Essay Available:
Pages:
8 pages/≈2200 words
Sources:
0
Style:
MLA
Subject:
History
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 28.8
Topic:
The Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War History Essay
Essay Instructions:
Dear writer, this paper is very important. Please do not copy sentences from Internet, do not plagiarism. Thank you so much.
We have learned three wars in the sociology history class this semester. They are the Korean War, Ireland war and the Philippine war. I have uploaded all the Power point I have from the professor; I will upload more if the professor gives us.
Here are the requirements and questions from the professor:
“To what extent, if any, are wars the rational pursuit of political and/or economic interests? Illustrate your answer using material from all three cases we have examined. You may focus, if you wish, on some aspect of military operations, such as the use of intelligence, failure to prepare for surprise attack, failure to specify war aims, etc.”
Please note: (1) I want you to address this question and not some other issue that interests you. I do not need you to tell me everything you know about the three wars we have examined this semester. Just focus on the question. I am looking for your critical thinking. I will judge this paper on clarity of thought, not on length. (2) Think what it means to say that wars are “rational” and consider what the alternatives are. If a military decision or course of action is not “rational,” what is it? (Please note that this question is broader than simply the decision to start a war; it includes the conduct of military operations and the subsequent peace.) (3) I expect you to illustrate your argument with examples from all three of the cases. Using only one or two of the cases will not be sufficient.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
An Analysis of the Extents to Which the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War Can Be Justified As Rational Ways of Pursuing Political and Economic Interests
Introduction
For a long time now, political and economic factors have played a central role in the war. However, Form (143) explains that the current political landscape imposes minimal considerations on the economic aspects of civil and interstate wars. Welch Jr. (9) reveals that most of the civil wars have camouflaged to embrace a self-financing attribute. Such a position is attributed to the fact that both the affected governments and rebel groups tend to seek for alternative sources of fiscal support in order to sustain their military campaigns particularly after the detrimental decline in the post-Cold War superpower support. Lowe (13) explains that combatant self-financing initiatives in historic battles such as the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War saw great mutations from the conventional plunder and pillage ideologies to the adoption of strategies aimed at enhancing the levels of diaspora remittances, the hidden issues of trade in the highly scarce and lucrative natural resources such as oil, gas and mineral ores, and attraction of foreign aid. As a consequence, Carson (1901) reveals that the term “resource wars” was established by policymakers and analysts in order to demystify the increasing role of the lucrative natural resources in fueling wars. On the other hand, West, Philip, and Gregg (4) explain that the increasing attention on the economic impacts of interstate warfare found a great expression in the ideology of “war economies.”
A clear view of the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War from the perspectives of a political economy plays a critical role in enhancing an analyst’s levels of comprehension of the primary dynamics and practicalities of these feuds. Similarly, Lowe (11) explains that such analyses could be of the critical essence in fostering the systematic comprehension of the underlying effects of the wars above in the economic positions of the countries involved. Carson (1901) explains that any effort put forth to foster the analysis of the political economy based on the effects of armed conflict needs to be considered on the basis of the contemporary policy development frameworks adopted by the associated governments, non-governmental institutions, donor agencies and the private sector institutions that are concerned with the issues of peace building and war. The current study seeks to undertake a critical analysis of the extents to which the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War need to be justified as rational ways of pursuing political and economic interests.
War as an Alternative Means of Politics
Ohanian (4) describes war as an instrument of fostering political continuations by application of “other means.” A critical analysis of the statement above reveals that by all means, war is never started by the local populace of a country. People in their right senses do not begin battles without embracing a clear strategy of what needs to be attained by the conflict and how this will be accomplished (Carson 1901). For instance, a review of the Philippine war stirs the presence of analytical questions such as whether the United States was justified to fuel and start the battles, if the Filipinos had adequate justification in availing their military forces to engage in responsive attacks through application of unscrupulous guerilla tactics as a way of countering the militaristic superiority depicted by their American counterparts and the extents to which either side was validated in obligating torturous deeds and acts of atrocity as a way of ending the war.
Similarly, a review of the Korean War and the Ireland War leaves an analyst with similar questions. Form (162) explains that these battles were used by countries such as the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain to reveal their political strengths. For instance, Welch Jr. (1900) explains that in the Philippine War, the United States was considered as the primary aggressor based on the political decisions made to send military troops and instruments with the aim of fostering control over the newly acquired colony in the Pacific. The Philippine war was a vibrant extension of the political might of the United States which adopted a militaristic framework in order to extend the aggressor’s political culture.
On the other hand, Lowe (14) describes the Korean War as a battle that occurred due to the differing ideologies of the Soviet Union and those of the United States. It is clear that in this war, both the United States and the Soviet Union were against the ideology of establishing a unified state based on the campaigns advocated for by Koreans. On one side, the Soviet Union was bullish of extending its communist influences in Korea while on the other side; the United States encouraged the formation of a clear democracy that was based on the ideologies of containment (a foreign administrative framework that was determined to limit the levels of the spread of communist ideologies).
War as a Show of Political Power
Ideally, wars are not only bloody but also associated with multiple tragedies. However, Ohanian (4) explains that in the battlefield, both the parties that are subjugated and those that suffer the effects of patriotic fever fight based on the commands of the powerful members of the society. Lee (77) reveals that at the conclusion of these battles, those who prove their position as the most influential are crowned to occupy the position of the victors and benefit from power increments. On the other hand, their downtrodden counterparts are only faced with the obligation of enduring their sufferings. An analysis of the Philippines War reveals its unjust position as a battle of conquest and aggression whose major intent was to foster the expansion of the spheres of interest of the United States as well as initiation of economic aggrandizements among the subjects (Welch Jr. 1900).
According to Lowe (5), war can only be validated through proper analysis and consideration of pertinent issues such as the key reason for engaging in war; and the means and instruments adopted by the warring party. In this case, there is a need to appreciate the fact that the Filipinos engaged in the ba...
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
An Analysis of the Extents to Which the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War Can Be Justified As Rational Ways of Pursuing Political and Economic Interests
Introduction
For a long time now, political and economic factors have played a central role in the war. However, Form (143) explains that the current political landscape imposes minimal considerations on the economic aspects of civil and interstate wars. Welch Jr. (9) reveals that most of the civil wars have camouflaged to embrace a self-financing attribute. Such a position is attributed to the fact that both the affected governments and rebel groups tend to seek for alternative sources of fiscal support in order to sustain their military campaigns particularly after the detrimental decline in the post-Cold War superpower support. Lowe (13) explains that combatant self-financing initiatives in historic battles such as the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War saw great mutations from the conventional plunder and pillage ideologies to the adoption of strategies aimed at enhancing the levels of diaspora remittances, the hidden issues of trade in the highly scarce and lucrative natural resources such as oil, gas and mineral ores, and attraction of foreign aid. As a consequence, Carson (1901) reveals that the term “resource wars” was established by policymakers and analysts in order to demystify the increasing role of the lucrative natural resources in fueling wars. On the other hand, West, Philip, and Gregg (4) explain that the increasing attention on the economic impacts of interstate warfare found a great expression in the ideology of “war economies.”
A clear view of the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War from the perspectives of a political economy plays a critical role in enhancing an analyst’s levels of comprehension of the primary dynamics and practicalities of these feuds. Similarly, Lowe (11) explains that such analyses could be of the critical essence in fostering the systematic comprehension of the underlying effects of the wars above in the economic positions of the countries involved. Carson (1901) explains that any effort put forth to foster the analysis of the political economy based on the effects of armed conflict needs to be considered on the basis of the contemporary policy development frameworks adopted by the associated governments, non-governmental institutions, donor agencies and the private sector institutions that are concerned with the issues of peace building and war. The current study seeks to undertake a critical analysis of the extents to which the Korean War, the Ireland War, and the Philippine War need to be justified as rational ways of pursuing political and economic interests.
War as an Alternative Means of Politics
Ohanian (4) describes war as an instrument of fostering political continuations by application of “other means.” A critical analysis of the statement above reveals that by all means, war is never started by the local populace of a country. People in their right senses do not begin battles without embracing a clear strategy of what needs to be attained by the conflict and how this will be accomplished (Carson 1901). For instance, a review of the Philippine war stirs the presence of analytical questions such as whether the United States was justified to fuel and start the battles, if the Filipinos had adequate justification in availing their military forces to engage in responsive attacks through application of unscrupulous guerilla tactics as a way of countering the militaristic superiority depicted by their American counterparts and the extents to which either side was validated in obligating torturous deeds and acts of atrocity as a way of ending the war.
Similarly, a review of the Korean War and the Ireland War leaves an analyst with similar questions. Form (162) explains that these battles were used by countries such as the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain to reveal their political strengths. For instance, Welch Jr. (1900) explains that in the Philippine War, the United States was considered as the primary aggressor based on the political decisions made to send military troops and instruments with the aim of fostering control over the newly acquired colony in the Pacific. The Philippine war was a vibrant extension of the political might of the United States which adopted a militaristic framework in order to extend the aggressor’s political culture.
On the other hand, Lowe (14) describes the Korean War as a battle that occurred due to the differing ideologies of the Soviet Union and those of the United States. It is clear that in this war, both the United States and the Soviet Union were against the ideology of establishing a unified state based on the campaigns advocated for by Koreans. On one side, the Soviet Union was bullish of extending its communist influences in Korea while on the other side; the United States encouraged the formation of a clear democracy that was based on the ideologies of containment (a foreign administrative framework that was determined to limit the levels of the spread of communist ideologies).
War as a Show of Political Power
Ideally, wars are not only bloody but also associated with multiple tragedies. However, Ohanian (4) explains that in the battlefield, both the parties that are subjugated and those that suffer the effects of patriotic fever fight based on the commands of the powerful members of the society. Lee (77) reveals that at the conclusion of these battles, those who prove their position as the most influential are crowned to occupy the position of the victors and benefit from power increments. On the other hand, their downtrodden counterparts are only faced with the obligation of enduring their sufferings. An analysis of the Philippines War reveals its unjust position as a battle of conquest and aggression whose major intent was to foster the expansion of the spheres of interest of the United States as well as initiation of economic aggrandizements among the subjects (Welch Jr. 1900).
According to Lowe (5), war can only be validated through proper analysis and consideration of pertinent issues such as the key reason for engaging in war; and the means and instruments adopted by the warring party. In this case, there is a need to appreciate the fact that the Filipinos engaged in the ba...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: