batalik sector and other areas, northeast of Kargil.

One of the reasons why Kargil was targeted was that the terrain surrounding it, lent itself to pre-emptive seizure of unoccupied military positions.[23] With tactically vital features and well-prepared defensive posts atop the peaks, a defender of the high ground would enjoy advantages akin to a fortress. Any attack to dislodge a defender from high ground in mountain warfare requires a far higher ratio of attackers to defenders,[24] and the difficulties would be exacerbated by the high altitude and freezing temperatures.[25]

Kargil is just 173 km (108 mi) from the Pakistani-controlled town of Skardu, which was capable of providing logistical and artillery support to Pakistani combatants.

Background

town of KargilAfter the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, there had been a long period with relatively few direct armed conflicts involving the military forces of the two neighbors - notwithstanding the efforts of both nations to control the Siachen Glacier by establishing military outposts on the surrounding mountains ridges and the resulting military skirmishes in the 1980s.[26] During the 1990s, however, escalating tensions and conflict due to separatist activities in Kashmir, some of which were supported by Pakistan[citation needed], as well as the conducting of nuclear tests by both countries in 1998, led to an increasingly belligerent atmosphere. In an attempt to defuse the situation, both countries signed the Lahore Declaration in February 1999, promising to provide a peaceful andbilateral solution to the Kashmir conflict.

During the winter of 1998 -1999, some elements of the Pakistani Armed Forces were covertly training and sending Pakistani troops and paramilitary forces, some allegedly in the guise of mujahideen, into territory on the Indian side of the LOC. The infiltration was code named "Operation Badr";[27] its aim was to sever the link between Kashmir and Ladakh, and cause Indian forces to withdraw from the Siachen Glacier, thus forcing India to negotiate a settlement of the broader Kashmir dispute. Pakistan also believed that any tension in the region would internationalise the Kashmir issue, helping it to secure a speedy resolution. Yet another goal may have been to boost the morale of the decade-long rebellion in Indian Administered Kashmir by taking a proactive role. Some writers have speculated that the operation's objective may also have been as a retaliation for India's Operation Meghdoot in 1984 that seized much of Siachen Glacier.[28]

According to India's then army chief Ved Prakash Malik, and many other scholars,[29][30] much of the background planning, including construction of logistical supply routes, had been undertaken much earlier. On several occasions during the 1980s and 1990s, the army had given Pakistani leaders (Zia ul Haq and Benazir Bhutto) similar proposals for infiltration into the Kargil region, but the plans had been shelved for fear of drawing the nations into all-out war.[31][32][33]

Some analysts believe that the blueprint of attack was reactivated soon after Pervez Musharraf was appointed chief of army staff in October 1998.[27][34] After the war, Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Kargil conflict, claimed that he was unaware of the plans, and that he first learned about the situation when he received an urgent phone call from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, his counterpart in India.[35] Sharif attributed the plan to Musharraf and "just two or three of his cronies",[36] a view shared by some Pakistani writers who have stated that only four generals, including Musharraf, knew of the plan.[31][37] Musharraf, however, asserted that Sharif had been briefed on the Kargil operation 15 days ahead of Vajpayee's journey to Lahore on February 20.[38]

Occupation by Pakistan

[pic]

[pic]

Infiltration and military build-up.

During the winter season, due to extreme cold in the snow-capped mountainous areas of Kashmir, it was a common practice for both the Indian and Pakistan Armies to abandon some forward posts on their respective sides of the LOC and to reduce patrolling of areas that may be avenues of infiltration. When weather conditions became less severe, forward posts would be reoccupied and patrolling resumed.

During February 1999, the Pakistan Army began to re-occupy the posts it had abandoned on its side of the LOC in the Kargil region, but also sent forces to occupy some posts on the Indian side of the LOC.[41] Troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as four to seven battalions[42][43] of the Northern Light Infantry (a paramilitary regiment not part of the regular Pakistani army at that time) covertly and overtly set up bases on the vantage points of the Indian-controlled region. According to some reports, these Pakistani forces were backed by Kashmiri guerrillas and Afghan mercenaries.[44]

Pakistani intrusions took place in the heights of the lower Mushkoh Valley, along the Marpo La ridgeline in Dras, in Kaksar near Kargil, in the Batalik sector east of the Indus River, on the heights above of the Chorbatla sector where the LOC turns North and in the Turtok sector south of the Siachen area.

India discovers infiltration and mobilizes

Initially, these incursions were not detected for a number of reasons: Indian patrols were not sent into some of the areas infiltrated by the Pakistani forces and heavy artillery fire by Pakistan in some areas provided cover for the infiltrators. But by the second week of May, the ambushing of an Indian patrol team led by Capt Saurabh Kalia,[45] who acted on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector, led to the exposure of the infiltration. Initially, with little knowledge of the nature or extent of the infiltration, the Indian troops in the area assumed that the infiltrators were jihadis and claimed that they would evict them within a few days. Subsequent discovery of infiltration elsewhere along the LOC, and the difference in tactics employed by the infiltrators, caused the Indian army to realize that the plan of attack was on a much bigger scale. The total area seized by the ingress is generally accepted to between 130 km² - 200 km²;[37][42][46]

The Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. However, because of the nature of the terrain, division and corps operations could not be mounted; subsequent fighting was conducted mostly at the regimental or battalion level. In effect, two divisions of the Indian Army,[47] numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Paramilitary forces of Indiaand the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. The total number of Indian soldiers that were involved in the military operation on the Kargil-Drass sector was thus close to 30,000. The number of infiltrators, including those providing logistical backup, has been put at approximately 5,000 at the height of the conflict.[13][37][44] This figure includes troops from Pakistan-administered Kashmir who provided additional artillery support.

The Indian Air Force launched Operation Safed Sagar in support of the mobilization of Indian land forces, but its effectiveness during the war was limited by the high altitude and weather conditions, which in turn limited bomb loads and the number of airstrips that could be used.

The Indian Navy also prepared to blockade the Pakistani ports (primarily Karachi port)[48] to cut off supply routes.[49] Later, the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif disclosed that Pakistan was left with just six days of fuel to sustain itself if a full-fledged war had broken out.[13]

India attacks Pakistani positions

|[pic] |It has been suggested that Operation Vijay (1999) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since October |
| |2009. |

The terrain of Kashmir is mountainous and at high altitudes; even the best roads, such as National Highway 1D from Leh to Srinagar, are only two lanes. The rough terrain and narrow roads slowed traffic, and the high altitude, which affected the ability of aircraft to carry loads, made control of NH 1D (the actual stretch of the highway which was under Pakistani fire) a priority for India. From theirobservation posts, the Pakistani forces had a clear line-of-sight to lay down indirect artillery fire on NH 1D, inflicting heavy casualties on the Indians.[50] This was a serious problem for the Indian Army as the highway was its main logistical and supply route.[51] The Pakistani shelling of the arterial road posed the threat of Leh being cut off, though an alternative (and longer) road to Leh existed viaHimachal Pradesh.

The infiltrators, apart from being equipped with small arms and grenade launchers, were also armed with mortars, artillery and anti-aircraft guns. Many posts were also heavily mined, with India later stating to having recovered more than 8,000 anti-personnel mines according to an ICBL report.[52] Pakistan's reconnaissance was done through unmanned aerial vehicles and AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radars supplied by the US.[53] The initial Indian attacks were aimed at controlling the hills overlooking NH 1D, with high priority being given to the stretches of the highway near the town of Kargil. The majority of posts along the Line of Control were adjacent to the highway, and therefore the recapture of nearly every infiltrated post increased both the territorial gains and the security of the highway. The protection of this route and the recapture of the forward posts were thus ongoing objectives throughout the war.

The Indian Army's first priority was to recapture peaks that were in the immediate vicinity of NH 1D. This resulted in Indian troops first targeting the Tiger Hill and Tololing complex in Dras, which dominated the Srinagar-Leh route.[54] This was soon followed by the Batalik-Turtok sub-sector which provided access to Siachen Glacier. Some of the peaks that were of vital strategic importance to the Pakistani defensive troops were Point 4590 and Point 5353. While 4590 was the nearest point that had a view of NH 1D, point 5353 was the highest feature in the Dras sector, allowing the Pakistani troops to observe NH 1D.[55] The recapture of Point 4590 by Indian troops on June 14 was significant, notwithstanding the fact that it resulted in the Indian Army suffering the most casualties in a single battle during the conflict.[56] Though most of the posts in the vicinity of the highway were cleared by mid-June, some parts of the highway near Drass witnessed sporadic shelling until the end of the war.

[pic]

[pic]

IAF MiG-21s were used extensively in the Kargil war.

Once India regained control of the hills overlooking NH 1D, the Indian Army turned to driving the invading force back across the Line of Control. The Battle of Tololing, among other assaults, slowly tilted the combat in India's favor. The Pakistani troops at Tololing were aided by Pakistani fighters from Kashmir. Some of the posts put up a stiff resistance, including Tiger Hill (Point 5140) that fell only later in the war. Indian troops found well-entrenched Pakistani soldiers at Tiger Hill, and both sides suffered heavy casualties. After a final assault on the peak in which 10 Pakistani soldiers and 5 Indian soldiers were killed, Tiger Hill finally fell. A few of the assaults occurred atop hitherto unheard of peaks – most of them unnamed with only Point numbers to differentiate them – which witnessed fierce hand to hand combat.

As the operation was fully underway, about 250 artillery guns were brought in to clear the infiltrators in the posts that were in the line-of-sight. The Bofors FH-77B field howitzer played a vital role, with Indian gunners making maximum use of the terrain that assisted such an attack. However, its success was limited elsewhere due to the lack of space and depth to deploy the Bofors gun.

It was in this type of terrain that aerial attacks were used with limited effectiveness. French made Mirage 2000H of the IAF were tasked to drop laser-guided bombs to destroy well-entrenched positions of the Pakistani forces.[13] However, The IAF lost a MiG-27 strike aircraft which it attributed to an engine failure as well as a MiG-21 fighter which was shot down by Pakistan; initially Pakistan said it shot down both jets after they crossed into its territory.[57] One Mi-8helicopter was also lost, due to Stinger SAMs.

[pic]

[pic]

During the Kargil conflict IAF Mirage 2000Hs carried out strike missions.

On May 27, 1999, Flt. Lt. Nachiketa developed engine trouble in the Batalik sector and bailed out of his craft. Sqn Ldr Ajay Ahuja went out of his way to locate his comrade but was shot down by a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. According to reports, he had bailed out of his stricken plane safely but was apparently killed by his captors as his body was returned riddled with bullet wounds.[13]

In many vital points, neither artillery nor air power could dislodge the outposts manned by the Pakistani soldiers, who were out of visible range. The Indian Army mounted some direct frontal ground assaults which were slow and took a heavy toll given the steep ascent that had to be made on peaks as high as 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Since any daylight attack would be suicidal, all the advances had to be made under the cover of darkness, escalating the risk of freezing. Accounting for the wind chill factor, the temperatures were often as low as −15 °C to −11 °C (12 °F to 5 °F) near the mountain tops. Based onmilitary tactics, much of the costly frontal assaults by the Indians could have been avoided if the Indian Military had chosen to blockade the supply route of the opposing force, virtually creating a siege. Such a move would have involved the Indian troops crossing the LoC as well as initiating aerial attacks on Pakistan soil, a manoeuvre India was not willing to exercise fearing an expansion of the theatre of war and reducing international support for its cause.

Two months into the conflict, Indian troops had slowly retaken most of the ridges that were encroached by the infiltrators;[58][59] according to official count, an estimated 75%–80% of the intruded area and nearly all high ground was back under Indian control.[27]

Withdrawal and final battles

Following the outbreak of armed fighting, Pakistan sought American help in de-escalating the conflict. Bruce Riedel, aide to then President Bill Clinton reported that the US intelligence had imaged Pakistani movements of nuclear weapons to forward deployments for fear of the Kargil hostilities escalating into a wider conflict between the two countries. However, President Clinton refused to intervene until Pakistan had removed all forces from the Indian side of the Line of Control.[60] Following the Washington accord on July 4, where Sharif agreed to withdraw Pakistani troops, most of the fighting came to a gradual halt, but some Pakistani forces remained in positions on the Indian side of the LOC. In addition, the United Jihad Council (an umbrella for extremist groups) rejected Pakistan's plan for a climb-down, instead deciding to fight on.[61]

The Indian army launched its final attacks in the last week of July; as soon as the Drass subsector had been cleared of Pakistani forces, the fighting ceased on July 26. The day has since been marked as Kargil Vijay Diwas (Kargil Victory Day) in India. By the end of the war, India had resumed control of all territory south and east of the Line of Control, as was established in July 1972 as per the Simla Agreement.

World opinion

Pakistan was criticised by other countries for instigating the war, as its paramilitary forces and insurgents crossed the Line of Control.[62] Pakistan's primary diplomatic response, one of plausible deniability linking the incursion to what it officially termed as "Kashmiri freedom fighters", was in the end not successful.[63] Veteran analysts argued that the battle was fought at heights where only seasoned troops could survive, so poorly equipped "freedom fighters" would neither have the ability nor the wherewithal to seize land and defend it. Moreover, while the army had initially denied the involvement of its troops in the intrusion, two soldiers were awarded the Nishan-E-Haider (Pakistan's highest military honour). Another 90 soldiers were also given gallantry awards, most of themposthumously, confirming Pakistan's role in the episode. India also released taped phone conversations between the Army Chief and a senior Pakistani general where the latter is recorded saying: "the scruff of [the militants] necks is in our hands,"[64] although Pakistan dismissed it as a "total fabrication". Concurrently, Pakistan made several contradicting statements, confirming its role in Kargil, when it defended the incursions saying that the LOC itself was disputed.[65] Pakistan also attempted to internationalize the Kashmir issue, by linking the crisis in Kargil to the larger Kashmir conflictbut, such a diplomatic stance found few backers on the world stage.[66]

As the Indian counter-attacks picked up momentum, Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif flew to meet U.S. President Bill Clinton on July 4 to obtain support from the United States. Clinton rebuked Sharif, however, and asked him to use his contacts to rein in the militants and withdraw Pakistani soldiers from Indian territory. Clinton would later reveal in his autobiography that "Sharif's moves were perplexing" since the Indian Prime Minister had travelled to Lahore to promote bilateral talks aimed at resolving the Kashmir problem and "by crossing the Line of Control, Pakistan had wrecked the [bilateral] talks."[67] On the other hand, he applauded Indian restraint for not crossing the LoC and escalating the conflict into an all-out war.[68]

G8 nations supported India and condemned the Pakistani violation of the LOC at the Cologne summit. The European Union also opposed Pakistan's violation of the LOC.[69] China, a long-time ally of Pakistan, insisted on a pullout of forces to the pre-conflict positions along the LoC and settling border issues peacefully. Other organizations like the ASEAN Regional Forum too supported India's stand on the inviolability of the LOC.[66]

Faced with growing international pressure, Sharif managed to pull back the remaining soldiers from Indian territory. The joint statement issued by Clinton and Sharif conveyed the need to respect the Line of Control and resume bilateral talks as the best forum to resolve all disputes.[70][71]

WMDs and the nuclear factor

Since Pakistan and India each had weapons of mass destruction, many in the international community were concerned that if the Kargil conflict intensified, it could lead to nuclear war. Both countries had tested their nuclear capability in 1998 (India conducted its first test in 1974 while it was Pakistan's first-ever nuclear test). Many pundits believed the tests to be an indication of the escalating stakes in the scenario in South Asia. When the Kargil conflict started just a year after the nuclear tests, many nations desired to end it before it intensified.

International concerns increased when Pakistani foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmad made a statement on May 31 warning that an escalation of the limited conflict could lead Pakistan to use "any weapon" in its arsenal.[82] This was immediately interpreted as a threat of nuclear retaliation by Pakistan in the event of an extended war, and the belief was reinforced when the leader of Pakistan's senate noted, "The purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used when they are needed."[83] Many such ambiguous statements from officials of both countries were viewed as warnings of an impending nuclear crisis where the combatants would consider use of their limited nuclear arsenals in 'tactical' nuclear warfare in the belief that it would not have ended in mutual assured destruction, as could have occurred in a nuclear conflict between the United States and the USSR. Some experts believe that following nuclear tests in 1998, the Pakistani military was emboldened by its nuclear deterrent to markedly increase coercion against India.[84]

The nature of the India-Pakistan conflict took a more sinister turn when the U.S. received intelligence that Pakistani nuclear warheads were being moved towards the border. Bill Clinton tried to dissuade Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif from nuclear brinkmanship, even threatening Pakistan of dire consequences. According to a White House official, Sharif seemed to be genuinely surprised by this supposed missile movement and responded that India was probably planning the same. In an article in May 2000 Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj claimed that India too had readied at least five nuclear-tippedballistic missiles, but could not back up this claim with any official proof.[85]

Sensing a deteriorating military scenario, diplomatic isolation, and the risks of a larger conventional and nuclear war, Sharif ordered the Pakistani army to vacate the Kargil heights. He later claimed in his official biography that General Pervez Musharraf had moved nuclear warheads without informing him.[86] Recently however, Pervez Musharraf revealed in his memoirs that Pakistan's nuclear delivery system was not operational during the Kargil war;[42] something that would have put Pakistan under serious disadvantage if the conflict went nuclear.

The threat of WMD included chemical and even biological weapons. Pakistan accused India of using chemical weapons and incendiary weapons such as napalm against the Kashmiri fighters. India, on the other hand, showcased a cache of gas masks as proof that Pakistan may have been prepared to use non-conventional weapons. US official and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons determined that Pakistani allegations of India using banned chemicals in its bombs were unfounded.[87][dead link]…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

The War

...oduction The Nigerian Civil War, 1967 – 1970, was an ethnic and political conflict caused by the attempted secession of the South-eastern provinces of Nigeria as the self-proclaimed republic of Biafra. The war became notorious for the starvation in some of the besieged war-bound regions, and the consequent claims of genocide made by the largely Igbo people of those regions. Causes of the Conflict The conflict was the result of serious tensions, both ethnic and religious, between the different peoples of Nigeria. Like most modern African nations, Nigeria was an artificial construct, put together by agreement between European powers, paying little regard to historical African boundaries or population groups. The Nigeria which received independence from Britain in 1960 had a population of 60 million people of nearly 300 differing ethnic and tribal groups. Of the ethnic groups that made up Nigeria, the largest were the largely Muslim Hausa in the north, the Yoruba in the half-Christian, half-Muslim south-west, and the Igbo in the predominantly Christian south-east. At independence a conservative political alliance had been made between the leading Hausa and Igbo political parties, which ruled Nigeria from 1960 to 1966. This alliance excluded the western Yoruba people. The well-educated Igbo people were considered by many to be the main beneficiaries of this alliance, taking most of the top jobs and leading business opportunities in the Nigerian federation. The Yoruba......

Words: 317 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Cold War and the War on Terror

...Eerily, it seems that during the Cold War and the War on Terror, many of the feelings that citizens felt were the same, but what America called the enemy was different. Following the September 11th attacks, there was a feeling of paranoia felt throughout America similar to the paranoia felt during the Cold War. Americans did not feel safe, and an attack could come at any time. The fight on the home front looked different during the Cold War and the War on Terrorism. During the Cold War there was more of a correlation between fighting Communism, and buying consumer goods. During the war on terrorism Americans were asked to give up some of their rights in order to maintain their safety. There is an abundance of similarities between the Cold War and the War and Terror. In Echoes of the Cold War, Elaine Tyler May says, “The war against terrorism, like the struggle against Communism, defines the enemy as a worldwide conspiracy…with operatives infiltrating the United States.” In both wars, America was not just fighting a group of people; America was also fighting an idea. In the Cold war, America was fighting of Communism. The USA believed they were truly free, and that in order for other countries to be truly free they had to embrace capitalism and consumerism. America tried to spread capitalism to Vietnam and Korea by fighting in those countries, similarly to how America tried to bring Democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. In the War on Terrorism, the idea that America......

Words: 998 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

The Wars

...The Wars by Timothy Findley Novel Study 1. Journal Entries Character Sketch Robert Ross, the “nineteen years old” protagonist in Timothy Findley’s The Wars is: -innocent: “Robert is easily bruised” this can be interpreted in the sense that Robert represents innocence which is can be easily corrupted by bad things such as war. -introverted: “Robert avoided them through the journey-wanting to protect the last of his privacy”“he was studious and careful: exact. He watched the men around him from a distance...he found excuses to keep them at bay” -compassionate: Robert is compassionate towards the weak and helpless like his mentally challenged sister Rowena for whom he was a loving “guardian”. When he was forced to shoot the wounded horse on the convoy ship, it really pained Robert to shoot the animal and when it took more than one shot to kill it, Robert felt bad for not putting it out of its misery to the point he gets frustrated with himself and the horse -a leader: Robert was a person who could lead and follow, although he knew that Captain Leather’s orders to place the gun beds in a bad spot he followed his orders and during the gas attack he was able to direct his men, who weren’t issued gas masks, to safety (he told them to urinate on their handkerchiefs). One of his men was in shock and was unable to urinate so Robert, the only person with a gas mask, gave his mask to the soldier. Furthermore, when they were ‘escaping’ the German, Robert,......

Words: 2033 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Cold War vs. War on Terror

...The Cold War period lasted for nearly 45 years, from 1945 to 1991. It began at the end of the Second World War and with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The war was the stage for the West's struggle against communist ideas and changes. This long wearing conflict brought to pass an increase in production and trade of arms and an appearance of a new world order formed by America. The main principle of the cold war can be seen as the East-West competition in ideas, arms and spheres of influence. (REF) After Afghan terrorists dramatically attacked the United States on September 11, 2001; America declared a war on terror and flew its troops into Afghanistan in pursuit of avenging their nation and capturing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Again America found itself in opposition to the East, nevertheless this time a different region. And Again the East was fighting against this new world order and America's quest for world domination in a globalising world. The aim of the essay is to explore the relationship between the cold war and the ‘war on terror' in Afghanistan and to find similarities in political patterns and warfare, in order to answer the question Main Body - History Main question - Relationship The cold war marked the struggle between America and the USSR after the Second World War. The war influenced international affairs majorly. It influenced the way conflicts were handled, the way countries were divided up and the increasing growth in weaponry production...

Words: 3840 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

To Justify War or Not to Justify War? That Is the Question

...Rodjanét Williams History 101 Professor Saul Panski April 22, 2013 To Justify War or Not to Justify War? That is the Question On May 11, 1846, James K. Polk delivered his address to Congress requesting a Declaration of War on the Republic of Mexico. President Polk justified his war by saying in his message that Mexico had attacked American troops and invaded the United States. He also brought up the issue that initially brought about all of the tensions between the U.S. and Mexico, which was the Mexican government had not been cooperative in negotiations over the Texas boundary. Polk, as well as most of the rest of Americans at this time, saw the declaration of war as a legitimate and natural expression of America’s Manifest Destiny, which will be later explained. The question remains, however, was Polk’s declaration of war on Mexico really necessary, let alone justified? Was peace what he really wanted, or was his true intention just to acquire more land and expand the U.S. westward as fast as he could? President Polk did appear to have taken several steps to try to avoid an armed conflict with Mexico. First, Polk tried to reopen diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico by sending an envoy, Mr. John Slidell of Louisiana, invested with full powers to make adjustments to the current state of affairs between the two countries. He sent this envoy, seemingly, as evidence that he did not want war, but peace and harmonious engagements between the U.S. and Mexico......

Words: 2162 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Just War

... Just War theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ and ‘right conduct in war’ . The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war. Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory - jus post bellum - dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. Just War theory postulates that war, while very terrible, is not always the worst option. There may be responsibilities so important, atrocities which can be prevented or outcomes so undesirable they justify war. Origins The Indian epic, the Mahabharata, offers one of the first written discussions of a 'just war'. In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified, and then a long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality, just means, just cause, and fair treatment of captives and the wounded. The war in Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the "just cause" for the war including last minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of "just conduct"......

Words: 1514 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

World War 2 and Other Wars

...In the movie Saving Private Ryan, World War Two, is depicted as an extremely tough and brutal environment. In the opening scene of the movie at Omaha Beach, we see hundreds of Americans get brutally slaughtered as they try to make their way up the beach front. As they finally get to the bunker and confront the Germans who are mounting the machine guns, they set them on fire and one American say, “Don’t shoot, let them burn”. So in hearing that and seeing those images, World War Two comes off as an extremely cold blooded war. This war stands alone by itself as it is the first war where people actually rushed in on the opposing force. This war is different from others because it was faster paced, more brutal, and more advanced. All three of these reasons were new and never done before thus making this war different than anyone that had come before it. In the Revolutionary War, the two opposing forces would literally stand, face each other and shoot, point blank until there were no more soldiers to fight or they had given up. In World War 1 the strategy switched to trench warfare, in which the opposing sides would sit in there holes waiting for the other side to make a move, a reoccurring theme here; slow paced warfare. When World War Two hit and America stormed the beach of Normandy, it was hundreds of men on boats running in two the line of fire. Instead of the usual sitting in a trench waiting for days, or face to face gunfire, the war moved to an extremely fast paced......

Words: 665 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Is War

...Is War Primarily the Product of ‘Human Nature’? It is too great a task to identify a common cause of all wars, past and present, then attribute it responsibility for their commencing. However, what can be done is to identify certain foundations common in all “war”, and pay heed to how “states [or other structures] actually behave, behind the façade of their values-based rhetoric” (Kaplan, 2012, p.1). It will be this essay’s goal to determine first, what needs be included in the definition of “human nature”, and what constitutes “war”, and second, stake the claim that all political action, including that of states, is derived primarily from this definition of human nature. The first task is to define what is meant by “war”, and while definitions abound, it is possible to order them into one of two categories supplied by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The first is the modern conventional view, that war is “the state of armed conflict between nations or states” (Oxford, 2007, p.3573), and the second, considerably broader, of “any active hostility or struggle between living beings” (Oxford, 2007, p.3573). The former accounts well for conflicts that were overwhelmingly state-centric, such as the First World War, and marks a clear distinction between war and individual political violence: war is the business of states. However, is the Vietnam War to be understood—like the Korean—as a simple north versus south conflict, despite the northern state only assuming active......

Words: 2214 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

War in World War 2

...The College Board Modified AP World History Essay Questions 6 2007 Continuity and Change-Over-Time Essay Question Revised Question Analyze major changes and continuities in the formation of national identities in ONE of the regions listed below from 1914 to the present. Be sure to include evidence from specific countries in the region selected: • Middle East • Southeast Asia • Sub-Saharan Africa Analyze continuities and changes in nationalist ideology and practice in ONE of the following regions from the First World War to the present: • Middle East • Southeast Asia • Sub-Saharan Africa Rationale for Revision: The original question was about state-building in areas of the world that were decolonized, albeit in different forms, in the years after the First World War. The revised question is one that requires that same knowledge, using the same regions, but removes specific dates and instead references the First World War. This should prompt students to consider both the ideologies that led to the creation of new states as well as the ways in which that ideology was implemented in those new states or across the regions. This makes the question more closely aligned with the Curriculum Framework while broadening it to allow students to demonstrate their knowledge more effectively. Revised Question’s Alignment with the Curriculum Framework Key Concept Theme Skills for Basic Core Points 6.2; 6.3.I.C; 6.3.II; 6.3.III.B Theme 3:......

Words: 1866 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Wars

...War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors. It is generally characterised by extreme violence, social disruption and an attempt at economic destruction. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of (collective) political violence or intervention. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace. While some scholars see warfare as an inescapable and integral aspect of human nature,[1] others argue that it is only inevitable under certain socio-cultural or ecological circumstances.[2] For some, the practice of war is not linked to any single type of political organization or society. Rather, as discussed by John Keegan in his A History of Warfare, war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it. Another argument suggests that since there are human societies in which warfare does not exist, humans may not be naturally disposed for warfare, which emerges under particular circumstances. The deadliest war in history, in terms of the cumulative number of deaths since its start, is the Second World War, with 60–85 million deaths, followed by the Mongol conquests.[3] Proportionally speaking, the most destructive war in modern history is the War of the Triple Alliance, which took the lives of over 60% of......

Words: 307 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

World War Ii: a World at War

...World War II: A World At War The so-called war to end all wars, the First World War, did not solve almost any of the problems which had caused it. For this reason, it wasn't such a surprise that not too long after the end of World War I another one followed. The Great Depression crippled the economies of Europe and the United States. That, combined with the outcome of World War I, led to major repositioning of world power and influence. That was fertile ground for the emergence of various forms of totalitarian governments in the Soviet Union, Japan, Italy, and Germany, as well as other countries. After the First World War, also known as the Great War, many of the countries that were involved struggled to recover in many ways. War is not cheap and it ended up costing all the countries involved in some way or another. It left tremendous political dislocations in Europe that laid the groundwork for the collapse of democratic institutions on the continent and set the stage for a German power struggle. The democratic regime was already in turmoil and was further weakened by the worldwide depression that began in 1929 following the war. The Second World War was arguably the most significant period of the 20th century. It wasn't called a World War by coincidence. Both World Wars were called this simply because they involved most of the big countries of the world. World War II was fought across six out of seven of the worlds continents and all of its oceans. It left countries......

Words: 2022 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

War Analysis

...War Name Course Date War is defined as an organized and prolonged conflict carried out by countries or individuals within or outside a country. War is generally characterized by brutal or extreme violence, displacements of populations and both social and economic disruption or destruction. War is an actual, widespread and intentional armed conflict between countries. War is regarded as a form of political violence because countries are political creations or entities. When war is absent piece prevails. There are several types of war, namely; civil war, asymmetrical, conventional, chemical, unconventional, nuclear warfare among others. In civil war the warring sides are from the same country or political entity and what is at stake is either the control of the nation and instruments of power or one side is trying to break away or secede. In asymmetrical war, the combatants or feuding sides are not evenly marched in terms of military capability and therefore the weaker side engages in guerilla tactics in order to counter the huge disadvantage it is faced with. Conventional war is defined as a war whose main aim is to reduce or minimize the enemy’s capability mostly through battles. It is a war mostly fought by states and their allies. Unconventional war on the other side refers to a war whose main purpose is to attain military victory through use of clandestine activities such as supporting secretly one side in......

Words: 1897 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Wars – Destructive for Humanity

...War is, without argument the worst collective experience of humanity. It has created new nations on the rubbles of destroyed cities and humans dead. It involves mass killing without humane feelings even if short and swift. Our recent experience with Kargil, which was not even not even a full-fledged war, reopened the sordidness of military action. Wars, when prolonged like the World Wars, result in human brutality, mass extermination of races and intolerable atrocities on innocent civilians. All rules are kept on the backburner and what matters is victory or defeat. The 21st Century has seen the development of weapons, controlled by computerized systems, with pin-point accuracy and a million-fold increase in powers of destruction compared to our previous wars. Weapons and tactics have undergone total transformation in the last millennium but no deterrent has managed to quell human conflict. It may look totally different has managed to quell human conflict. It may look totally different for the war-mongers but no the common man it gives the same results – death and destruction. The totally of wars since 1945 right from Nagasaki and Hiroshima to iraq and Afganistan continue to grow without respite. The irony of the new millennium is that improvement in technology and scientific advancement have given us more options, leaving us with our major drawback, our primitive human failing – the fear of the other. The core reasons for fighting wars are about proving......

Words: 991 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Causes of War

...The Causes of War Summer Hansborough POL 300 004016 What causes opposition? Imperialism, nationalism, Social Darwinism, and militarism are causes of war, and I narrowed it down to the following; freedom, money, ideologies, race, religion and land. Although these are causes of war, in most cases, the ultimate cause of war is an elitist mentality. One believing their ideologies, race, policies and beliefs are superior to those that do not fit in or follow that particular system. What are the causes of war? An age old question that no one has yet to give a definitive answer. What is war? One definition explains war as an aggressively armed battle between conflicting people. Another definition explains war as fighting between nations, or groups in a nation, using weapons. To sum it all up, war is a condition of active animosity or contention and it is not exclusive to people. There are many kinds of war, such as is the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, political wars, and the war on AIDS. The war on AIDS is interesting, because it’s not a war apposing people, but a virus, a disease. According to the bible, our war is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, wickedness and power in high places. (bible, 2005) A system, which is designed to bring order and uniformity, is an attribute to the causes of war. A system is vital to administer order to society. In the early days, before America established its own money system, America......

Words: 3707 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

Cold War

...Cold WarPatricia Hamilton Kaplan University OnlineSS310-Exploring the1960s- An Interdisciplinary ApproachMay 29, 2012Professor Rookstoolii Cold War I will be writing about longest war in history the Cold War . First, about the historical and political conditions of the Cold War. Explanation of specific threat against United States during the Cold War. Third, my preparation to prepare my family for Cuba Missile Crisis in the Cold War. Lastly, the question I was asked about the Cold War. Historical and Political Conditions of the Cold War The Cold War begin in 1945 until 1991. The Cold War starts with conflict between the Communist nation of Soviet Union and United States. Also, what type of government should rule Eastern Europe. Their three historical and political factor in 1960s about the Cold War Bay Of Pig, Vietnam War, and Cuba Missile Crisis. Also, United States and Soviet Union competed with each other through the arm race. The Arm Race to be first to build manufacture atomic and hydrogen bomb. Also, Both developed short and intermediate – range missile that will armed with nuclear warhead and to make a nuclear weapon to battle in war. Next, is the space race the Soviet build Sputnik and United States send man to walk on the moon. According to (Naranjo,May 6,2003) “The longest conflict of the twentieth century, the Cold War affected everything, from political ideology, foreign and domestic policy, to the presidency and the personal lives of Americans. With the......

Words: 623 - Pages: 3