The Iran Iraq War Essay Example for Free

The Iran Iraq War Essay World History: Mr. Ricky Waldon| Iran – Iraq War | Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) The Iran-Iraq War permanently altered the course of Iraqi history. It strained Iraqi political and social life, and led to severe economic dislocations. Viewed from a historical perspective, the outbreak of hostilities in 1980 was, in part, just another phase of the ancient Persian-Arab conflict that had been fueled by twentieth-century border disputes. Many observers, however, believe that Saddam Husseins decision to invade Iran was a personal miscalculation based on ambition and a sense of vulnerability. Saddam Hussein, despite having made significant strides in forging an Iraqi nation-state, feared that Irans new revolutionary leadership would threaten Iraqs delicate SunniShia balance and would exploit Iraqs geostrategic vulnerabilitiesIraqs minimal access to the Persian Gulf, for example. In this respect, Saddam Husseins decision to invade Iran has historical precedent; the ancient rulers of Mesopotamia, fearing internal strife and foreign conquest, also engaged in frequent battles with the peoples of the highlands. The Iran-Iraq War was multifaceted and included religious schisms, border disputes, and political differences. Conflicts contributing to the outbreak of hostilities ranged from centuries-old Sunni-versus-Shia and Arab-versus-Persian religious and ethnic disputes, to a personal animosity between Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini. Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein, and the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddams. Iraq claimed territories inhabited by Arabs (the Southwestern oil-producing province of Iran called Khouzestan), as well as Iraqs right over Shatt el-Arab (Arvandroud). Iraq and Iran had engaged in border clashes for many years and had revived the dormant Shatt al Arab waterway dispute in 1979. Iraq claimed the 200-kilometer channel up to the Iranian shore as its territory, while Iran insisted that the thalwega line running down the middle of the waterwaynegotiated last in 1975, was the official border. The Iraqis, especially the Baath leadership, regarded the 1975 treaty as merely a truce, not a definitive settlement. The Iraqis also perceived revolutionary Irans Islamic agenda as threatening to their pan-Arabism. Khomeini, bitter over his expulsion from Iraq in 1977 after fifteen years in An Najaf, vowed to avenge Shia victims of Baathist repression. Baghdad became more confident, however, as it watched the once invincible Imperial Iranian Army disintegrate, as most of its highest ranking officers were executed. In Khuzestan (Arabistan to the Iraqis), Iraqi intelligence officers incited riots over labor disputes, and in the Kurdish region, a new rebellion caused the Khomeini government severe troubles. As the Baathists planned their military campaign, they had every reason to be confident. Not only did the Iranians lack cohesive leadership, but the Iranian armed forces, according to Iraqi intelligence estimates, also lacked spare parts for their American-made equipment. Baghdad, on the other hand, possessed fully equipped and trained forces. Morale was running high. Against Irans armed forces, including the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) troops, led by religious mullahs with little or no military experience, the Iraqis could muster twelve complete mechanized divisions, equipped with the latest Soviet materiel. With the Iraqi military buildup in the late 1970s, Saddam Hussein had assembled an army of 190,000 men, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft. In addition, the area across the Shatt al Arab posed no major obstacles, particularly for an army equipped with Soviet river-crossing equipment. Iraqi commanders correctly assumed that crossing sites on the Khardeh and Karun rivers were lightly defended against their mechanized armor divisions; moreover, Iraqi intelligence sources reported that Iranian forces in Khuzestan, which had formerly included two divisions distributed among Ahvaz, Dezful, and Abadan, now consisted of only a number of ill-equipped battalion-sized formations. Tehran was further disadvantaged because the area was controlled by the Regional 1st Corps headquartered at Bakhtaran (formerly Kermanshah), whereas operational control was directed from the capital. In the year following the shahs overthrow, only a handful of company-sized tank units had been operative, and the rest of the armored equipment had been poorly maintained. For Iraqi planners, the only uncertainty was the fighting ability of the Iranian air force, equipped with some of the most sophisticated American-made aircraft. Despite the execution of key air force commanders and pilots, the Iranian air force had displayed its might during local riots and demonstrations. The air force was also active in the wake of the failed United States attempt to rescue American hostages in April 1980. This show of force had impressed Iraqi decision makers to such an extent that they decided to launch a massive preemptive air strike on Iranian air bases in an effort similar to the one that Israel employed during the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Iraqi Offensives, 1980-82 Despite the Iraqi governments concern, the eruption of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran did not immediately destroy the Iraqi-Iranian rapprochement that had prevailed since the 1975 Algiers Agreement. As a sign of Iraqs desire to maintain good relations with the new government in Tehran, President Bakr sent a personal message to Khomeini offering his best wishes for the friendly Iranian people on the occasion of the establishment of the Islamic Republic. In addition, as late as the end of August 1979, Iraqi authorities extended an invitation to Mehdi Bazargan, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to visit Iraq with the aim of improving bilateral relations. The fall of the moderate Bazargan government in late 1979, however, and the rise of Islamic militants preaching an expansionist foreign policy soured Iraqi-Iranian relations. The principal events that touched off the rapid deterioration in relations occurred during the spring of 1980. In April the Iranian-supported Ad Dawah attempted to assassinate Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. Shortly after the failed grenade attack on Tariq Aziz, Ad Dawah was suspected of attempting to assassinate another Iraqi leader, Minister of Culture and Information Latif Nayyif Jasim. In response, the Iraqis immediately rounded up members and supporters of Ad Dawah and deported to Iran thousands of Shias of Iranian origin. In the summer of 1980, Saddam Hussein ordered the executions of presumed Ad Dawah leader Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Baqr as Sadr and his sister. In September 1980, border skirmishes erupted in the central sector near Qasr-e Shirin, with an exchange of artillery fire by both sides. A few weeks later, Saddam Hussein officially abrogated the 1975 treaty between Iraq and Iran and announced that the Shatt al Arab was returning to Iraqi sovereignty. Iran rejected this action and hostilities escalated as the two sides exchanged bombing raids deep into each others territory, beginning what was to be a protracted and extremely costly war. Baghdad originally planned a quick victory over Tehran. Saddam expected the invasion of the in the Arabic-speaking, oil-rich area of Khuzistan to result in an Arab uprising against Khomeinis fundamentalist Islamic regime. This revolt did not materialize, however, and the Arab minority remained loyal to Tehran. On September 22, 1980, formations of Iraqi MiG-23s and MiG21s attacked Irans air bases at Mehrabad and Doshen-Tappen (both near Tehran), as well as Tabriz, Bakhtaran, Ahvaz, Dezful, Urmia (sometimes cited as Urumiyeh), Hamadan, Sanandaj, and Abadan. Their aim was to destroy the Iranian air force on the grounda lesson learned from the Arab-Israeli June 1967 War. They succeeded in destroying runways and fuel and ammunition depots, but much of Irans aircraft inventory was left intact. Iranian defenses were caught by surprise, but the Iraqi raids failed because Iranian jets were protected in specially strengthened hangars and because bombs designed to destroy runways did not totally incapacitate Irans very large airfields. Within hours, Iranian F-4 Phantoms took off from the same bases, successfully attacked strategically important targets close to major Iraqi cities, and returned home with very few losses. Simultaneously, six Iraqi army divisions entered Iran on three fronts in an initially successful surprise attack, where they drove as far as eight kilometers inland and occupied 1,000 square kilometers of Iranian territory. As a diversionary move on the northern front, an Iraqi mechanized mountain infantry division overwhelmed the border garrison at Qasr-e Shirin, a border town in Bakhtaran (formerly known as Kermanshahan) Province, and occupied territory thirty kilometers eastward to the base of the Zagros Mountains. This area was strategically significant because the main Baghdad-Tehran highway traversed it. On the central front, Iraqi forces captured Mehran, on the western plain of the Zagros Mountains in Ilam Province, and pushed eastward to the mountain base. Mehran occupied an important position on the major north-south road, close to the border on the Iranian side. The main thrust of the attack was in the south, where five armored and mechanized divisions invaded Khuzestan on two axes, one crossing over the Shatt al Arab near Basra, which led to the siege and eventual occupation of Khorramshahr, and the second heading for Susangerd, which had Ahvaz, the major military base in Khuzestan, as its objective. Iraqi armored units easily crossed the Shatt al Arab waterway and entered the Iranian province of Khuzestan. Dehloran and several other towns were targeted and were rapidly occupied to prevent reinforcement from Bakhtaran and from Tehran. By mid-October, a full division advanced through Khuzestan headed for Khorramshahr and Abadan and the strategic oil fields nearby. Other divisions headed toward Ahvaz, the provincial capital and site of an air base. Supported by heavy artillery fire, the troops made a rapid and significant advancealmost eighty kilometers in the first few days. In the battle for Dezful in Khuzestan, where a major air base is located, the local Iranian army commander requested air support in order to avoid a defeat. President Bani Sadr, therefore, authorized the release from jail of many pilots, some of whom were suspected of still being loyal to the shah. With the increased use of the Iranian air force, the Iraqi progress was somewhat curtailed. The last major Iraqi territorial gain took place in early November 1980. On November 3, Iraqi forces reached Abadan but were repulsed by a Pasdaran unit. Even though they surrounded Abadan on three sides and occupied a portion of the city, the Iraqis could not overcome the stiff resistance; sections of the city still under Iranian control were resupplied by boat at night. On November 10, Iraq captured Khorramshahr after a bloody house-to-house fight. The price of this victory was high for both sides, approximately 6,000 casualties for Iraq and even more for Iran. Iraqs blitz-like assaults against scattered and demoralized Iranian forces led many observers to think that Baghdad would win the war within a matter of weeks. Indeed, Iraqi troops did capture the Shatt al Arab and did seize a forty-eight-kilometer- wide strip of Iranian territory. Iran may have prevented a quick Iraqi victory by a rapid mobilization of volunteers and deployment of loyal Pasdaran forces to the front. Besides enlisting the Iranian pilots, the new revolutionary regime also recalled veterans of the old imperial army, although many experienced officers, most of whom had been trained in the United States, had been purged. Furthermore, the Pasdaran and Basij (what Khomeini called the Army of Twenty Million or Peoples Militia) recruited at least 100,000 volunteers. Approximately 200,000 soldiers were sent to the front by the end of November 1980. They were ideologically committed troops (some members even carried their own shrouds to the front in the expectation of martyrdom) that fought bravely despite inadequate armor support. For example, on November 7 commando units played a significant role, with the navy and air force, in an assault on Iraqi oil export terminals at Mina al Bakr and Al Faw. Iran hoped to diminish Iraqs financial resources by reducing its oil revenues. Iran also attacked the northern pipeline in the early days of the war and persuaded Syria to close the Iraqi pipeline that crossed its territory. Irans resistance at the outset of the Iraqi invasion was unexpectedly strong, but it was neither well organized nor equally successful on all fronts. Iraq easily advanced in the northern and central sections and crushed the Pasdarans scattered resistance there. Iraqi troops, however, faced untiring resistance in Khuzestan. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq may have thought that the approximately 3 million Arabs of Khuzestan would join the Iraqis against Tehran. Instead, many allied with Irans regular and irregular armed forces and fought in the battles at Dezful, Khorramshahr, and Abadan. Soon after capturing Khorramshahr, the Iraqi troops lost their initiative and began to dig in along their line of advance. Tehran rejected a settlement offer and held the line against the militarily superior Iraqiforce. It refused to accept defeat, and slowly began a series of counteroffensives in January 1981. Both the volunteers and the regular armed forces were eager to fight, the latter seeing an opportunity to regain prestige lost because of their association with the shahs regime. Irans first major counterattack failed, however, for political and military reasons. President Bani Sadr was engaged in a power struggle with key religious figures and eager to gain political support among the armed forces by direct involvement in military operations. Lacking military expertise, he initiated a premature attack by three regular armored regiments without the assistance of the Pasdaran units. He also failed to take into account that the ground near Susangerd, muddied by the preceding rainy season, would make resupply difficult. As a result of his tactical decision making, the Iranian forces were surrounded on three sides. In a long exchange of fire, many Iranian armored vehicles were destroyed or had to be abandoned because they were either stuck in the mud or needed minor repairs. Fortunately for Iran, however, the Iraqi forces failed to follow up with another attack. Iran stopped Iraqi forces on the Karun River and, with limited military stocks, unveiled its human wave assaults, which used thousands of Basij (Popular Mobilization Army or Peoples Army) volunteers.

things change Essay -- essays research papers

The book Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe tells the story about a native living in Africa during the period of European imperialism. By placing the book during this time period Achebe can first explain traditional Ibo culture and then talk about the effect that the white European evangelists had on Ibo society. The book dispels the commonly held view of Africans before colonization as savage and godless beings. Achebe explains the very advanced social order in Umuofia and the complex Ibo religion. In bringing together what I have learned about Europe and Africa during the time of Imperialism I will draw a comparison between the two continents politically, religiously, and economically. Europe was ruled by a set of very powerful and competing monarchs during the time of imperialism. In these monarchies a king and queen had supreme power over their countries. In Umuofia there was a democratic system of government with no one ruler and a complex system by which people could gain political power through economic success. I think it is very ironic that when the white missionaries came they lectured the natives on how everyone was equal in the eyes of God, but yet they had supreme rulers in their own countries and a very unfair social caste system. Contrary to popular belief the Africans had a very complex religion before Christianity came. Everyone in the community was extremely religious, even obeying their religious leaders when they were told to kill their own children ...

Organizational Structure Paper Essay

The United States Army is one of many legal types of organizations of the armed forces and has been since June 1775. It is the largest and oldest of all the branches of the military and continues to dominate all threats aimed at the United States alongside the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines. Like many other organizations in the United States, the U.S Army has a structure of its own. From the top down, it functions as any other organization, but unlike most, every member of its team carries rank and has a chain of command to abide by. In the following I will describe and evaluate the structure and functions within the United States Army, compare it to its fellow branches, and explain its organizational design that has been the primary reason Americans have been kept free from tyranny and enjoy the freedoms taken for granted every day. Army Organizational Structure The United States Army has a structure that starts as high as the President of the United States down to the newest and youngest recruit soldier. Its organizational structure far exceeds that or your local neighborhood Wal-Mart, yet has far less â€Å"employees†. As of 2014, the U.S Army has a total strength of on or about 1,130,000 soldiers, that which include the Army National Guard and Army Reserve units (â€Å"The Official Homepage of the United  States Army†, 2014). Other than the President of the United States, orders go downhill following the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Joint Chief of Staffs, then along to Regional Commands stationed globally. Thereafter, divisions are formed by brigades, which control battalions beneath them, formed by several units or companies of soldiers organized accordingly into platoons. Attempting to explain the organizational structure of an entire military branch would be rather extensive and complicated, therefore the following will breakdown the basic structure of a U.S Army company. Similar to nonmilitary organizations, the U.S Army has a structure that coincides with one another to be able to function properly. No matter the type of battalion, either it consist of Armored, Infantry, Airborne, or Calvary soldiers, a Headquarters company is and always will be the core to a battalion. That company staffs a variety of soldiers with particular jobs that range from administration (S1), intelligence (S2), training and operations (S3), logistics (S4), communication (S6), medical, mechanic, and any other type of military occupational specialty (MOS) that primarily functions to support its entire battalion. All these so called â€Å"S Shops† work alongside each other and handle the day to day business as well as prepare units for training exercises and overseas deployments. Similar organizations that resemble the U.S Army would be that of the Marine Corps and the Navy. Even though these branches fight to defend the United States and its interest right alongside the U.S Army, each of their â€Å"mission statement† differs slightly. The United States Marine Corps works closely with the U.S Navy when it comes to training and combat deployments. Like the U.S Army, they both have similar rank structures that move up the chain of command until it hits the President of the United States. A few differences between these branches though, the Marine Corp Commandant reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy, as does the U.S Navy, unlike the U.S Army, which reports to the Secretary of the Army. Organizational Functions The United States Army has many functions that influence its determination on keeping its soldiers properly trained, physically and mentally tough, and readily available to deploy within a few days of after being called for combat operations. To be able to train a soldier, willing and able men and women must first enlist into the U.S Army. No matter their reasons of joining, either school or patriotism, they are all trained as equals. For this to happen, marketing campaigns must be advertised to be able to recruit. Television commercials demonstrate briefly the life of a soldier and the benefits, not only to him/herself, but their families and the courage it takes to join the â€Å"Army of One†. Recruiters often visit local high schools in attempts to enlist soon to be high school graduates. Others wander around shopping malls handing out brochures, speaking to interested men and women on what it takes to be a soldier. All this is only possible if the United States Army is financially able. Like all other organizations, they must follow a specific budget that continuously gets cut for political reasons. The U.S Army has an estimate number of soldiers that it can recruit and have enlisted at certain times under the units structural guidelines. These numbers and structure fall under the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE). An excess of soldiers in various units account for numerous war time enlistments aimed at maintaining strength in numbers. But what happens when there are no more wars to be fought? Excess soldiers of certain military occupational specialties are deemed unnecessary and honorably discharged before their end of term is officially over. On the civilian side, this is known as downsizing. The army chain of command is what keeps the U.S Army organized and disciplined. Not all orders given are always performed to the letter and many are sometimes unjustified. For these reasons, there is also a human resources department within a battalion. When some issues need greater attention and not are able to be handled within a unit, the Post Inspector General can be contacted. The Inspector General, or IG, help enforce all army regulations that involve soldiers of any rank and also their families  when need be. IG helps assist commanders in handling punishments, what is allowed, and what actions are authorized in simply punishing a soldier temporarily or discharging him/her from service. Usually, when IG is contacted, it is for negative reasons, but there always has to be a strong hand to enforce and influence the continuous control of soldiers, from Private to Captains, regulations know no rank. Following rules are important for the sustainment of the organizational structure and daily operations. Organizational Design There are several organizational designs that best suit the United States Army’s needs and support its organizational structure. Just one would not suffice to assist the U.S Army market its branch of service and promote the value of its organization. Stating the obvious, the U.S Army was born in the United States, yet has bases worldwide. After wars fought in a number of different countries, the U.S Army has made it a point to continue showing its presence by establishing bases in countries such as Germany, Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, giving the United States a geographical advantage. The product it provides consist of customer based relations; supporting and defending the citizens of our country. Army bases overseas report to their Regional Commands depending on the part of the world they are based. This structure continues to allow generals abroad to command its bases yet still must report to the higher echelon in Washington D.C. The fact to remember is, the United States Army is an organization that does not sell material products, but creates soldiers out of men and women to continue fighting, defending, and preserving our land of the free and home of the brave. Conclusion After 239 years serving our country, the United States Army has long proved to Americans that it is a force to be reckoned with. The structure used today has allowed the armed forces to control, enforce, and withstand all others when threatened. Throughout the years all other branches of service  evolved to create a team that no other country on earth can match. With all these organizations united, it is doubtful that the United States of America will continue to rule as the superior force on earth and will remain that way for all time. References Business Dictionary. (2014). The Official Homepage of the United States Army. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.army.mil/

Appearence vs. Reality in William Shakespeares Hamlet Essay

amp;#65279;Appearance vs. Reality nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; In Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet, there is a dominant and overwhelming theme that is concurrent throughout the play. Throughout the play, all the characters appear as one thing on the outside, yet on the inside they are completely different. The theme of appearance versus reality surrounds Hamlet due to the fact that the characters portray themselves as one person on the outside, and one different on the inside. In the play, Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle, appears to be kind, gentle, and caring on the outside, but in actual fact, he uses his loving behavior as a mask to cover up the fact that he is a selfish, mean, and cold murderer. The women in Hamlet appear to live happy and†¦show more content†¦He struggles to get out his prayer, because he is unsure that he will be forgiven. He wants to repent for his sin, but he knows that he can’t because he is not truly sorry. In (3.3.58-59) Claudius list some reasons why he can ask for forgiveness. He says â€Å"Of those effects for which I did the murder- my crown, mine own ambition, and my queen.† Claudius realizes that his outside wants to seek forgiveness but his inside can not give up the positions that gained. Claudius thus realizes that he has to separate his own deceptive illusion from of true feelings. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The women in Hamlet exemplify the theme of appearance versus reality as well. Ophelia and Gertrude display deceptive illusions to hide the corruptions of their lives. Ophelia shields her love for Hamlet in the beginning of the play, but eventually is forced to throw herself to Hamlet, at her father’s request. Ophelia exaggerates her love for Hamlet, so her father can prove to the king and queen that Hamlet’s madness comes from his love for Ophelia. Hamlet senses that Ophelia love is not genuine, and therefore treats her with disgust. He assaults Ophelia with words, and also with his actions, which included killing her father, though unintentional. Hamlet begins displaying acts of cruelty towards Ophelia, by using malicious sarcasm. He tells her to â€Å"Go thy ways to a nunnery. Where’s your father?†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Let the doors be shut upon