Effect of Cold War on the Middle East - Essay Example

?“Cold War.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 28 February 28 February < http en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#cite_ref-176>. PARAGRAPH 6 Towards the end of the First World War, George Orwell, a well known English author and also journalist mentioned the term Cold War in his work titled, “You and the Atomic Bomb”, which published in the year 1945 on October 19, in Tribune, a British newspaper. He used that term in the context of how world at that time was under the threat of nuclear warfare, and so how there may be “peace that is no peace”, calling it the permanent “cold war”. In the same context, he directly referred to that Cold War as a kind of ideological conflict that was happening between the Soviet Union and other Western countries. On the same line, Orwell wrote in The Observer dated March 10, 1946, “[a]fter the Moscow conference last December, Russia began to make a ‘cold war’ on Britain and the British Empire.” The first use of the term Cold War to refer to the geopolitical conflicts that was taking place between Soviet Union (and its allies) with United States (and its European allies) was done by Bernard Baruch, who was an American financier and also a presidential advisor.[4]. He used that term while delivering a speech in South Carolina, on April 16, 1947 (which was reproduced by a journalist named Herbert Bayard Swope), “Let us not be deceived: we are today in the midst of a cold war.”[6]. Then, it was Walter Lippmann, who was a Newspaper reporter and columnist, who gave further recognition to this term, by naming his book as Cold War (1947).[7] Cordesman, Anthony H. Lessons of Post-Cold War Conflict: Middle Eastern Lessons and Perspectives. 27 May 2004. 11 March 2011 < http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/nic2020/cordesman_lessons.pdf>. PAGE 1,2 ,3, 8, 9, 11, 14 The United States appears to be more focused in its conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so much so that it sometimes fails to remember that these two conflicts does not decide how the regional military forces as well as the extremists in those countries, tend to recognize the lessons of recent conflict. United States tend to forget about their past military actions, their military experiences in the regional wars and also other countries like Israel’s experiences regarding conflicts. In the "Post Cold War" era, it is assumed that US-centric aspects play a key role in the revolution in military affairs, however, the truth is a much broader-based evolution happened or happening in military affairs. This perspective indirectly means that the Afghan and Iraq Wars are not providing any lessons to the current as well as the potential enemies of America. Such lessons include: 1) First, the lessons that are learned by the enemy states, which impacts their regular military forces: There are about 22¬24 countries in the Middle East Asian and North African Region, among these countries majority of them some form of serious internal problems, ongoing civil conflicts and even serious threats from external countries. These countries maximally focus their attention to the various wars that happens in their region, and also focus on the military developments being carried out by the US particularly its success levels and failure rates in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan. In addition, the conflict between the Arab countries and the Israel is another major one, which shapes the regional perceptions, with the Arab’s and Iran’s military forces optimally focusing on how Israel fights with its weapons and other factors, and thereby shapes the way its forces fights and uses the weapons technology, got from USA. Except Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, the need as well as capability to learn such lessons is rarely with the ability to taken actions upon them with great efficiency. A debate is going on there to find out why majority of the regional countries does not react fast, and also does not make effective use of new weapon technology and military tactics. However, the well accepted fact is introduction of new military tactics and technology is not aptly balanced or even efficient, thus leading to problematic and unpredictable results. Middle Eastern states are not able to maximally extend their military budgets as their economy undergoes only limited development, and also its population growth and resultant high youth numbers has led high demand for services and jobs. Although, it is overtly visible, Middle Eastern and North Africa states’ military allocation has decreased from $96.3 billion in the year 1985 to around $60.5 billion only in 2001 and further decreased to $57.9 billion in 2002. In correlation, the number of total active military personnel also dropped, with numbers decreasing from 3.3 million to 2.4 million. However, quite few countries like Egypt, Israel, and the UAE, have sizable wealth and good economy, so they can spend more money on their present forces. The drop in miliary budgets shows that countries are not willing to spend high money on advanced weapons and technology, unless they face a most urgent threat. The countries, which are hostile towards USA are the ones who maximally suffer serious problems in the modernization of their forces, when compared to other MENA countries. These opponent countries do not have Soviet Union as the supplier of cheap weapons. They are also restricted from purchasing of arms, due to various sanctions or political limits, they are not able to actualize economic development and have only limited resources to buy any arms, and these countries can be considered as ones, who do not adopt new tactics and the technology quickly. However, the key factor, they maintain a far larger force structures, which they could not afford to modernize or train. The data on arms transfers which are provided below back up this point, and it is very clear that Iraq and Libya, the two major threats, have become softer and not at all hostile. The other countries, which remain threat to USA, are Iran and Syria, and for their part, they differ in their response to these realities. Among the two, Iran appears to have done a better job about learning from the military experiences of US, British, and also Israel. The military literature concerning Iran has come up with details of how other countries’ military experiences including that off Russia and China can teach it good lessons. Even then, the fact is, Iran does know about its vulnerability against any US led actions, and thus it cannot compete against USA at the conventional level. The bottom line is Iran has purchased only particular weapons systems, which may aid them in more asymmetric warfare and may not in conventional conflict, then it also modernized in a slow manner its armory, and purchased certain technologies or tools which optimized weapons like electronics, precision guided and advanced weapons, and RPVs. In addition, Iran also strengthened its other passive defense necessities like shelters, concealment, and dispersal. Iran appears to have initiated these step as early as the third year of the Iran-Iraq War, however, the recent wars have given some more lessons, which does not change their military character but changed the focus of such efforts. Syria could not carry out military modernization on the lines of Iran because it faced more financial pressure, being only a minor exporter and also due to unpaid debt for its past arms purchases from FSU. In addition, the Syrian armed forces were not that adaptive to new technologies and changes, instead remaining loyal to conventional form of warefare, and so focused on strengthening their traditional armory including, tanks and anti-armored weapons, more advanced surface-to-air missiles, and also by expanding its number of military men. 2) The second lesson, which was learned by the hostile states or extremists regarding the asymmetric warfare. The key lesson both the hostile as well as the non-hostile Middle Eastern countries seems to have learnt, based on US’s strategies in Afghanistan and Iraq and also based on US’s involvement in Post Cold War conflict, is that they should avoid conventional conflict with the US. This lesson appears to be in prevalence from the end of the Cold War. Iran had good lesson to learn based on its "tanker war" with the US and Britain in the year 1987-1988, and also other countries has to learn from the Gulf War. For the argument sake, it is clear that regional countries can learn about USA’s capabilities in war, by observing Israel's performance in 1967, 1973, and 1982. Also, key military lessons about "precision," "speed," synchronicity," "maneuvering" and all of the other buzzwords of the revolution in military affairs, may be again imposed by advances in IS&R capabilities, jointness, and netcentric warfare. However, these revolutions are a new attempt. Before the end of the Cold War, the hostile countries as well as extremist groups have studied and learnt about US and Western vulnerabilities in the asymmetric form of warfare, particularly studying it during the Afghan conflict. The weaknesses asymmetric warfare include: unexpected or surprise attack; dispersion of the mass in order to form a defensive or restraint morass; causing casualties both among military and also as collateral damage; combat has to be low-intensity; taking of hostages to pressurize and other terrorist activities; establishing urban warfare; extending the conflict and also occupying the territories. It also includes threat to use of weapons of mass destruction; proxy warfare and also false flags; HUMINT, area expertise, and language skills; and at the same time indulging in political, ideological, and psychological warfare. Although, above mentioned vulnerabilities have been in existence earlier also, conflicts in Afghan and Iraq has made the hostile countries and groups to focus more on such vulnerabilities. 3) The Third lesson is learnt by the Islamist extremists and other hostile groups: An important lesson, which has learned by hostile groups or movements, is that they have to mutate, disperse, and fragment. The ongoing debate regarding whether Al Qaeda still maintains its central control or has outsourced its activities to other movements under its name appears largely irrelevant. It has done the same thing in the past and doing so now. Although, Al Qaeda and its affiliates are the current danger, the Salafi and other violent Islamist movements should not be forgotten, as the can also mutate and evolve, even after their current organization is dismantled. Islamic fundamentalists and other hostile groups have understood by focusing on the Post Cold War conflicts that adapting the old tactics to fighting can provide good results in their conflicts with the US and its allies. Also, it appears that such groups have learnt more from their experience in attacking the weaknesses of USA, rather than based on US strengths. Islamic fundamentalists and other hostile groups have learnt from various case examples of political, psychological, and information warfare. The lessons include: create a middle path by linking more moderate and popular causes; utilize television particularly Arab TV channels; even while maintaining a attrition strategy, they plan to strike hard during important days in the calendar and importantly on high value targets, which can impact political, social, and economic aspects; and push "hot buttons." Carry out low intensity actions, which may provoke USA and its allies to indulge in costly, drastic and provocative responses; also attack non-players including UN, Embassies, NGOs, Aid agencies and also foreign business operations; "Horror" attacks, carnage, and estrangement: keep "failed states" failed; confuse attacker’s identity; further flame the conspiracy theories; shelter the extremist and involved individuals in Mosques, Shrines, key high value targets, as well as targets which have high cultural impact; exploit, overstate, and even falsify US attacks, which may lead to civilian casualties, and also friendly fires that may take place on the forces of local allies, and even in incidents where USA can be accused of taking anti-Arab and anti-Islam. 4) The lessons that are learned regarding proliferation: After the end of the Gulf War, regional countries and extremist groups have found out how weapons of mass destruction can act as a strong counter against US conventional capabilities, even giving it a decisive blow. But, at the same time, this "lesson," needs to be understood and implemented only in certain perspective. Countries in the Middle-east were always in the race to acquire WMDs and that race has started in 1950s. This race has been constantly run by Israel's undeclared nuclear deterrent, and was further strengthened by Iraq's actions during the Iran-Iraq War and also due to UNSCOM's findings after the Gulf War. Pg. 8 and 9 Al Qaeda’s extensive studies on how to acquire WMD in Afghanistan is a key warning; in addition, their attacks on Jordan in March 2004 using chemical weapons, plus the Ricin discoveries in UK, and also the widespread information about WMDs found in internet and other books. Thus, the threat of terrorists carrying out attacks using WMD’s cannot be ruled out and is a possibility. The other key limitation on the part of USA is their limited ability to track the source of covert attacks. USA’s failure to find the culprits behind the Anthrax attacks is one best example Thus, the USA in a way taught key military lessons to the region on the basis of its superior tactical show in conventional warfare, and also some more lessons based on its capabilities in other forms of conflict. At the same time, USA has made it clear that it does not know the full extent up to which they are involved in Middle East region particularly from political, psychological, and ideology sense. It also exhibited that it cannot match in political, psychological, and information warfare, and also takes a superior stance, while evaluating its own performance. Although, it has advantages in conventional warfare, that does not extend to dispersed asymmetric warfare, because it is vulnerable to strategic overstretch, as it attempts to implement "Phase IV" and other stability operations in sizable number of major contingency. USA cannot overlook their regional opponents, be it other countries or other terrorist groups, who can learn from the current conflicts, and can create "mirror image" of USA’s military strengths. With that strength, they can wreck havoc. But, the key point is those regional players cannot succeed. So, USA has to manly worry about the local players, who understand and learn from various regional conflicts, that includes political and also ideological struggles, and then use to attack USA’s political and military weaknesses. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the key threat is many the political and ideological threats, with the military threat being not that of a problem. These two threats could be visible and impact for at least 5-10 years in both countries, even if, modern and secular governments are formed. It is important on the part of USA to understand these threats, otherwise it will pep up the extremists and they will continue their influence, even after USA’ presence gets ended. The hostile countries and groups for their part have learned a lot about political, ideological and asymmetric warfare that they keep on flaming it. From the actions of Al Qaeda, Taliban and Iraqi insurgents, it is clear that regional terrorists and groups have also become flexible, so they can mutate and evolve according to the challenges they face. The military victories achieved by USA in its political, ideological, and psychological conflicts are mainly on the basis of its tactical strength. So, it is important on the part of USA to understand the entire region’s political, ideological, and psychological aspects, and make it fight adaptable, so it is realistic and successful. In addition, USA has to include stability and nation building as an important goal and initiate action on those lines in the initial stages itself, otherwise, revolution in military affairs can be just a tactical feature, with grand strategic failure. The Detailed Lessons of Current Conflicts If one attempts to speculate what will shape the actions of Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists and groups in 2020, based on current actions will not work. There are around 22-26 countries in this region. These countries are different, and could many of them could face political revolutions, and also could come up with their own war strategy. The main focus on Al Qaeda has disguised the key fact that there are many more regional Islamic terrorist and terror groups, whose behavior is mainly base on local political and military situations. In addition, new terror groups could be formed due to the Israeli-Palestinian and Iraqi conflicts, aggressive activities of Iran and also due to the mass-scale anger against the USA in the Arab world. Importantly, good lesions have been learned by these hostile states and terror groups after studying the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such lessons can be divided into four main groups: First, the lessons that are learned by the enemy states, which impacts their regular military forces The second lesson, which was learned by the hostile states or extremists regarding the asymmetric warfare The Third lesson is learnt by the Islamist extremists and other hostile groups The lessons that are learned regarding proliferation The way the hostile states responded is evolutionary. For example, Syria mainly used Lebanon as the proxy for its war with Israel since the year 1970. It also used Palestinian extremists and other terror groups as proxies. Likewise, Iran also used Lebanon as a proxy player from early 1980s, and the first attempt when a revolutionary movement was used against a state, was when the Shah of Iran used the Kurds as proxies against the Iraq with the backing of USA. Iran’s attempt to find alternatives to conventional confrontation with USA started long back. Thus, its focus on asymmetric warfare started with the "tanker war," which also worked as a catalyst for Iran to develop the naval branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, also made it to strengthen its security near the islands near the main shipping channels, and also acquire sea mines and other anti-ship missiles, along with strategic submarines. Iran and also Syria by militarily equipping Lebanon through weapons and money transfer used it as a proxy to fight the USA’s presence in Middle East after 1982. Both these countries are known to indulge in "wars of intimidation", by which they issue threats and heighten the situation through intimidating actions, thereby achieving its objectives, without any direct conflict. Iran has used this same tactic against its Southern Gulf neighbors in two different situation, after the British withdrawal from East of the Suez. Syria for their part used to the same tactic to pressurize their bigger neighbor, Saudi Arabia to get funds for it in 1960s. Thus, although the color and shape of the playing pieces may change, the main essence of the board game may not change. On the same lines, there is no new tactic in its effort to acquire long-range missiles and WMDs to counters USA’s superior conventional strength and also their and Israel’s possession of WMDs. The Shah did this as a counter to the Soviet Union in the 1970s, and Khomeini on the other hand initiated a program directed against Iraq, Israel, and the US in the 1980s. Syria has tried getting hold of WMDs since the 1960s, and has long range missiles dating back to 1960s. Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Amazon.com. 2005. 5 March 2011 < http://www.amazon.com/Good-Muslim-Bad-America-Terror/dp/0375422854/ref=cm_cr_pr_orig_subj#reader_0375422854>. he authors defines Cold War as one which started from the end of the American War in Vietnam to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union in early 1990s, and also extends up to the proxy war that stretched to the recent war in Iraq. The War in Vietnam was the last conflict falling under the Cold War in which the American ground troops participated in large numbers, and then in the post-Cold War Scenario, Iraq is the first place, where the American ground troops again fought in large numbers. Between the two wars, proxy wars remained the main avenue. During the Cold War, there were mainly proxy wars and was marked by two developments. Both the developments happened due to the action of the Reagan regime. It also reflect the similarities between the Reagan regime and the latest Bush regime, in the view of the war on terror in the aftermath of 9/11 Reagan regime carried out changes in its foreign policy in response to the revolutionary overthrowing of pro-American dictatorships. The regime viewed these revolutions, Sadndinista Revolution in Nicaragua in 1979 and Islamist Revolution in Iran, as a kind of setbacks, after its failure in Vietnam. It was then that the Reagan regime understood that they are preparing to fight a wrong war against the amassing of Soviet Troops, which is not going to happen. Thus, Reagan called on the American military not to focus on the Soviet troops and instead fight the rebels from Southern Africa to Central America, who have captured or capturing power under the guise of Nationalists. The regime portrayed these nationalists as proxies of Soviet Union. The shift in focus led to a shift in strategy as well as name, calling it as low-intensity conflict. This decision is the first characteristic step of the Reagan regime. The second step is the shift in the policy of containment to rollback, under which it called for subordination of the rebels. Although this initiative had moral aspects, it took off with amoral constructive engagement with the Apartheid government in South Africa. When the American government established relations with the Apartheid South African regime, the latter launched a political terror to control nationalist militant movements in new independent Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola. When the battleground of the Cold War moved from Southern Africa to Central America as well as Central Asia, USA become more overt in its anti-establishment activities, by involving Contras in Nicaragua and by developing al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Supporting these forces or groups showed that USA was determined to win the Cold war by all means necessary, the phrase, which could also refer to unjust and unethical means. This alliance with radical groups like al-Qaeda as part of Cold War only resulted in 9/11 and so the terrorist strikes has to be understood as the unfinished business of the Cold War. The key question here is, should terrorism be avenged through a criminal act, as critics of the American bombing of Afghanistan viewed so? Although it may sound apt, if terrorism is considered as a crime, then it cannot be viewed as a political problem. The key difference between political terror and a common crime is that the former tries to gain public support. In addition, unlike a criminal, punishment cannot deter a political terrorist. Thus, whatever be the negative views against the terrorists, it is important to hear their views and even if the cause is good, it need to be championed. Although, Salman Rushdie in an article in New York Times stated that terrorists are nihilist, who have no worthwhile objectives and has to be attacked without any remorse, the key thing is there is no military solution to terrorism. Even a military action against terrorist groups need to have or backed by political isolation of those groups. Because of this perspective only, American bombing in Afghanistan can be viewed as just a combination of blood revenge based on medieval type aggression, without finding any cure for terrorism. People could miss the growing common ground that is being formed between the terrorists behind 9/11 and the governments’ action against them under the name of War on Terror. However, both the sides deny the any middle ground, focusing on war to the finish. Both control and push their forces to fight in the name of justice, however, both misconstrue justice as revenge. While the terrorists behind 9/11 does not want to distinguish between official American and the common American people, the War on Terror was carried out with total disregard for human lives leading high to collateral damage. Thus, both these actions can nurture the mindset of revenge among many people. The author has written the book with the conviction that response to any injurious attack should not be revenge, as there is clear difference between revenge and justice. So, there should other positive response and not revenge. To that to happen, the moment of injury has to be turned into a moment of freedom of choice. In that perspective, Americans had to turn 9/11 into an opportunity to understand America's place in the world. Even while grieving for the victims, America should not forgot that debate and democracy is key factor. In the post-Afghanistan period, a debate has emerged focusing on to find out the link between the war on Terror and the Iraqi War. The 9/11 attack broke many invisible security shields, particularly the sense of immunity or security held by the common Americans, and also eroded the American administrations' confidence that it can exercise superiority over other nations, without any rebuttal. Thus, some in the administration viewed this confidence as the vestige of Cold War and has to be broken, so a regime of international accountability can be actualized. America facilitated and promoted two religion based wars, one during the Cold war, Afghanistan War and one after it, the Israel related conflicts, with first war being the Islamist War, while the second is the Zionist. Both these wars got expanded into a broader scale, with one having major repercussions on America, and the other even continuing as part of American's global War on Terror. So, the view is, if the USA ended the Cold War with demilitarization and also peace overtures, 9/11 could not have happened. However, USA continued to use its military power on global scale, and particularly against certain states, which USA branded as "rogue states" in order to prevent them from acquiring the WMDs, although USA's action showed it does not have anything against WMDs, but is against of possibility of WMDs going into hands of countries, which it cannot control or impose. In addition, USA did not favour the militarization of the civilian and state life in the hotspots of the Cold War, for security purposes only. Instead, it shied away from its responsibility. The Cold War got ended after the disintegration and subduing of the Soviet Union. Now, the humanity has a great challenge to find a power, which can subdue USA and hold it accountable. The terror perpetrated by the State is done under the guise of maintaining law and order, while societal terror is presented as the fight for justice. It is important to find the relation between the two: as there is not barrier, which divides state terrorism and societal terrorism. It appears that each tends to impact each other. Both domestic as well as international terror will have political dimensions. In 1995, a decorated American infantry soldier named Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent people. “Six Day War.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. March 2009. 28 February 2011 . PARAGRAPH 1, 2 The Six-Day War also known as June War or the 1967 Arab-Israeli War or the Third Arab-Israeli War, was actually fought between Israel and the neighbouring states of Egypt (referred to as the United Arab Republic [UAR]) along with Jordan, and Syria, starting from June 5, 1967 and ending on June 10, 1967. The war got started, when Israel launched a large-scale surprise air strike on Egypt. That raid led to easy and decisive victory for the Israel. As, it took strong control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. This Israeli attacked evoked different opinions, on whether it is an aggressive attack or a pre-emptive strike for defensive purposes The territories captured by Israel during the war and their current status, along with the refugee problem are the main catalysts for the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, giving rise to various problems in international laws, and also having dangerous consequences through out the world. [9] “Soviet War in Afghanistan.” Answers.com. 2011. 28 February 2011 . PARAGRAPH 5 The Afghan war was considered to be major drain for the Soviet military, and it also negatively affected Soviet regime’s international prestige. It was on February 1989 that the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew its troops from Afghan territories. Then, when the Cold War ended in 1990, the United States government shied away from taking care of Afghanistan, leading to a vacuum, Civil War and the entry of terror groups, as Afghanistan became a fundamentalist Islamic nation. Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/afghanistan-soviet-invasion-of#ixzz1LErcT1Jp “The Cold War,” Disney: ABC News Classroom Edition. 28 February 2003. 30 February 2011 . PARAGRAPH 1 BACKGROUND During the Second World War, USA and the erstwhile USSR were allies, as they fought Germany and Japan in coordination. Leader of USSR, Joseph Stalin was viewed as a popular leader. When the War started, USA President Franklin D. Roosevelt along with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill asked for Stalin and the Soviet forces’ help to defeat Germany. The "Big Three" had a meeting at the Yalta conference in Crimea, Soviet Union, in the year 1945, and Roosevelt was pretty certain that he needs Soviet’s support to defeat the Japanese as well, as United States has not tested the nuclear bomb yet. However, immediately after the end of the war, this good relationship between USA and USSR started to erode and become a Cold War, which continued for close to 50 years. The Yalta conference can be construed as one event, which shaped the start of the Cold War. Many historic events happened in the context of the Cold War, which clearly impacted the world as well as USA’s foreign policy, and that includes Berlin Blockade and the resultant Airlift, the McCarthy Hearings, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1960s, the Space Race between the two, Poland's solidarity movement, the coup that was tried against the Soviet leadership in Kremlin, Glasnost/Perestroika, and Germany's Reunification. So, in this unit, the students have to investigate the political, economic, and social aspects of these Cold War events. To do that, they need to gather evidences from different primary and also secondary source materials, and that includes ABC News: Classroom Edition video programs can be used to come up with hypothetical recommendations that could be given to the world leaders who were making key decisions at the time. Read More