Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theory of negotiation
Lake explains how the bargaining theory model can help us understand the causes of wars and how they can be prevented, but the model lacks in some important areas. According to the author, the war in Iraq shows this failure because the theory does not explain why the war happened even though there were many less costly options for both sides to take. In my opinion, I believe incomplete information + incentives to misrepresent best explains the outbreak of the Iraq war. This reason explains that there is an assumption on complete information such as each country's costs and their chance of victory. The misrepresentation explanation on wars suggests that countries don't always declare the truth and they state whatever is in their best interest.
Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example: his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region; this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war. Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example: his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region; this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war.
...nt variables. It can deal with the interests within a country and interests out of it. It can occur due to ideological differences or religious differences. It can occur due to a power grab, and in the cases of a failed brinkmanship, can be a complete accident. Each war throughout history has its own unique set of reasoning for occurring, which makes studying the causation of war so fascinating: in every war you study, you are guaranteed to find so many unique characteristics that it possesses.
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu is a reading that demonstrates how business and war have various correlations. One of the major components of war illustrated is the concept of deception. Deception in war allows generals to acquire a strategic advantage over his adversary through misleading him. Similar to war, many businesses use this same approach in order to maximize profit and eradicate the competition within a market. A society built on such vicious methods can not sustain itself in such an environment for prolong periods of time.
In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.
The Syrian Civil War, commonly referred to as the Syrian Uprising, is more than just the Assad Regime against the Free Syrian Army. It is a complex war of uprising against the Bashar al-Assad government, sectarian conflict, and outside country involvement. Overthrowing the Assad Regime in Syria would create more problems than there already are.
...e a better place if everyone would stop and think before making a decision base on their theories and image. Misperception may be coincidental to-rather than determinative of-the occurrence of war, because war can be an equilibrium outcome that results from specific configurations of actor preferences. Even if misperception does sometimes play a causal role in the outbreak of war, its impact is situational circumscribed.
While there are many theories one can draw upon to explain the background and outbreak of political conflict this paper will focus on the ‘Misperception Theory’. The prime objectives of this paper are to clearly document and explain the different facets of misperception theory, to effectively explore the various means by which decisions based on this theory can affect state policy and state welfare, and to reveal how exactly the misperception theory can aid scholars in understanding how and why conflict erupts. This paper will utilise the misperception theory to illustrate how, and why, the US and Great Britain overestimated the military pedigree and threat of the Saddam Hussein governed Iraq. Their misperception of the situation ultimately resulted in the two superpowers combining forces and invading the Gulf state in 2003.
Erupting in 1987, a revolt called the Infitada began in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This revolt was initially started by local Palestinians residents and was soon characterized by rock throwing as their only means of opposing the Israeli military forces. As images began to circulate of civilians armed with rocks fighting for their rights against the heavily armed Israeli forces in a one-sided conflict they began to win a substantial amount of sympathy for their struggle in the neighboring Islamic communities. A few years later in 1991, the Infitada had all but ended. Instead the increased Israeli repression during this epoch seemed to be laying the initial groundwork for future violence in the region. This time period between the end of the first Infitada and the beginning of the second contain key events that help explain why the outbreak of the second Infitada transpired.
Iraq’s history is one of both prosperity and violence, and dates back to the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. While dominated by a variety of civilizations, the region enjoyed a relatively stable society. Since the birth of Islam, the religion has been the dominant cultural belief of the region, and has made its way into the laws and ruling of the region. (InDepth Info, 2010)
The idea that the United Stated government creates false pretenses and manipulates the American people to engage in a war that is supported has been an ongoing debate for a long period of time. The most notable war, perhaps, is the war in Iraq led by the G. W. Bush administration. Another notable war would be the Vietnam war led by the L. B. Johnson administration. I have always found people’s complex theories and assumptions extremely interesting, so I chose to watch “The Lies That Lead to War” with Charles Lewis.
Americans today tend to consider news organizations as reliable and dependable sources. While it’s true that news organizations provide valid data about current international and domestic issues, some news organizations might be following their own personal agenda that can include favoring a political party or just provide interesting news without concrete data in order to gain views which helps boost up their revenue. The fox effect is a perfect example of how the news media can be biased. Fox news has been known for providing news source favoring the political right wing, giving a skewed view over the news topic because of bias reporting. This causes a problem for people who seek a balanced report from a subject without just hearing one side of an argument. Thus, leaving the viewing public ill-informed.
An attack on the Syrian state would fall within the boundaries of the international concept of the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Syria has escalated by protests in March 2011 calling for the release of all political prisoners. National security forces responded to widespread peaceful demonstrations with the use of brutal violence. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to stop attacks and allow for implementation of the reforms requested by the demonstrators. By July 2011, firsthand accounts emerged from witnesses, victims, and the media that government forces had subjected innocent civilians to detention, torture, and the use of heavy weaponry. The Syrian people were also subjected to the Shabiha, a largely armed state sponsored militia fighting with security forces. Al-Assad continually denied responsibility to these crimes and placed blame on the armed groups and terrorists for these actions.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.
Many theorists have tried to explain how any why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more successful than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because each conflict is different. Conflicts can be ethnic and religious based or they can be about resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen