This week we went over the Iran-Iraq war.
You can view a gallery of photos here. You can also view the surprisingly catchy Iranian propaganda song and video here.
For this post, I am interested in hearing some of your views on many of the controversial moves on behalf of Iran and the world during the war. Once again you can answer as many of these questions as you like.
Without knowing the outcome, was the decision of Iran to counter-invade Iraq after two years the right one?
Do you feel it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons?
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
In light of understanding more about the war, do you feel like you understand Iran's position (in terms of foreign policy) better?
Have a good week guys!
-Amir
14 comments:
I do not feel that is was right for the world to support Iraq by providing them with aid and weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Moreover, I disapprove of foreign intervention in the Iran-Iraq war. I feel that as long as the war was contained between both Iran and Iraq and neither country violated any international laws, that no foreign powers has the right to intervene in the conflict. Saddam Hussein irrationally used chemical weapons against the Iranian people. Conversely, I place the blame of using such weapons on the countries on the United States, who provided and allowed the export of such chemicals and weapons to Iraq. Although outnumbered, the Iranian government should have never used children as soldiers and mine detectors. I feel as if protecting military equipment and infrastructure should not be as important in a war as protecting innocent women and children. By using children as soldiers, I believe that Iran did conducted itself in a irrational manner.
Now, I know why Iran want to be dependent and have it's own technology since the Iranian government was left unsupported during the war. As it was said in the class, the war was between Iran and the world. It makes sense that they want to be independent since they dont want to risk being left unsupported in case any crisis occurs.
Without knowing the outcome, was the decision of Iran to counter-invade Iraq after two years the right one?
No, even without knowing the outcome it is clear that this decision was a mistake. First, in counter-invading Iraq, Iran rejected an agreement that would have given them reparations and the removal of Iraqi forces from all Iranian territories. These reparations could have been used to help rebuild damaged infrastructure--reconstruction that would have been more effective after two years worth of damage than after eight years. Although it is true that Iran did not know the war would continue for six more years, any amount of military intelligence would have indicated that a continued war with Iraq, given its edge in military technology, would not end quickly. If Iran was not able to collect such intelligence, and was unaware of the strength of the Iraqi military, they should have been especially cautious and accepted the offer made after two years.
Moreover, the logic behind the counter-invasion is only sound if it was possible that Iran could make territorial gains in Iraq. However, Iran should have attempted to acquire intelligence regarding the plausibility of achieving this goal. Even with rudimentary intelligence, it should have been clear that it wasn't very plausible. Iraq had more advanced military technology than Iran, which would make major territorial gains extremely difficult, especially if only human wave attacks were used.
I feel the counter invasion of iraq was the most stupid thing that we did during the war. Iran fight back during 2 years , and got back all of its lands. it could use its victory as a sign of a powerful stablishmnet and show that after all these presures it is still a powerful country and can defend itself but it is not a aggresive country. Iranian could use the situation to show the world their power and desire for peace. and by that they could build a new look in international relations. ans also by accepting the financial offers they could build up all the infrastructurs .
it was absolutly a wrong decision that leaded to alot of death and destruction of the two countries.
I dont think that it makes sense if we define a moral wrong or right in internartional scene. but what world did in Iran- Iraq war was absolutly imoral and wrong. but they dont view this as a moral issue. all that matters is countries interests.
I am Iranian, and I have visited Iran many times, but I never actually knew about the Iran-Iraq war until I saw a picture of martyrs on the road to Shomal. I asked my dad what they were and he told me that they were for people that died in the war. Up until this class I had no idea that it was such a brutal war with such horrific deaths from chemical warfare resulting in no gains for either side. I do blame the United States and the western powers somewhat because they provided Iraq with chemical weapons, and in doing so they violated international law. If it was simply a war between Iran and Iraq, the deaths would not have been so unnecessary because they would have been a result of Iran protecting itself from Iraq, but instead it turned into Iran protecting itself from Iraq+the west. If the west had never got involved they wouldn't have had chemical weapons or as many other weapons. I feel that Iran should not have had child soldiers or used human waves in the war, but in the position they were put in I really think that they didn't have much of a choice. That is the only resource they had to compete with Iraq's weapons and artillery. I also think Khomeini should have stopped the war in May 1982 when he had the chance to avoid this. In the end, I believe that the Iran-Iraq war did a lot to strengthen the government and the people's belief in the power of their country, but it is a huge scar in Iranian history and the million lives that it cost is not in any way worth the gain. I believe it is an example of the horrors that humankind can commit against one another simply for territory and power.
I think that world and mainly by that I mean U.S. behaved wrong when they felt threatened by Iran and then helped Iraq in the war. They provided a lot of chemical weapons and we could see the results of that from the pictures shown in class. $5 billion were given to Iraq to build up their army and get more artillery by the U.S. As known Iranians had more soldiers, but were weak because they didn’t have any good weapons. As a result of helping Iraq in the war, Iran had more than 375 000 people dead because of the war. After the Iranians invaded Iraq in 1982, rest of the world got really scared and almost gave free hands to Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein. Because of that the war was unequal and after the tanker incident the U.S. naval forces really crushed Iran. That was almost as an excuse to start bombing the Iranian fleets and they were already waiting for that to happen. Also the mistake that U.S. forces did when shooting down the plane shows how much they were afraid of Iran, even if they said it was an accident. The fact that Iran used human wave attacks, child soldiers and human mine detectors is just sad. I don’t know who made the decision that people should do that to defend their country, but I don’t approve it. When looking at the result of the war, I think the main casualties were just because of that. Still the war turned out to go their way even though the tactic they used was stupid. I think the war would have turned out much better when they had a chance to end the war in 1982. I think they wanted to pay back to Iraq and crush them, as a result of the interference from other countries, Iran was crushed itself.
1) I believe that from a political standpoint the counter invasion of Iraq made a lot of sense to the Iranian leaders. It helped cement their grip on power and allowed the Theocrats to continue to alter the structures of Iranian society. The use of the symbol of the "martyr," no doubt assisted the regime in "reforming" Iranian society to conform to a stricter interpretation of Islam. Wars can often provide regimes cover to change the social fabric of society.
In addition, there seemed to be potential for the overthrow of Hussein to usher in a Shia Revolution in Iraq. Such a Revolution could have provided Iran with a buffer state against invasion from the other Arab countries. It also would have shown the power of a resurgent Iran... if it had succeeded.
2) I find the actions of the U.S. and Western world to be morally despicable. However, in terms of the economic and national security interests of the West, I'd argue that their decisions were logical. The U.S. was going through the hostage crisis with Iran and Israel faced constant threat from all of its neighbors. A weakened Iran inevitably assisted the Carter/Reagan administration by ensuring that it would not export the Revolution anywhere else.
3) The thoughtless waste of life is a characteristic of any war. Sadly, the Iran/Iraq war is not the first war to use such tactics (Germany and child soldiers at the end of WWI). I find the employment of such methods of warfare disgusting. But, if people are the only advantage you have against the enemy, like it or not, you're going to use them.
I think the use of the people as human mine detectors helped the regime cling to power. This conviction that these people were martyrs reinforced the fundamentalist ideology of the regime.
4) Definitely. I had a passing familiarity with the Iran/Iraq War before the class. However, after seeing the statistics from the war, I definitely have a better grasp of Iran's position. All those people killed, surprise attacks, terror in the cities and the loss of a generation of Iranians. How could the U.S. ever hope to be seen as an impartial mediator in the MIddle East after conduction itself so dishonorably?
I think Iran's decision to counter-invade Iraq was a big mistake, but there were also reasons for it. If they wanted to be free of foreign threats, counter-invasion seemed logical, but due to their own disposition after the revolution, it was not a wise choice at all. I think it was absolutely wrong for the world to help Iraq defeat Iran by providing them with chemical weapons and military support. F***k that! Were other nations truly threatened by Iran despite all of its crippling problems? In lecture we learned that Germany and the United States (under Kennedy) were Iraq's main supporters, and I find it extremely hard to believe that they helped crush Iran because Iran was a real threat. It was not the world's place to create an unfair advantage for Iraq against Iran, and it seems like countries that supported Iraq only wanted to further exploit and control Iran for it's oil interests. I think Iran's war tactics were wrong and inhumane, but then when and where is war not wrong and inhumane? Using children soldiers and human mine detectors is extreme and irrational, but they did what they did to serve themselves as best they could I guess.
I don't support the fact that Iran used human wave soldiers and child soldiers. Its horrifying that you would brainwash young men and children into thinking that this type of thing is even morally ok. This type of brainwashing still happens too, I remember stories in the 2nd grade Farsi books that praised 7 and 8 year-old martyrs that threw themselves in front of tanks to help the war. This is disturbing and wrong on so many levels.
At the same time, and as horrible as it sounds, we don't know how the war would have turned out without these human wave attacks. This issue is very complicated but in general I feel that the use of children in any type of violent act is morally wrong, whether it is as child soldiers or mine detectors.
I strongly disapprove of the world supplying Iraq with chemical warfare. Since the conflict was between Iran and Iraq, I don't think western intervention was necessary or justified. I also think the Iran's war strategies were rudimentary and morally wrong to say the lease. However given their circumstance, I don't know what else they could have done. The world seemed to turned their back on Iran and Iran had to rely on what meager resources they had. Unfortunately, the country's only competitive resource was its large population.
Even though I am obviously against Iran's human wave attacks, I find the Iranian will to defend their country to such a extreme degree admirable and in very stark contrast to our nation's apathy.
I believe there must of been some very good reasons why the whole world except for Syria, decided to side with Iraq. I believe the main reason why the world decided to back Iraq is because most of the Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, were very frightened that Iran would be a model for Islamic revolution everywhere. I believe the world made the right choice. I have seen what can happen when people take a very radical view of the Koran, and decide to commit terrorism in the name of their religion. I have spoken to friends who are Muslim and they all tell me this is not what their religion preaches. As long as Iran sponsors these terrorists I believe that the world in hindsight had made the right choice.
Speaking from a military perspective, I believe Iran made the right decision to attempt to invade Iraq. Iran had to show Iraq and the world that their country can not just be ran over and conquered so easily. They also had to show that their new government had united the country and that their country was able to defend themselves. But in the long run of the 8 year war, their decision to invade Iraq, cost Iran greatly in death tolls and in their economy. Plus it prolonged the war another 6 years, which almost crippled the economy of both countries. When it comes to the topic of Iran using human waves and children as soldiers, the country did not have a modernized military as Iraq did. So Iran did what they had to do to try to survive the war. But Iran's use of human waves did prove to be effective and stopping the invasion of the Iraqi troops.
After reading more about the Iraq/Iran war I do see very clearly why Iran has taken their stance against the rest of the world.
I feel that iran should have taken the treaty offered by iraq and ceased with the counter offensive. Even though the iraqi invasion was a horrible thing, Iran should have predicted some of the bad implications in engaging with iraq, knowing that iraq is supported by many western countries. Not only did iraq receive funding, intellegence, and weapons from western countries, they had far supperior chemical weapons than iran and were not afraid to use them in retalliation of an invasion.
Do you feel it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons?
No, it was not right for the world to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons. It was reckless to give Iraq chemical weapons. This war began over border disputes and religious sects. Giving either country more ammunition would not settle these disputes. After looking at the photographs, I am saddened at the number of innocent lives that were taken and effected by this war. Also, I am disheartened to see that not only did the US sell a large amount of military equipment to Iraq, but they also provided equipment to Iran. It is not problem solving to sell weapons to both countries at war, and would only prolong the war. Also, a majority of the equipment sold to the Shah of Iran did not have replacement parts. Both countries were exploited during the Iraq-Iran war, and innocent populations were left devastated.
Post a Comment