IRAQI FAIRS

As long as the concept of a unified world government is an ideal, the essential feature of international politics will remain as the state of anarchy. The theories of” Security Dilemma” and “Balance of Power,” which result from that anarchy, are still playing important roles in international politics today.

The Term was coined by John H. Herz in his 1951 book Political Realism and Political Idealism. At the same time British historian Herbert Butterfield also described the same situation in his History and Human Conditions, but referred to it as the “absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma”

The core argument of the security dilemma is that, in the absence of a supranational authority that can enforce binding agreements, many of the steps pursued by states to bolster their security have the effect — often unintended and unforeseen — of making other states less secure. The anarchic nature of the international system imposes constraints on states’ behavior. Even if they can be certain that the current intentions of other states are benign, they can neither neglect the possibility that the others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves will remain peaceful. But as each state seeks to be able to protect itself, it is likely to gain the ability to menace others. When confronted by this seeming threat, other states will react by acquiring arms and alliances of their own and will come to see the first state as hostile. In this way, the interaction between states generates strife rather than merely revealing or accentuating conflicts stemming from differences over goals. Although other motives such as greed, glory, and honor come into play, much of international politics is ultimately driven by fear. When the security is even rebuffed, then also the problem of security dilemma arises drastically, because of a common fear which exists between two nations about their own security concerns and one might feel insecure due to the conditions existing in time.
Now we can look into some of the case studies which may be existing in recent times.

IN IRAQ
Anyone following events in Iraq could be forgiven for thinking that we know relatively little about the dynamics of communal civil wars. In addition, anyone who remembers Bosnia and the rest of the “ugly nineties” has observed that the list of countries that have ripped themselves apart in communal civil wars seems to be growing. At the same time, resolving these conflicts is now seen as a deeply intractable problem. In almost every region we observe, communal civil wars are at or near the top of US policy agendas, most of all in Iraq, but also in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Darfur.

In fact, we have learned quite a lot about civil wars. Before the conflict in Bosnia, the conventional wisdom was that multi-communal states that had been torn apart by war should be put back together by power-sharing between communities or electoral reform. Such initiatives, it was reasoned, would compel politicians to appeal to all communities, not just their own, as well as to third party aid for reconstruction. Unfortunately, these approaches have rarely worked well.
The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements.

A study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.
Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following:
o The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.

o On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime’s perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.

o Saddam’s regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq’s long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

o State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime’s development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000.
IN IRAN

Since the fall of Mohammed Reza Shah in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has remained politically isolated from the United States and the West. After eight years of brutal war with Iraq, Iran has embarked on a major effort to rebuild its devastated military. A major element of its military reconstruction has been the acquisition of advanced weapons systems with strategic applications, such as long-range bombers, submarines, advanced underwater mines, and ballistic missiles. Iran is also suspected of pursuing the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Given Iran’s latent hostility towards the United States and its past willingness to engage in terrorism, these activities are a most serious concern.

One of the most significant such dilemmas is the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the gravest threat to Iran’s security, followed by the Taliban government and its brand of Sunni extremism. The United States removed both threats. Iran should, therefore, feel that its security position has improved significantly. This in turn should reduce Iran’s perceived interest in acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities.

However, many Iranians see the same reality from an entirely different viewpoint. Instead of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iran now confronts on its western and eastern borders the most powerful military in the history of the world and a radical ideological government in Washington bent on overturning governments like Iran’s. The American presence surrounding Iran has not improved security but rather has put a dagger to Iran’s front and back. If ever a country needs nuclear weapons to deter a stronger adversary, it is Iran.

But perhaps the crucial dilemma for Iranian and American officials concerns the question of regime change. Iranian citizens essentially have voted for regime change several times and have not obtained it. The unelected Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamene’I, as well as the judiciary and security apparatus he controls, have prevented the elected president and parliament from directing the state. Unfortunately, these unelected men determine whether Iran will seek nuclear weapons, conduct terrorism, or recognize Israel’s right to exist. Few inside or out of Iran believe the US can or should remove this regime. Thus, if vital international problems need to be resolved now, there is little choice but to deal with the people who have power in Iran.

CONCLUSION

Thus this article has inspected into the newe
r issues regarding the concept of security dilemma. The author has tried to give an unbiased view regarding the Middle East. The position of Iraq and Iran are largely volatile and very sensitive. The author has tried his best to look at the position carefully so as to avoid giving any radically different or hurting views towards anyone.
The security dilemma is a popular concept with cognitive and international relations theorists, who regard war as essentially arising from failures of communication. Functionalist theorists affirm that the key to avoiding war is the avoidance of miscommunication through proper signaling.

Ninety years ago, the 1920s were thought to be the Jazzing Age of partying, fun and flappers. A series of events that led to an abominable criminal case convinced the people otherwise.

Gordon Stewart Northcott was accused of abducting children, turning them into sex slaves and disposing their bodies on the ranch after killing them. Such a heinous crime transpired near the chicken house at the Northcott Ranch near Wineville. Hence, Gordon Northcott became synonymous to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

Several boys fell prey to Northcott’s brutal hands and even his nephew, Stanford Clark, was not spared. Clark’s mom eventually found out where her missing son was and reported it to the police. The police’s revelation and Stanford Clark’s confession to his participation in the killings appalled the public when they discovered more dead bodies and missing children than expected.

James Jeffrey Paul wrote of how Gordon Northcott meticulously planned and plotted a murder case that botched up somewhere between his lack of talent and his crazy penchant for the criminal.

Nothing Is Strange with You is a self-published book that took James Jeffrey Paul decades to research and write. The author wanted to publicize the Wineville Chicken coop murder using the perspective of the criminal himself.

Nothing Is Strange with You is available on the online bookstores of Xlibris, Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

About Xlibris

Xlibris was founded in 1997 and, as the leading publishing services provider for authors, has helped to publish more than 20,000 titles. Xlibris is based in Philadelphia, PA and provides authors with direct and personal access to quality publication in hardcover, trade paperback, custom leather-bound, and full-color formats.

For more information, please visit the book publisher‘s website , e-mail pressrelease@xlibris.com or call at 1-888-795-4247, to receive a free publishing guide.

The public reaction to the news that the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration had some religious undertone is that of disdain and disgust. Many Americans believe that they have been let down by a government that, although came to power through questionable circumstances, but was overwhelmingly given the baton for the second term, which eventually led America to financial and economic meltdown coupled with very negative diplomatic standing.

I cannot see any reason why so many people are so surprised at this grim report given the fact that many people have been pointing to this fact since the beginning of the war. It must be noted that the ruthless government run by George Bush has shown itself from the beginning as a harbinger of discord and mutual mistrust between Muslims and Christians and between the East and the West. Filled with hatred and envy, George Bush has always focused his attention on the Middle East right from the day he was sworn in. In view of this, he has created a three point score card for himself setting to achieve three main goals before the end of his administration. The following are the three major assignments he has imposed on himself and he considered them as a ‘do or die’ affair – He rather not be in government than fail to achieve them:

1. He must find a way of nailing Saddam and cage him forever or get him killed at all cost, even if it will signal the end of Iraq as a country. After all, he has to revenge the embarrassment caused his father by this self appointed Arab leader.

2. America is obsessed with oil. The country needs constant supply of oil. The enemy (Saddam) was sitting on the second largest deposit of oil in the world. He has to be eliminated for the free flow of oil to be guaranteed forever while a stooge or quasi government must be installed to do the American bidding. The main pipe taking oil across the Atlantic passes through another unfriendly country of Afghanistan. This country was being governed by a hard line government that would never allow America to gain free access to its resources. That government must be toppled and quickly so to guarantee easy and unobtrusive supply of oil to the American people who needs it badly. America needs a stooge there also to do her bidding for her.

3. Of all communities of the world, Muslims are the most difficult people to manipulate. Every other community has succumbed to the American cum western domination, looking up to the west as the superior society and westerners as superior people. Muslims on the other hands see themselves even superior to the west and the Islamic civilization as superior to the western civilization. The worst part is that 70% of the most wanted mineral resources (oil and Gas) remained in the hands of Muslims. To achieve the American supremacist objectives, these people must be brought under control. This might not be an easy task especially at the time when Islam still remains the fastest growing religion in the world. To this end, an intellectual and military battle must be waged to demoralize, dehumanize and subdue these people using all brutal means but which must be hidden from the public.

The above is the worldview under which the Bush administration was operating. It was saddled with personal struggle for vengeance to regain the family pride lost during the 1990′s Operation Desert Storm, coupled with the president’s and his cronies’ crusade ambition as well as a dangerously extreme national pride with desperate efforts to superimpose American culture and life style on the rest of the world. To buttress this point, a quick look into some events during the administration’s time in power would be relevant here.

- Bush was just on his 100th day in power when the two tower world trade center was attacked living thousands of people dead. Much as we would not like to succumb to the theory that the attack was masterminded by the government, the failure of the Federal Government to commission a compressive public inquiry into the matter up till the end of its eight-year term has given the theory some verisimilitude. Remember, this attack is the main point that the administration used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.

- Not long before the Afghanistan invasion, the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq without even waiting for the matter to be discussed and approved by the parliament. The speed and suddenness at which the war started despite the full cooperation of Saddam Husein with UN inspectors for weapon of mass destruction really caused some suspicion. Also, the summary killing of Saddam Husein’s two sons by American solders without trial or prosecution and declaration of his daughters as wanted confirmed that Bush was taking the war as personal vengeance against the personality of Saddam and not for national security as claimed. The intention was to wipe out the entire family of Saddam as a personal achievement. Saddam was hanged anyway and all members of his family eliminated except his two daughters in Jordan. If the King of Jordan had accepted the demand of the new Iraqi government, they would have been handed to the Iyad Alawi government of inquisition which would have found them guilty of one thing or the other and order them hanged.

Considering all these, one can clearly conclude that the Iraq war is no less than a crusade cascaded as the war for freedom. This further explains the reason why Mr Rumsfeld briefings to the president on the war came with many quotes from the Bible. One can therefore understand Bush properly when he claimed that it was God that called on him to invade Iraq.