A Case Study of A War Or Military Conflict - Essay Example

Zones of Conflict The Middle East has faced several conflicts over the years. After the First World War, portions of the Middle East were carved out and given to countries charecterised by the nomenclature, the First World. The 1916 Sykes – Picot agreement gave Armenia to Russia while France reigned over Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Britain on the other hand ruled sovereign over Iraq, Palestine, Jordan and the southern part of Yemen. Foreign interference continues to this day in the region.The Middle East continues to be of interest to dominant countries in the arena of world politics because of its location and its prized resource of oil. The Middle East also continues to be characterised by authoritarian regimes that have an uneasy relationship with the West and the culture of modernisation that it purportedly represents. Causes for Conflict: The Motivations behind the Gulf War Mirjam E. Sorli, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Havard Strand report in their article “Why Is There so Much Conflict in the Middle East?” that resource abundance can be as significant a factor in causes of conflict as resource scarcity. They mention that high resource states can witness a slow growth in their economy as compared to resource poor states1. Research like the rentier state theory has also found that resource abundant states develop authoritarian power structures2. The Iraq – Kuwait conflict is an interesting case study that can be studied in the light of the concerns stated above. Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 declaring Kuwait to be Iraqs nineteenth province. Andrew T. Parasiliti in an article titled “The Causes and Timing of Iraqs Wars: A Power Cycle Assessment” states that it was from the 1970s that Iraq started to assert itself in the Middle East. Its power peaked in the 1980s and then fell into a relative decline as compared to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which gained in power. At the time of its decision to invade Kuwait, Parasiliti estimates that Iraq was conscious of her decline as well as her thwarted ambitions for Arab leadership. Parasiliti contends that contrary to perceived opinions about Iraq emerging more powerful after the Iraq – Iran War, the Iraqi regime was conscious of its gradual decline in regional politics. The war against Iran was initiated by Saddam Hussein partly because revolutionary Iran infringed in Iraqs domestic affairs by supporting Islamic and Kurdish groups that opposed the regime of Saddam Hussein. In a bid to increase its power in the region and also in the belief that it was Iran who was an obstacle to its ambitions as well as internal security Iraq decided to invade Iran. The Iraqi perception that the 1975 Algiers Agreement which demarcated the waterways of Shatt al-Arab as partial to Iran should also be taken into account. Parasiliti contends that it was the result of after-war economic mismanagement as well as grand military ambitions that led Iraq to a point where the conquest of Kuwait came to be seen as due. Parasiliti gives a list of the most salient concerns that led to Iraq making this choice - “loss of oil share production compared to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E: a debtor economy in crisis; no economic aid and public debt relief from his Arab Gulf neighbours; an excessive military burden, and a population expecting a peace dividend that never came” (160-161). Effects of the Military: A report by the Population and Development Program of Hampshire College has enumerated the degrading effects of war on women and the environment. Besides the usual role of killing, the sophisticated weaponry used by armies in war also have a polluting effect. These weapons damage the reproductive health in women causing miscarriages and infertility besides causing a range of diseases like cancer, kidney malfunction, heart failure etc. These weapons release nitrates, radioactive materials and corrosive and toxic substances into the air and ground. Years after a war, the poisons still linger affecting the health of generations to come3. Budget allocation for the military is the highest of all sectors. Increased spending on the military and new forms of technological and chemical weapons is made at the cost of sectors like public health and education. The U.S is the leading supplier of arms to developing countries. It is also estimated to spend about 58 billion a year on military research to perfect new weapons such as chemical weapons, weapons that can taget specific ethnicities etc. The 1991 Gulf War had a devastating impact on the ecological environments of Iraq, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia. This war is estimated to have generated about 80,000 tons of global warming gases. 4 It was reported that during the Gulf War, the U.s Forces had buried radioactive waste materials in a random and haphazard manner which, needless to say, could have terrible consequences for the people of the region for ages to come. After the war, Saudi Arabia filed for comensation from Iraq for these same environmental abuses. The Meteorology and Environment Protection Department in Saudi Arabia conducted a study that proved that more than 8 million cubic metres of soil had been polluted by oil. The Saudis also grounded their claim on the assessment that without intensive cleaning and treatment operations it would take 200 years for the pollution to disappear naturally.5 How the military uses language to build support for its agenda: Military language has developed to a degree that completely sublimates the human aspect of waging war. Weapons of mass destruction are cloaked in technical jargon that removes any association with its intended purposes of killing. Rather they are given names which resonate with virility and strength. Mainstream media picks up such language and perpetrates it creating a sense of an alternate reality. In such a form of reality, the public experience a sense of disconnectedness or rather ignorance of alternate representation while believing in the one that is maintained by society and social organisations. This is especially relevant in relation to the Gulf War for around the clock news coverage could have meant highlighting the gruesome nature of war. However the focus of the media was manipulated by the military to focus on the awesome technoligal superiority of a superpower like the U.S which could annihilate without making a mess. Bombings by F-16s are described as quick, surgical strikes that deliver smart bombs which supposedly destroy their intended targets while sparing the Iraqi people. Such a massive whitewash of actual reality fed into the image of the U.S as not only a military superpower but also one which was effective, controlled, penetrating, clean, successful and efficient. Simply put, the U.S. was very good at war. Allen et.al mention Carol Cohn who points out the “antiseptic” nature of such language (280). More subversively in actual cases where the U.S made tactical mistakes or rather destroyed what they sholuld not have, it tried to reframe the context of such mistakes. When it bombed a baby milk factory or a bomb shelter for civilians, the U.S. went so far to manipulate the situation as to declare that these sites were actually bomb making factories or were harbouring Iraqi militants respectively (282). To admit that it was fallible and liable to human error was a myth that clearly the U.S. was loath to abandon. A Gendered Look at the Military: Not only does the military perpetuate distress and calamity in times of war but as an institution also it refuses to follow the rules and norms that civil society may have come to accept. The military is notorious for the subtle discrimination that it perpetrates on its own female members. As an institution it is still not comfortable with women who choose to enter its ranks and file. Gwendolyn L. Gerber in a review of Joshua S. Goldsteins book on gender and the system of war titled War and Gender: How Gender shapes the War system and Vice Versa points out that Goldstein has debunked the myth of male strength and thereby superiority as a valid argument against female recruitment in militaries. Since modern technological weapons do not require qualities like appropriate upper body strength in the way they did before, the military should have opened its doors for women. Goldstein says that its refusal to do so is a pointer to how important masculinity is as an identity to the military. Gerber points out that this reaffirmation of masculine identity is sometimes one of the most pertiment reasons that influence men to undergo the psychological trauma of modern warfare6. In the recent occupation of Iraq after 9/11, the U.S military ordered its female personnel stationed in Iraq to wear the abaya, the all covering cloak worn by Muslim women, as well as to have a male escort whenever these female personnel chose to venture outside. The abaya is worn by women in Islamic countries as a sign of modesty but its cultural significance does not carry in translation. This rule was challenged in 2001 by Air Force Lt.Col. Martha Mc. Sally, a decorated soldier, filed a suit challenging its enforcement on discriminatory grounds. Hoe discordant are the relations between the military and one half of mankind can be guessed through such inappropriate and mischievious rules which only highlight the subservience of women in the military.7 A Gendered Look at War and its Environmental Fallout: In the introduction to a special compilation titled Militarized Zones, brought out by the Immigration, Militarism, Environment and Gender Task Force of the Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment(CPWE), Joni Seager explains the level of connection between issues such as gender, war and the environment. According to Seager, civil society is as militarised as the formal institution of the military. Gender and environment too have to be deconstructed to avoid falling into the trap of male hegemony. In an article published in the Womens Review of Books in 1991 titled “Collateral Damage” Joni Seager states concerns about the environmental trauma suffered by war – ravaged countries like Iraq. The short article also delineates the herculean efforts needed to create interest in an area which is basically the last matter of concern for indeed all governments, armies, industries and big corporations of the world. Seager puts forward compelling evidence of the environmental degradation that the war has done to Iraq. Each day of war produces, according to her, about 20 million gallons of sewage. This is environmental waste that the Pentagon believes is the responsibility of the Saudis to do something about. The setting fire to oil wells by both Iraqis and the U.S. and Allied Forces led to contamination of water resources as well as agricultural land. in Kuwait. Seager points out the sheer lack of accountability for actions that inevitably characterise the aftermath of war. The ecological and environmental damage done to countries like Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia seems to be the responsibility of neither these countries nor of countries like the U.S, Britain and France. In another article titled “Thinking like a Planet” published in the same review, Seager advocates acquiring clearer knowledge and means of seeing that enables one to enquire into the forces of agency that perpetrate ecological destruction. She states clearly that it is the dominant culture and methods of behaviour that have led to such widespread neglect on the environmental issue. The environment and how people relate to it is influenced by the larger issue of gender relations. She posits that all dominant institutions of society such as governments, armies and businesses operate or adhere to masculinist and patriarchal norms. The neglect of the environment is a direct consquence of such prevalent dominant cultural norms. Adelheid Fischer in her review of Seagers book published in 1993 called Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis agrees with Seager and Carol Gilligans research that believes that men and women are culturally trained to develop different ethics, one that is based on rights for men while leaving that of responsibilities to women. It is women who can be said are the first to perceive signs of environmental degradation as well as the first to suffer from it. Paradoxically concerns about the environment that flit about in mainstream media often targets women as the cause for ecological ruin. Anti - fur campaigns use negative imagery to run down the woman who wears furs while leaving the buyer and the killer, usually men, untargetted. Environmental campaigns target other women related issues such as the disposal of sanitary napkins and diapers though Seager estimates that at best these use up only 2 pc of the total landfill area. Any study of a conflict should lead ultimately to a questioning of the prevalent status – quo in society. As we have seen conflicts arise out of and should be analysed in relation to wider concerns about the way human societal relations function. Bibliography Fischer, A. (1993) Fooling with Mother Nature. The Womens Review of Books (pp. 4-5). http://www.jstor.org/stable/4021568. Date accessed 19/2/09. Gerber, G.L. (2004). Review of War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa by Joshua S. Goldstein. Http://accessmylibrary.com/search. Date accessed 27/2/09. Militarized Zones: Gender, Race, Immigration, Environment. Ed by Gluckman, Kamel, & Hartmann. Political Environments. Http://www.afsc.org/search. Date accessed 27/2/09. Parasiliti, Andrew T. (2003) The Causes and Timing of Iraqs war: A Power Cycle Assessment. International Political Science Review (pp. 151-165). http://www. jstor.org/stable/1601336. Date accessed 19/2/09. Saudi Arabia not to drop claims for environmental damage during Gulf War (2003). Asia, Africa Intelligence Wire. http://www. Accessmylibrary.com/search/. Date accessed 27/2/09. Seager, J. (1991) Collateral Damage. The Womens Review of Books ( pp. 4-6). http://www.jstor.org/stable/4021040. Date accessed 19/2/09. Seager, J. (1993) Thinking Like a Planet. The Womens Review of Books (pp. 21-22). http://www.jstor.org/stable/4021459. Date accessed 19/2/09. Sorli, M.E., Gleditsch, N.P. & Strand, H. (2005) Why Is There so Much Conflict in the Middle East. The Journal of Conflict Resolution (pp. 141-165). http://www.jstor.org/stable/30045102. Date accessed 19/2/09. Tetreault, M.A., & al-Mughni, H. (1995) Modernization and Its Discontents: State and Gender in Kuwait. Middle East Journal ( pp. 403-417). http:///www.jstor.org/stable/4328831. Date accessed 19/2/09. Vojdik, V.K. (2002) The Invisibility of Gender in War. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy. Http://www.accessmylibrary.com/search. Date accessed 27/2/09. Read More