This week was crazy. Not specifically this class but a combined effort between all my classes, work, and a end-of-semester-itis. My main focus was getting my WP3 finished and turned in. One thing I found that was very rewarding was finding a knowledgeable friend outside of class and having them peer review my paper. Find somebody who is good at this sort of thing and get their input as well. Right now my main focus is figuring out how I want to format WP4. Definitely looking forward to getting it done and finishing up with class.
I Read and Replied To:
Kathy Lacey
D#13, HW#7 Deadline Reflection
Jared Zucker
D13, HW3, Writing Reflection
Stephanne Parizek
D13HW5 reading refections
Justin Winter
Deadline #13 HW #3 WP #3 Reflection
Sunday, November 25, 2007
D13HW6 Deadline Reflection Assessment
Looking through the deadlines was interesting because it was like peer reviewing my entire research and writing project. In the earlier deadlines I began to get a feel for the pace I needed to set and I learned how to organize my research and how to use that organization to my advantage. As we moved on into the writing projects I started reaping the benefits of that organization as well as learning how to use organization to put my research and thought into a logical order. I also learned some of the intricacies of things such as writing for a specific audience, writing to accomplish my project goals, and revising my structure to do so. In the most recent deadlines I saw a growing emphasis on review and revision as well as learning a lot of methods on how to do that.
D13HW4 WP Review Assessment
There are several main points I'll hit up for each of the first three writing projects. For WP1 the main emphasis is on ensuring you have everything you need, peer review, and showing enthusiasm for the project so that people will want to read your paper. Go through the requirements before, during, and after writing the proposal to ensure you have everything. Write it in a way that your happy with and which can show your audience that you are passionate about the subject. Finally review it and have peers review it as well to fix structure and grammatical errors as well as getting their feedback. For WP2 the key is organization during research. Ensure that as you research new sources go ahead and do the Annotated Bibliography so that when the time comes to put together your entire annotated bibliography the meat and potatoes of the work is already done. After that just make sure your annotations have some guts to them and make sure your MLA format is correct. For WP3 the key is an outline and peer review. Before writing the paper write a detailed outline so you don't end up lost and vegetating in front of the computer. Ensure the outline is formatted in a logical order and you put information from your sources in wherever you can with your own analysis. After that review review review. Review it yourself, have classmates review it, have a person who's knowledgeable on the subject review it. After that final tweaking you should be good.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
D13HW3 WP3 Reflection
To start this project I took all the notes I had taken thus far and made a condensed version of my notes and reviewed it. Then I constructed several drafts of an outline for the paper until I settled on one I liked. After than I wrote the paper. For the most part I stuck to the outline but I made changes and additions where I deemed them necessary. After that I began the review and revision project ending with me submitting the final draft of my paper after having a good friend do a final peer review. For the course portfolio I'm thinking that I'll make a outline for the letter and then get right into it. I'm proud of many parts of my paper. Specifically I'm proud of the structure I settled on as my paper is different than most of my classmate's in that it is mostly an exercise in educated speculation. For a while I was concerned that I might have to much speculation and not enough hard facts but after going through it I decided that it was actually fairly well balanced so I'm not so worried about it any more. During this project I practiced a lot in the area of evidence analysis, structure, and prediction and I'm proud of what I came up with though under no impression that it's perfect. This helped me achieve the second course competency which was to organize writing to support a central idea through unity, coherence, and logical development appropriate to a specific writing context. For my next project I'm going to have to work on the basics of a project portfolio as I've never constructed one before. During this next writing project one of the main course competencies I'll be working on is the Assessment of my own writing strengths and identifying strategies for improvement through instructor conference, portfolio, written evaluation, and/or other methods.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
D12HW9 Deadline Reflection
I enjoyed this weeks work. It wasn't too bad, though I didn't see the Peer Reviews till this afternoon which made for a bit of a last minute scramble. From reading and replying to my classmates blogs I got all the usual perks. People resubmitting their drafts several times to Google Docs is kind of agitating as someone is bound to review the wrong revision and their work goes for naught. I wish I had more people peer review my paper though as I'd like more input than just Mr. Adam's when he grades it. I think it's also a shame how many people have dropped as there were several papers I was looking forward to reading about. We are the few, the proud, the survivors of Mr. Adams ENG 102 class! so far...
I read and replied to:
Mike Whipple
D#12, HW#5, Figurative Language
Coralee Harding
D#12, HW#8, Peer Review Reflection
Stephanne Parizek
D12HW5 Figurative Language Proposal
Kathy Lacey
D#12,HW#9 Deadline Reflection
I read and replied to:
Mike Whipple
D#12, HW#5, Figurative Language
Coralee Harding
D#12, HW#8, Peer Review Reflection
Stephanne Parizek
D12HW5 Figurative Language Proposal
Kathy Lacey
D#12,HW#9 Deadline Reflection
D12HW8 Peer Review Reflection
(See previous post for reviewed papers)
Reviewing my classmates papers was very interesting. I enjoyed looking at their arguments, not just to see what they had, but because it forced me to think about the subject myself. It is to bad a lot of the people who's papers I was looking forward to reading have dropped out. In any case I found some of the paper's very impressive as far as addressing the opposing side's argument. This is perhaps what worries me the most about my paper. I have tried to throw in alternative viewpoints where I can but it's difficult because my paper is written differently then most of my classmates. Most of their papers are clean cut arguments while in mine I'm basically looking into my crystal ball.
NOBODY has reviewed my paper. This makes me very sad. I understand that it is long but COME ON people. I want and look forward to any constructive criticism you may have. Do not let it's length scare you away.
Wait. Waaaaiiiit. Mike Whipple is editing it as I type. Hoorah. Unfortunately, it's late and I'm not going to wait for him to finish. I need my sleep.
Reviewing my classmates papers was very interesting. I enjoyed looking at their arguments, not just to see what they had, but because it forced me to think about the subject myself. It is to bad a lot of the people who's papers I was looking forward to reading have dropped out. In any case I found some of the paper's very impressive as far as addressing the opposing side's argument. This is perhaps what worries me the most about my paper. I have tried to throw in alternative viewpoints where I can but it's difficult because my paper is written differently then most of my classmates. Most of their papers are clean cut arguments while in mine I'm basically looking into my crystal ball.
NOBODY has reviewed my paper. This makes me very sad. I understand that it is long but COME ON people. I want and look forward to any constructive criticism you may have. Do not let it's length scare you away.
Wait. Waaaaiiiit. Mike Whipple is editing it as I type. Hoorah. Unfortunately, it's late and I'm not going to wait for him to finish. I need my sleep.
D12HW5 Figurative Language
1.
As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
I used this sentence to describe the way that small-scale strikes or skirmishes between coalition and Iranian forces could spiral into a large-scale military conflict. I thought it was a creative way to relate international politics back to the human tendency to allways want vengence to the point where it gets very ugly.
2.
Many Arabs could be "pulled off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel).
Here I used the figurative language, "pulled off the bench." It's a term I have heard in several places now including my International and Domestic Terrorism class. It refers to a situation which causes moderate people, who till that point had been neither largely liberal or largely conservative, to move "off the bench" and into one of those more extreme categories.
As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
I used this sentence to describe the way that small-scale strikes or skirmishes between coalition and Iranian forces could spiral into a large-scale military conflict. I thought it was a creative way to relate international politics back to the human tendency to allways want vengence to the point where it gets very ugly.
2.
Many Arabs could be "pulled off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel).
Here I used the figurative language, "pulled off the bench." It's a term I have heard in several places now including my International and Domestic Terrorism class. It refers to a situation which causes moderate people, who till that point had been neither largely liberal or largely conservative, to move "off the bench" and into one of those more extreme categories.
D12HW4 Style
Word Choice:
Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country.
First, In the first sentence I ended up using the word "Persian" after changing it from "troublesome." I decided I didn't want to use "troublesome" because it came off as being to biased and I wanted to keep my tone as neutral as I could. I first considered changing it to Iranian but decided against it because I'd already used the word "Iranian" in that sentence. So I finally settled on "Persian" because Iran is in fact a Persian country and I hadn't mentioned that in my writing yet.
Sentence Structure:
a. Initial: However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
b. Revised: However, the flipside is that hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to gain substantial material support for military operations in Iran.
First, I got rid of "the finding of" because it just didn't seem like proper english to me. Second I changed the structure of the second half of the sentence because I thought it sounded better and I added the word material because I wanted to convey the need to gather support in the form of material and human resources.
Punctuation:
Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran, it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war.
Initially there was not a comma after Iran. I decided to put it in there because I decided the flow of the sentence needed to be paused at that point. It sounds better than going straight into, "it is possible that..."
Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country.
First, In the first sentence I ended up using the word "Persian" after changing it from "troublesome." I decided I didn't want to use "troublesome" because it came off as being to biased and I wanted to keep my tone as neutral as I could. I first considered changing it to Iranian but decided against it because I'd already used the word "Iranian" in that sentence. So I finally settled on "Persian" because Iran is in fact a Persian country and I hadn't mentioned that in my writing yet.
Sentence Structure:
a. Initial: However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
b. Revised: However, the flipside is that hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to gain substantial material support for military operations in Iran.
First, I got rid of "the finding of" because it just didn't seem like proper english to me. Second I changed the structure of the second half of the sentence because I thought it sounded better and I added the word material because I wanted to convey the need to gather support in the form of material and human resources.
Punctuation:
Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran, it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war.
Initially there was not a comma after Iran. I decided to put it in there because I decided the flow of the sentence needed to be paused at that point. It sounds better than going straight into, "it is possible that..."
D12HW3 Second Revision
Once again I caught some more grammatical errors and played around with some different structure. In terms of evidence/analysis I definetely didn't have a problem with to much input from me. By the nature of my research question a very large portion of my paper is my personal opinion, guesswork, and analysis. I was actually a little worried about not putting in enough data from my research but after going through and crossing everything out I realized that I actually had a decent amount of evidence straight out of my research. I also caught a piece of evidence that I forgot to cite back to it's source so I took care of that.
For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective (Masci). The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.
For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective (Masci). The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.
D12HW2 Large Scale Revisions
For the most part I was pretty happy with the introduction, conclusion, point sentences, and the structure of my argument. What I found that I didn't like I changed but for the most part it was just some awry sentence structure. I also caught a few more gramatical errors this time around. The major revisions were that I added a new point to a part of my argument complete with evidence and such, and I added a sentence to my conclusion to cover a point I had wanted to add there.
For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective. The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.
For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective. The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
D11HW3 Deadline Reflection
This weeks work was blessfuly quick. I made use of the extra time to run through my paper correcting grammatical and structural errors and making other revisions. I also added the annotated bibliography and added some new sources. Reading and replying to other classmates work was interesting as it showed me some things that my classmates did differently than I as well as showing me some interesting information they've found on their topics.
I read and replied to:
Coralee Harding
D#11 HW#2, Intro's and Conclusions
Justin Winter
Deadline #11 HW #2 2x Introductions and Conclusions
Stephanie Parizek
D11HW3 Deadline Reflection
I read and replied to:
Coralee Harding
D#11 HW#2, Intro's and Conclusions
Justin Winter
Deadline #11 HW #2 2x Introductions and Conclusions
Stephanie Parizek
D11HW3 Deadline Reflection
D11HW2 Intros and Conclusions
My two intro's:
1. Based on the current situation with Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. Evidence and rumors of Iran's support of terrorist groups worldwide as well as concern over their fledgling nuclear program has combined to create an international situation which could, if not handled carefully, spin out of control. Adding this to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and it could become a crisis which could prove disasterous for American's at home and in the international community. Could the United States be headed for the same fate as previous great nations? Could we be the next Rome, Byzantium, or Troy? In a present which is wrought with uncertainty particular care should be taken so that we can secure the best possible future.
2. For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
My two conclusions:
1. Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful. The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.
2. We have discussed likely outcomes and occurences of the Iranian sittuation as well as made some suggestions as to what needs to be done based off the current situation. This is a key phrase, the situation as it is could change drastically in the blink of an eye. International situations such as these envelope a wide range of factors of which just one has the potential to majorly impact all the others. What does the future hold for America. Amidst social reforms, conflict around the world, and presidential elections the future is on the brink. Whether it is the brink of disaster or of victory will soon be decided. We must take care to play an active role in working to secure our nations, and our world's, security
1. Based on the current situation with Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. Evidence and rumors of Iran's support of terrorist groups worldwide as well as concern over their fledgling nuclear program has combined to create an international situation which could, if not handled carefully, spin out of control. Adding this to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and it could become a crisis which could prove disasterous for American's at home and in the international community. Could the United States be headed for the same fate as previous great nations? Could we be the next Rome, Byzantium, or Troy? In a present which is wrought with uncertainty particular care should be taken so that we can secure the best possible future.
2. For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
My two conclusions:
1. Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful. The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.
2. We have discussed likely outcomes and occurences of the Iranian sittuation as well as made some suggestions as to what needs to be done based off the current situation. This is a key phrase, the situation as it is could change drastically in the blink of an eye. International situations such as these envelope a wide range of factors of which just one has the potential to majorly impact all the others. What does the future hold for America. Amidst social reforms, conflict around the world, and presidential elections the future is on the brink. Whether it is the brink of disaster or of victory will soon be decided. We must take care to play an active role in working to secure our nations, and our world's, security
Saturday, November 3, 2007
D10HW7 Deadline Reflection
Another busy week. Actually writing the paper was an interesting experience. I didn't strictly follow my outline but I used it as a foundation and made some changes where I thought they'd work out well. The paragraph review assignment was useful in that it gave some important lessons which we can apply during peer reviews. From looking and replying to my other classmates blogs I gained some interesting ideas into some new sources I can use for HW assignments as well as get a look at what everyone else is struggling with. It's been a tough week and that's reflected in the lack of posts I found for this deadline.
I read and responded to:
Brennan Dardis
Deadline #10 HW#6
Stephanne Parizek
D10HW2 Annotated Bibliography
I read and responded to:
Brennan Dardis
Deadline #10 HW#6
Stephanne Parizek
D10HW2 Annotated Bibliography
D10HW5 Revised Paragraph
Here is the revised work:
Before:
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. First is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, specifically in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S. and it’s allies with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of goodwill with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers.” As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
After:
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he stated that the issue of his countries nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retalliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
This was interesting exercise which I think will be useful especially when done before we start peer reviewing each other's papers. It makes you look past simple structure and grammatical errors and focus on the meat and potatoes of the paper.
Before:
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. First is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, specifically in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S. and it’s allies with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of goodwill with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers.” As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
After:
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he stated that the issue of his countries nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retalliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
This was interesting exercise which I think will be useful especially when done before we start peer reviewing each other's papers. It makes you look past simple structure and grammatical errors and focus on the meat and potatoes of the paper.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
D10HW6 Grammar Assignment
For my grammar assignment I reviewed the quick comma usage tips at the OWL site < http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/01/ > to make sure I wasn't doing them wrong. Most of what I read was stuff I already knew but it was interesting seeing some rules that I hadn't seen before such as if you use commas to sepparate more than three clauses in a sentence your grammatically incorrect. I'd never seen that limit before. Anyway I reviewed the conclusion to my research paper and made the following corrections:
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes(took out a comma here) and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran,(replaced semi colon with comma here) military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities,(added comma here) and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful. The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people.
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes(took out a comma here) and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran,(replaced semi colon with comma here) military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities,(added comma here) and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful. The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people.
D10HW3 Draft WP3
Here it is. Don't scared cause it's long.
For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus we find ourselves, today, embroiled in conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. My question is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possible occurrence that we will focus on in terms of possible results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. First is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, specifically in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S. and it’s allies with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of goodwill with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers.” As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are critically important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict as with Iraq it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of the U.S.’ resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, took take years. However there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. A conflict with Iran could easily be seen as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq. It would probably follow much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in dwindling resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not see in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admit defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. It is not a matter of pride but a matter of, at the risk of sounding tyrannical, political power. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Finally, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful resolution. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. It’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution. There are several requirements that much be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution.
The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. They key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and would likely repeat itself in Iran (Ricks). Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better border operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and
Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies too not only back them politically but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus on everyone doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective while U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog, at least more so than the U.S. and Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons.
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people.
For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus we find ourselves, today, embroiled in conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. My question is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possible occurrence that we will focus on in terms of possible results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. First is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, specifically in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S. and it’s allies with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of goodwill with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers.” As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are critically important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict as with Iraq it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of the U.S.’ resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, took take years. However there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. A conflict with Iran could easily be seen as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq. It would probably follow much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in dwindling resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not see in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admit defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. It is not a matter of pride but a matter of, at the risk of sounding tyrannical, political power. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Finally, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful resolution. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. It’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution. There are several requirements that much be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution.
The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. They key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and would likely repeat itself in Iran (Ricks). Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better border operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and
Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies too not only back them politically but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus on everyone doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective while U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog, at least more so than the U.S. and Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons.
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)