Edelstein's Occupation

In the selected portion of the book Most Dangerous, the author, Steve Sheinkin uses an anecdote and specific vocabulary to illustrate his goals of giving background information, suggesting the significance of his point, and building a mood for the reader. The entirety of the selected text given is an anecdote itself, one about how American soldiers measured success in the war in Vietnam. The story Sheinkin uses provides key background information to the reader about how Americans measured their efforts by explaining, in detail, what a kill ratio is and how the strategy works, and describes what actions the American soldiers took in counting their dead bodies. This understanding is important to the reader because not only were the actions taken

When analyzing any sort of book, it is best for the reader to have a basic summary and understanding of the books arguments and evidence in order to understand further arguments made about said book. It is important to note at the beginning of this paper that Fussell fought in the Second World War, something he does not mention until the end of his book. Fussell also states that as wounded ex-infantry officer, who is fascinated and at times obsessed with his own experience in Europe during the Second World War, he related his circumstances to those that he wrote about who participated in the First World War. It is important to keep in mind because it may influence how Fussell wrote his book and the reader should be aware of this fact while reading this analysis of his work.

In order to answer this question it is first important to determine the fraises “pro-war” and “anti-war”. The term “pro-war” describes an attitude in which war is desired, necessary or justifiable. The term “anti-war” describes the opposite; war is viewed as immoral and is generally opposed and condemned. This paper will argue that there are grounds in the book to support both proposition.

The invasion and the war in Iraq remains a continuous topic of divisiveness and sensitivity in today’s America. One of the negative evaluation of the war is attributed to the false impression of the length of the war which lasted seven years, not six months as presumed in 2003. As the invasion initiated, the ideologies of American government then failed to perceive the large number of troops required, casualties and the financial toll in the interest of the preventive war doctrine. However, when weighing the failures of this war, there are successes brought home that relate mostly to the lessons the American military and the government learned with the use of counterinsurgency tactics after “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis (Young). Nevertheless, with evaluation through levels of analysis, the accomplished agenda of ending Saddam Hussein’s regime justifies success and failure, mutually.

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

Although, their conclusions can still be questioned, they have applied intensive and through analysis to their material, widening their subjects and have given legitimate reasoning for their views. While Brown has proven how terms such as War Hawks can be misleading, Horsman has provided enough evidence to prove that the War Hawks did exist and has successfully defined the term War Hawk with greater accuracy than other historians. Both the essays exhibit how historians should be aware of the material they use and careful about their generalizations when explaining such broad

In his article, “Why Has American Stopped Winning Wars?” Dominic Tierney discusses some of the topics in his recent book, “The Right Way to Lose a War: America in an Age of Unwinnable Conflicts.” The book, unlike the article, provides recommendations for how America can adapt to a new era of warfare. Having said that, Tierney’s article published in the The Atlantic, provides no such recommendations nor does it provide adequate reasoning to support his argument, rather he leaves the reader emotionally charged and unable to make an informed judgement concerning the validity of his claims. Specifically, the author commits the fallacies of appealing to emotion, followed by the presentation of glittering generalizations and a false dichotomy. Therefore, the purpose here is to analyze his argument as outlined in the article, “Why Has American Stopped Winning Wars?”

War is a dangerous game, many people would likely agree to this, however, very few have ever seen a battlefront. The truth is that war, no matter how awful we can imagine it, is always exponentially worse. In Timothy Findley’s The Wars, Robert Ross, the protagonist,­ faces a situation that he finds difficult to come to terms with, and when faced with a similar situation later on in the novel, he must take drastic measures to reconcile the uncertainties of the past situation. Timothy Findley suggests, through the life of Robert Ross, that one’s need to reconcile the uncertainties of past experiences dominate our actions when such situations come up again in our lives. In the words of Hiram Johnson, a US Senator during the First World War,

In the article, Why has America Stopped Winning Wars? the author, Dominic Tierney, asserts that the United States has entered an age of “unwinnable conflict”. Tierney argues that since the end of World War II excessive military power, an international shift from state-on-state war to internal conflict, the emergence of non-state actors and peace between states have contributed to The United States’ inability to win major conflicts. Tierney uses mistakes in strategy and tactical failures to support his argument.

The three chapter is The Military Crisis.The endless War on Terror represents a clear over-extension of American capability and if it continued ,it will expedite decline. The author think that From the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can get a wrong result "The small war preparation is very brief, but the long-term consequences are serious,expanded the empire, the army should have more use of reserves and apply for enlistment. Although the United States has advanced weapons, Iraq assembled improvised explosive devices have made havoc on the world's best-equipped army. Bacevich believes that constructive strategy in foreign policy must recognize that the US military has both limited resources and limited impact. Amry leaders have tended

Discuss, using examples from this essay, whether or not he successfully achieves his thesis through this piece.

Recent work on the occupation period has given greater attention to non-American actors in the occupation. By exploring the agency of other involved states, and individuals of other nationalities, this new literature has provided a broader perspective on the occupation period and opens new avenues of research. These works discussed the impact of British, New Zealander, and Japanese action on the occupation.

This essay is first concerned with the Charles Tilly’s principle around by histhe famous saying: War makes the state, and the state makes war. Meanwhile, I will explain the relationship between the state and its four activities: War Mmaking, State Mmaking, Protection, Extraction. The filiation of state and war will be illustrated later. I will use Palestine region will be used as the main case study to demonstrate this essay and I will try to use this example to explain more clearly with the relationship between war and the state. What kind of Oorganizational structure the Palestine Liberation Organization ( PLO) was and its functions will be discussed in the case study. Moreover, armed struggle will be introduced and its consequences

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.

“Give War a Chance” is an article written by the American economist, historian and military strategist Edward Nicolae Luttwak in 1999, in the American magazine Foreign Affairs. It make an easily understandable “buzz”, since its main assumption is that most kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations are, in an objective point of view, a bad thing for the peace, and that it tends, paradoxically, to slower its establishment. We will analyze here the main hypothesis that Luttwak is developing among the article, the first one being the destruction of the legitimacy usually accorded to peacekeeping operations, led by the UN or by other military organizations, and the second one being the obstacle to a durable peace establishment, created