The Uncertainty Of A Ripe Moment

It is evident that two countries were primed for conflict, however, which side ignited the first initial blow, resulting and inflicting the ideology of War”.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

Perhaps there 's no getting away from our awesome political gap, a perpetual conflict of armed forces, and any endeavors to change the guidelines of engagement are purposeless. Alternately perhaps the trivialization of governmental issues has achieved a final turning point, so that the vast majority consider it to be only one more preoccupation, a game, with legislators our paunch-bellied combatants and the individuals who try to focus just fans on the sidelines: We paint our confronts red or

Also, the general public of neutral nations must be supplied with the arguments of victory and of a just cause, followed by a cautious relay of every success, great or small, and by brilliant descriptions of the spirit that animates the troops. The neutral countries and individuals, especially when weak and “necessarily somewhat at the mercy of the side that eventually proves victorious, is naturally disposed to sit on the fence and lean towards the side that he imagines to be winning.” (Doob, 34) Finally allied, friendly

Even today, divisions in groups have been as a result of continued differences among the uniting groups. Humans have a tendency to incline towards the protection of their interest’s aid favors of their perceived groups. Such favourism makes them advocate fully for their interests posing a challenging opposing side to the interests of their unperceived groups. Many nations today are faced with such opposing groups having differing interests and ideals. People advocating for similar ideals tend to create strong ties of

Generations of Americans have watched our military engage in conflicts abroad. For mine, it’s Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether or not all of these crusades were born of integrity and the pursuit of democracy is questionable. In 2011, we watched as the United States and allied forces entered yet another conflict, in Libya, to aid protesters in their ousting of Muammar Gaddafi. This conflict was supposed to go uphill from Gaddafi’s death. However, we know that Libya today is a place connected to chaos and division. President Obama even describes the handling of the Libyan intervention as his “worst mistake” (Tierney “The Legacy of Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’”). Why? “[W]e [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you’re going to do this…the day after Gaddafi is gone…at that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn’t have any civic traditions.” (Tierney “The Legacy of Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’”) Many agree that our conflicts in the Middle East, recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, have shown us intervening operations are complicated

There are many negotiators in today’s society who undergo many horrible experiences and are able to overcome the hard trials that are placed in front of them and then there are those who unfortunately fall victim to a horrible situation. Over the past couple of decades there have been a number of incidents that have occurred where incidents have taken a turn for the worse. While some people claim that this is occurring because of horrible decision making and others disagreeing and claiming it to be best decision that could be made. Regardless of one’s point of view, it is very clear that over the past couple of decades there have been some incidents or crisis that took a turn for the worse, but are able to learn from the mistakes that were made and implement new strategies to be better prepared.

Framing and reframing plays a dynamic role in conflict development. Reframing may cause a shift in the development of the conflict this will affect the conflict management or the resolution of the conflict. Framing is built on assumptions we implement whereas reframing challenges these assumptions to draw alternative solutions.

Although the character of warfare has changed dramatically, the nature of warfare remains the same – political in nature, with its relations effecting both means and desired

As contemporary war evolves, there are many critical factors military leaders need to be aware

Determining the nature of the conflict is a crucial first step in understanding what is required to develop an effective strategy. Iraq presented the United States with a highly complex, complicated, and challenging environment to fully understand and assess. The longstanding religious conflicts, unequal wealth distribution, limited economic development, disenfranchised young male population, presence of terrorism, and a multitude of other factors increased the difficulty of assessing the battlefield in Iraq. Any change to the status quo could lead to second and third order effects, which would only further convolute the situation in Iraq. Clausewitz once stated, “The nature of war is complex and changeable,” and the battlefield in Iraq was no exception. In order for the United States Administration to develop an effective strategy, a solid understanding of the nature of the conflict was required. The initial strategy failed to properly balance the ends,

1. The “shifting landscape” that Welch speaks of refers to a global political shift where power has moved from the central institutions to smaller, intrastate actors. Interstate wars have declined sharply in number since the end of World War II. The rise of nongovernmental and international organizations, the establishment of cooperation agreements and confidence-building measures, and the increasing presence of the news media, are all elements that have relegated traditional wars to a thing of the past.

In Failing to Win, authors Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney analyze perceptions of victory and defeat within the realm of international politics. These perceptions are examined through “psychological, political, and cultural factors” (Johnson and Tierney, pg. 1). The book is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on two frameworks that shape perceptions of victory and defeat, which Johnson and Tierney call score-keeping and match-fixing. The second section delves into the conditions that may make people either score-keep or match-fix. Finally, the third section uses case studies to further the argument that psychological factors impact perceptions of victory and defeat. These case studies include: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Tet Offensive, the Yom Kippur War, the United States intervention in Somalia, and the American war on terror.

Many arguments are made for why war occurs and how to achieve peace. While the analysis helps humanity understand why conflict occurs, it fails to prevent the march toward war. This paper explores Kenneth Waltz’s three levels, or “images’ of conflict. Waltz, the founder of neorealism, established the foundation for one of the two currently accepted international relations schools, the other Neoliberalism. This essay compares Waltz’s theory to other contemporary thinkers, then applies it to the 1992-1996 Afghan Civil War. The paper concludes by noticing the similarities events during the

At this stage negotiators stop focusing on their opponent’s needs and priorities and state their own needs and priorities. It is about creating value for your side and asking for the value that you want in exchange. It is the most highly competitive stage of negotiation. Arguments often take place about the value of items on either side of the equation and whether sufficient value is being offered from the opposing side in exchange. It is important that these arguments are handled even handedly even when negative tactics such as threats are used to move one or the other side to action (Craver, 2004).