Urban Warfare : The Fight Within The World

War can be defined as “an active struggle between competing entities. It’s truly hard to tell who is right or wrong during a war. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in and what is true to their heart. In the end there is always two things promised – destruction and death. These two objects can explain the result in every facet of war from the physical to emotional.

As Germany advanced on the city of Stalingrad, Hitler decided to rush the battle and try to finish it quickly. Because of this mindset, his army was severely underprepared to fight a drawn out battle in the Russian winter. German general Blumentritt recalled “The railheads (train tracks) were as much as 200 kilometers behind the front, and the bare nature of the countryside meant that there was little timber (wood) available for constructing defenses. There were no proper trenches or fixed positions” (Document 3). The Soviets had a major advantage over the Germans of the aspect of being resupplied. While they could receive support from nearby or within the city, Germany had to rely on supplies coming from a long way out. If supply shipments were cut off by the Soviets, the Germans were forced to continue fighting with limited resources. Also, the Battle of Stalingrad is a prime example of how much changed between the first and second world war. The vast majority of World War I was fought out of trenches, with soldiers moving very little. World War II was fought in the style of urban warfare, surrounded by streets and buildings, nearly the polar opposite of trench warfare. The Germans were not trained to fight an urban style battle, and thus struggled upon reaching the city of Stalingrad. When the cold Russian winter came, German suffering reached an all time high. A soldier named Wilhelm

Stalingrad and the Turning Point on the Soviet-German Front, 1941-1943 is partitioned into seven distinct chapters: Introduction; Background; Geography, Politics and National Will; The Economies of

Warfare changed even more so in the Vietnam War as a nation attempted to subdue unorganized subversive groups in a civilian environment. The merging between the civilian world and a military environment caused a presence to be needed in the civilian sphere to engage the unseen force. This interaction caused both supportive and combat elements experience hostile interaction, beginning the emergence of modern warfare.

Ever since the days of Mesopotamia from the agricultural revolution, war has been a constant and important part of human life. Over time though, humans have evolved and gotten stronger and smarter which lead to more competition. War from its beginning, has consistently stemmed from the innate sense of evolutionary survival and subsequent competition, thus securing it’s inevitable perpetuation.

As long as mankind has existed there have been warfare. Nations or groups fight each other over religion, believes and interests, and billions of soldiers has let their life fighting for their country and culture values and believes.

The representations of T.I.’s “Warzone” are described as the Discourses of the symbols used. The cultural Discourses of T.I.’s work operate in a way such that they draw upon the way things are in society (Hall 29). Discourses are hegemonic when they operate in this way, meaning that they coincide with the common-sense ideologies of the established order in society (Gitlin). What makes a hegemonic ideology hegemonic is its ability to permeate the institutions of society. By this definition, ideologies of gender are hegemonic because they are arbitrary and successfully implemented in society’s institutions. To elaborate further, there is no particular reason why men and women need separate restrooms, but this is typically the nature of public restrooms in the United States. “Warzone” primarily challenges hegemonic ideologies of race while simultaneously perpetuating such ideologies. “Warzone” is both hegemonic and counterhegemonic through its discourses on black inferiority and its cultural Discourses pertaining to hip-hop.

It had rained the night before, the grass was muddy, the air was humid, and the soldiers uncomfortable. Although this…this was not on the mind of the soldiers who have been put through war, seen their fellow soldiers drift away in the black waste of space known as death, well this and it didn’t help having a low source of food and 400 dedicated Americans. On the other side of this dreadful warzone, 2000 well fed and energetic confederates native to the terrain in which is at stake. Laughter hasn’t been a pastime for these confederate soldiers for some time, but knowing that they outnumber the union 5:1, they couldn’t help but smirk. But was laughter on their side? Was knowing the war was over and they had just got word funny? Well they never

If people wanted to know anything about the Guerrilla war or the fighters, they should read this book, despite it not having been written recently, and become enamored with the story of common men; who protect their homeland from foreign invaders, from conquering them, and taking away stuff that makes them, Spanish, and call Spain, their home.

In the short story “In the Shadow of War” by Ben Okri you can see symbolism being used all throughout the story to develop the theme a child’s innocence can only last for so long. For example Omovo’s father didn’t want him to hear news of the war and told Omovo to turn off the radio, but then it says,”When a danfo bus came, and his father went with it, Omovo turned the radio back on.” This is an example of Omovo’s father trying to shelter him from hearing about what is actually happening in Nigeria, but Omovo just becomes more curious about what is happening. In the quote the radio is used as a symbol to represent the outside world and more specifically the war going on in Nigeria at the time, after hearing about the

War has been going on just about as long as people have been alive. Whether it is just some cavemen fighting over a fire, or multiple countries going to war for justice, there has always been some scale of war. I am going to be analyzing way through functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives.

The image that I have chosen shows how New York City looks like a warzone, with smoke and debris covering everything in its path. It seems as if the image came straight from a horror movie. 9/11 was a day like any other, people were going to their jobs, meetings, or coffee shops doing whatever had to be done, not knowing what was about to happen. After the tragedy, the mood of the city has changed dramatically. There was a feeling of confusion, sadness, and fear. It was hard to grasp that a plane could crash into one of the Twin Towers. People were calling loved ones to make sure they were all right. However, the most important feeling during this devastating time was unity. As depicted in this photo, two firemen are helping out an injured

Irregular warfare has become the centre of much military and academic study in recent years, due mostly to the ongoing NATO operations in Afghanistan. However irregular warfare is by no means a recent revelation in the evolution of warfare and strategy, numerous examples exist throughout history in which irregular warfare tactics and strategy have been adopted and later analysed by academics and military professionals. This author will focus on the key issues that governments face in creating effective strategies for irregular warfare with a particular emphasis on counter-insurgency (COIN) and terrorism. Resources such as time, space, legitimacy and support present themselves as key issues in dealing with insurgency and terrorism and are

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US