This week we went over the Iran-Iraq war.
You can view a gallery of photos 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.
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?
Below is the catchy propaganda video with English subtitles. Comment on that also if you wish.
Have a good week guys!
-Amir
30 comments:
The child "mine detectors" used by the Iranians were a real low point for them in the war. But if we are talking about who comitted the worst crimes, I would have to go with the Western powers that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. After WW I chemical weapons were prohibited for use in war. The UN eventually made a treaty outlawing their use even by countries who did not ratify the treaty. Like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, The Chemical and Biological non-proliferation treaty at the very least is supposed to protect people by eliminating chemical and bio weapons completely. Even if some countries do not agree to the terms of the treaty, it should stop any countries on the security council from spreading the technology. One problem is that biological and chemical agents that can be used in warfare can also be used for peaceful purposes. But even if Iraq obtained certain bio and chemical agents leagally, they should have been stopped after the first report of deployment of the weapons. Instead they used them again and again while the international community watched. What is most criminal here in my mind is that the UN is deciding to ignore its own rules because the international community does not view Iran's revolutionary government favorably. I have heard of several cases in which the UN has ignored human rights agreements when the victim countries are seen as unimportant such as in Sierra Leone's civil war. In that instance, acts of torture and murder by mercenary armies that were hired by the UN to terrorize the country's population are well documented. To me everything the UN does becomes meaningless if they do not apply their rules to every nation equally. Otherwise it is just a giant depotic type regime that is disguised as a humanitary organization.
Chris W
I think this week's content is a distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
Even without knowing the outcome, it is difficult to say whether Iran should have counter-invaded Iraq. A careful assessment of Iran's standing in international politics might have revealed where they stood as a result of the US embassy hostage crisis. But one must also consider that there seemed to exist a momentum at the time, where things seemed to favor Iran's victory against Iran. Not being an expert on the details of the matter, I feel that I am not eligible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of decision to go into Iraq.
As for the choice of the international community to support Iraq, I don't think it should be a matter of right or wrong. That always depends on which perspective you approach the issue from. All actors were acting in their interests at the time. I feel that it was wrong to provide Iraq with chemical weapons, but am not completely against one country taking sides with one over the other in any war. As cruel as it may sound (this'll probably anger many of Iranian descent, but that is not my aim here), it seems like a smart move for the United States to have supported both Iran and Iraq, therefore greatly weakening two countries in the region that they saw as potential enemies.
As for the desperate tactics employed by the Iranian government, I could go either way. Governments are responsible for the choice to go to war, but soldiers are held responsible for their conduct in war. What is clear is that the soldiers (especially children) were the biggest victims in the Iran-Iraq war. Regardless of how atrocious wars can be, there are certain laws of war that should be upheld even in times of desperation. For those that argue "by all means necessary," such rhetoric is sure to invite uglier and more horrific consequences, where no distinction between soldiers and civilians are made. Abiding by rules only in times of convenience only leads to chaos. There was a reason why the international community created numerous international laws pertaining to warfare following the end of WWII. If child soldiers are used by Iran, what is to keep Iraqi soldiers from engaging any Iranian children with the justification that they thought the children were now lawful combatants? Ends do not always justify the means, and I think the same can be said for this case. As mentioned in previous blog, I sympathize with the Iranian people at the time (especially the human wave of soldiers), who seemed to have fallen victim to those acquiring power by exploiting the desperation of the people.
I agree with the other responses, but I would just add that I think it is important not to make one side appear worse than the other. Both are guilty of horrible human rights violations, and those should not be made light of or pushed to the side (I'm not saying anyone is doing this, just saying it shouldn't be done). On the one hand, you have Iran using its human wave attacks and children as mine detectors. Still on the other, there is Iraq and its use of chemical weapons, which were supplied by the West. I cannot condone the actions of any of the parties no matter the situations. In short, what little idea I have gotten of this war is that it was a very unfortunate conflict, and no one seemed to respond to it very well.
As for the propaganda, that video may have one of the catchiest songs I've ever heard. It certainly seems that it would be effective (definitely more so than the other propaganda videos seen so far in class). It conveyed its message in a way that was sure to be almost annoyingly memorable.
I should say that what irritated me most was the fact that the UN all the other nations who were against the new government didn't even bother to consider what was happening to the people. In international relations its important to realize if it's the people or the government that we are interacting with. I always thought the whole purpose of the UN was to overlook how the conditions created against a government affects the people and try to change them to the benefit of the the people as humanbeings. I guess I was wrong. Regarding the Iranian youth being killed by the hands of their own government, I should say eventhough it is completely inhumane, it saved many lost lands. So the question is whether the victims chose to die based on their patriotic emotions or their emotions for people like Khomeini who called for the help in war. I think you'll find the answer if you'd ask an Iranian who hates the government right now if he would protect the country in case some foreign country tries to take over Iran again.Maybe some of them actually cared about their country.I think it would be disrespectful to call them victims.
I think that it is understandable that Iran entered into war with Iraq. I think many countries would have done the same. However, I do not believe that under any circumstances children should be sent to war, as soldiers or a mine detectors. It is simply inhumane, in my opinion. Human wave attacks by fully informed adults who have enlisted, while a sure way to have high casualties, is, in my opinion, a legitimate military tactic. I think it is a way of showing superior power over an enemy, if used properly, because it requires immense nationalistic sympathies on the part of the country's people. Also because, if successful in today's world, it takes determination to overcome such small odds.
In terms of the Unites States' involvement, I think it is understandable that the US would support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war but I do not think that it is acceptable to supply them with chemical weapons. It is not acceptable to use chemical weapons today in the US and in many other countries and so, it should not be acceptable to endorse the use of those same weapons in another country. It is also unacceptable for a country who has outlawed such weapons to support the spread of the use of these weapons by supplying them to another country, such as Iraq.
I do not think one side is any better than the other. There is no excuse for using children as mine detectors nor the use of chemical and biological weapons. I do not belive it is realistic to expect that chemical and bilogical weapons are non-existent, but I do believe it is possible to live in a world where children and women are respected and protected.
Without knowing in advance that the counter invasion would be a complete waste of life and money, I can understand how Iran stubbornly counter invaded Iraq and refused its propositions for a cease fire. Since Iranian domestic politics were still in disarray, it would be uplifting for the country's morale to see some progress into Iraq. The first propaganda video's main draw is the fact that they are going to capture the Shia city of Karbala. From a logistic point of view, I think the counter invasion was a dumb idea. They had to spend even more money, which they did not have or should have used at home. Also, since they had less weapons the had to use the controversial human wave and child soldiers tactics for their offensive. If these are the only methods that you have to defend yourself, that is tragic but it is the only option. Furthermore, even if parents volunteered these children, they should not be allowed to fight or detect mines, even as a defense. Human waves was the most feasible defense tactic, but as an offensive it meant gratuitous death and suffering, especially in the context of a stalemate on both sides of the border. Also, even if the foreign powers were threatened before, the counter attack pushed their enemies into action. Even Russia who had not sold weapons to Iraq before decided to reopen the floodgates. Foreign governments have sold military weapons and provided training for a long time, and I hate to be fatalistic but it's so common it is hard to judge. In any case, I think the chemical weapons should never have reached Iraqi hands. Iraq already had a military advantage in most cases, and the use of chemical weapons was cruel, not to mention their physical effects even more far reaching the the lengthy war itself. Looking at this war alone does not really clarify Iran's position on foreign policy completely. However, when taken in context as yet another foreign intervention by more superpowers I can see how Iran is very distrustful of Westerners' overtures. It seems their political interests in the Middle East are always shifting and their economic interests are not meant to benefit anyone but themselves and the Iranians who grant the concessions. Of course, not everything can be blamed on foreign powers. Iran doesn't seem to leave itself with much wiggle room for negotiating with foreign powers. Although I thought the example of Iranian officials hopes for reciprocation after they helped in Afghanistan was very interesting.
The issue of using human wave attacks is one that I am split between. Although personally I do not support sacrificing the lives of humans so rashly and without thoughts to the individuals, I also acknowledge, however, that most that were part of Basij were those who volunteered to fight and who thought they were doing what was right for their nation and Islam. Watching the propaganda video and aware that it is meant to be a persuasive film, I could see why the government and some of the Basij felt it was necessary to use those tactics. Most did it in the name of God and were fighting for their nation that they had just put so much effort into trying to reform and unite it during the revolution. As an agnostic, I don’t support wars in the name of any higher power but I have learned to at least acknowledge their devotion to their beliefs. As for the child miners, I in no way support that. At such an age I believe a child has much to learn before making such decisions, such as being a human sacrifice for a religion or a nation.
As for the world’s contribution to the war, again I am split. Of course and I am sure everyone else would agree that they would prefer a peaceful resolution rather then the support of a war by the selling weapons and sending military support. Again though, it based off of the idea of national security strategies. Being a US citizen, a piece of me understands that the US would try to obtain any resource it can to improve the livelihoods and security of their citizens (or at least that’s their legitimization argument for most of its foreign policy decisions). In the case of the war, the US was concerned that Iran would take control of Iraq’s oil supply and spread the revolution’s ideals. However, I see selling chemical weapon and missiles that could easily wipe out cities as inhuman on the part on the US and the rest of the world. It disturbing that to preserve the security of one people, another is willingly discarded. Iran’s people were easily discarded, which is way I also understand Iran’s cynical position in most foreign matters.
There was a surge of nationalism among the Iranians, which explains the use of children as soldiers and mine detectors. This was very wrong. I don’t think that the Iranian victory was as important as the commitment to human life. But, I do see that the emotions had overcome all forms of thought at the time. All Iranians came together (all upper/middle classes joined the cause).
It’s really confusing that both Moscow and Washington professed neutrality, yet the two provided Iraq with financial, diplomatic and intelligence backing [“Soon the US Central Intelligence Agency made its intelligence on Iran available to Iraq on a regular basis”]. And Iran on the other hand was fighting this war out of its own, without any foreign assistance. The Iraqi use of chemical weapons was completely immoral, and the nations that provided Iraq with such weaponry were very wrong in this doing. I strongly disliked the incident due to the USS Vincennes mistake in recognizing the flight that left the Bandar Abbas airport as the F-14 warplane.
The question regarding whether I think it was right for the world to provide Iraq with chemical weapons is conflicting because lines of right and wrong become blurred during war...at least for those in power during war. Providing chemical weapons is certainly not foreign to US military strategy. What I find most absurd about it is that America usually ends up apologizing for it in cases such as agent orange in Vietnam or the nuclear bomb in Japan. They apologize because it effects future generations and quite frankly, in the bittersweet stage of hindsight it is immoral. But yet, isn't killing people immoral in the first place? This question troubles me for this reason.
I don't think it was right for the world to provide Iraq with chemical weapons. Even if the world had a thought that if Iran sees how much weapon and strength Iraq had, maybe Iran will surrender, that is not always the case. And particularly in this case where Iran's own land was invaded, we can assume that the invaded country will probably fight against the invasion no matter how strong the enermy is, until their land is protected.
But more importantly, I don't think the world should have provided weapons to Iraq because by doing that, it implies that they support and encourage war and further disruption. I feel that such acts are decided to be done just by considering the direct results and the immediate outcome, not by considering what that act would mean, or what kind of effects it would leave on people in the long term. But it should be more considered especially when interfering with other countries.
It is very difficult for me to think critically about child participation in the Iran-Iraq War. Personally, I am opposed to it—like many others have stated, I do not think children have developed to the point where they can choose to participate in such violence. Simultaneously, that statement is a slippery slope: at what age to children reach the age where they can decide to sacrifice themselves in war? There is no real binary between child and adult. Why would an 18 year old be more capable of enlisting her- or himself in the army?
Those issues aside, the reason I think I am unqualified, at this point, is that I grew up an agnostic, Californian. I do not hold particularly strong nationalistic sentiments and religion does not play a substantial role in my life. These influences have developed and cultivated who I am and how I think. From what we have learned in class, it seems that many Iranians during 1980-1988 were the opposite: they very nationalistic and connected to Islam. As such, I cannot fully grasp—or judge—the actions of these children and, to a lesser extent, their parents, with whom I share so few common experiences. So, while it is easy to say that Iranians are evil or that their actions are reprehensible, I think these statements overlook the bigger picture—that simply because I do not understand it, simply because my local society tells me it is wrong and evil, does not necessarily make it so.
Even without knowing the result of Iran's counter offensive, I don't think it was a wise decision. At the time they were already lacking in ammunition so their military wasn't able to support the human wave attacks like they did earlier in the war. This seems to me to be a good reason to stop where they were. They had successfully driven the Iraqi soldiers out of their country, their forces were depleted, and they knew Iraq would be stronger on their home territory. On top of all this, they already knew about most of the world's support for Iraq when Iraq was on the offensive. And they knew of and had seen the effects of the chemical weapons that we were supplying to Iraq. If that was how the world responded to Iraq invading Iran, I can't imagine that attacking Iraqi soil would be a good idea. If I was leading the Iranian military at the time I would be very conscious of potential consequences resulting from the world's reaction to my actions when considering an offensive on Iraqi soil.
I'm not sure how I feel about chemical weapons. They are obviously incredibly inhumane and Iraq's use of them against civilians is inexcusable. That being said, war isn't pretty. I don't even really know what to think about the concept of 'war ethics'. It's hard for me to justify drawing a line between stabbing somebody, shooting somebody, and using mustard gas. Obviously the gas is unbelievably painful, but I don't really know how concerned a nation should be with an enemy's suffering (This isn't to say I support chemical warfare by any means. I just don't know much about ethics in war or what that even means. Obviously it would be better if war didn't happen but unfortunately that isn't the case).
I don't like the idea of children fighting or of human mine detectors. Maybe in some extreme circumstance where not using children to fight would mean that everybody will die, it would be permissible. But if you have already defended your borders and the opposing side is offering a truce, no country should use children to invade another country. If you are invading another country and your forces are depleted to the point where you need children to fight, it seems you are already in a bad position and maybe you should reconsider fighting at all. Human mine detectors express a lack of respect for human life. I can't imagine that nobody could think of a better way to scour for mines than to send humans out and see if they get blown up.
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is one of the countries most severely afflicted by "weapons of mass destruction,” which serves as a possible reason behind their distrust of the west. Since it is a fact that it was the US, who supplied the chemical weapons to Iraq. Neither Iran nor Iraq made significant territorial or political gains from the war, and the fundamental issues dividing the countries remained unresolved even until now. The US in my opinion should have not supplied any weapons to Iraq and should have played a mediator role. The US supplying the weapons to Iraq goes to show the political drama that the US continues to even act out today. The war in Iraq is one such event. This drama is also seen when the U.S. declared neutrality, yet the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers. This was a unfortunate event, which again was due to the politcal drama that the US government demonstated.
In answering the question of whether one feels that it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with military support and chemical weapons I want to express that I feel that it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR! I feel that Iraq saw Iran as an easy target not only because Iran "isolated itself" with the hostage crisis but also because Iran had just undergone a revolution which left the country in turmoil. Obviously, since Egypt was no longer the center of Arab leadership at the time, Saddam wanted to assume that role. Iraq also had ambitions to control the shatt al-arab waterway, to annex Khuzestan, and eventually overthrow the revolutionary government in Tehran (as discussed in lecture) which I'm sure sat well with foreign powers who aided Iraq in their territorial motivations. We began to see Israel selling chemical weapons to Iraq, and Reagan supported the U.S. arm supply to Iraq. What is more disturbing is that in 1982 the U.S removed Iraq from its "terrorist" list which enabled them to give Iraq funds, intelligence, chemical weapons, and biological warfare capabilities. Its unfair because although Iran had the man power on its side, Iraq had the artillery and support from almost the entire world. The war caused many deaths and economic damages. Mustard gas was used against Iranian troops and civilians alike and that is a gross violation of human rights and we must not forget that the United States was the second world supplier of chemical weapons to Iraq.
In my opinion the decision by Iran to turn around two years later and invade Iraq, was beneficial to Iran, although detrimental to many of its citizens, Iraqis, and the perception of Iran in the eyes of rest of the world.
First and foremost this show of clout, power, will, and fervor, embedded in the minds of most global citizens that Iran was a strong nation, not necessarily in might, but definitely in sheer will power, as well as it being a nation not to mess with. In the long run this has made Iran an influential player (although not necessarily in a positive way) in the region, and subsequently this acquisition of power and international clout has allowed them to keep a slight stranglehold over other countries. This power is based mostly off of fear and is clear today in the international community’s worry over whether or not Iran is enriching uranium for civilian use or has an ulterior motive to carry out such processes. Their ideological will power and belief in fighting for their land and even more evolved into a fervent nationalism on par with that during and following the 1979 Revolution. However, even though their decision to continue to fight Iraq and demonstrate their power, their methods were not ethically or morally right on many levels. Many Iranians were clumped together as morally inept and incoherent for their seemingly unwavering use of child soldiers, human shields, and child “mine detectors.” Among the international community this only continued to cement Iran as a pariah state, although they were simultaneously able to gain more pull within the international community, mostly out of fear. For Iranians now this may seem like a good thing but back when it occurred millions died, chemical and biological weapons were used, and even child soldier and mine detectors were used, all of which made Iran appear desperate, inconsiderate of human life, and extremely aggressive. I think what they did had a good effect or at least a beneficial effect on Iran in the long run but the way in which it was carried out was highly unethical and the fact that so many died makes it even worse. They could definitely have pursued other alternatives to such death and destruction and still gotten the effect they wanted.
Once again, the idea of "right," insofar as the word implies something to do with justice in contrast to the exclusive prerogative to use force, seems wholly out of place in a discussion of what governments should or should not do. Governments typically do what they can get away with within the sphere of their interests.
If we're trying to hone in on ethical considerations, "the world" (and I think it's an important point that it has only ever been the colonizing or formerly colonizing world that have "felt threatened by Iran) would have been better of had it considered why, and what it its past caused it to feel threatened. There isn't much in the EuroAmerican posture toward Iran (then or now for that matter) that doesn't highlight the duplicity in all of its rhetoric on 'justice,' 'freedom,' human rights,' etc.
Human wave attacks: fine. Those cats had moxy of a stripe that inductees in first-world corporate militaries (whether the military depends on volunteers as in the American model or forces all citizens to participate in its bloodletting as in the Israeli model) can't possibly match, regardless of the sophistication of their weaponry.
The child soldier thing is indeed problematic, especially in that the kids didn't choose their level of involvement as opposed, presumably to the adults and young adults who participated in the human wave attacks. That being said, I'm not sure how I'd feel, were I a parent, if I thought that my child's options were either 1: probable death in service to the polity, or 2: almost certain servitude before a foreign invader and would be (or extant) occupier.
Rather than reflecting thought or an attempt to understand, comments like, "If someone wants to live in a country where children are sent to be butchered on a war front, and afterwards continue to live under the men that ordered their murder then be my guest, I will not justify it" reflect in actuality, i think, the kind of racist arrogance that is presupposed by any colonial project. Yes, the child soldier thing is enormously problematic, and some folks should likely be taken to task in some way by a justice system controlled by the society in which these "obscene and unjustifiable" events occurred. But this would be a far cry from implicating the whole of a national body, which one must certainly do in order to define "a country" (in the case of this example Iran) as a place where, definitionally, "children are sent to be butchered on a war front." I'd have to ask in response, what's the ethical difference between that situation and one in which no discrimination is made between the killing children and adults, civilians and military as in the case of the recent onslaught on Gaza? Can allowing for the death of your own child be a wit worse ethically than actively killing the child of your neighbor?
Hey Amir,
I’m the ONE guy that did the readings last week that received a free block post exemption!! I’m gonna save it till later in the course.
1) Iran’s reasoning for proceeding with the war when they started gaining the upper hand on the war is completely understandable. If I was an Iranian politician at the time, I would have wanted to “punish” Saddam for his decision of initializing the war. Yet, if the Iranians would have called off the war at the end of the ‘first period’, there would have been a significant reduction in casualties. It wasn’t until Iran started moving onto Iraqi soil did Iraq receive the bulk of its military supplies from foreign super powers. So, in light of all the young men and children that were killed on the front lines, along with the women and families that were killed in the bombings, I feel that, morally, there would have been no other option but to call off the war. If I was Khomenei, the second that the Iranians regained the original borders, I would have signed the proposed treaty established by the UN and call it off. To make Saddam pay for his notorious acts, I would establish a secret organization that would be devoted to destroying Iraq’s economy. And, while the country was falling apart, I would establish a Special Op group to kill him. This way, countless innocent lives would be spared from war.
2) Absolutely NOT! I think it’s despicable that America and Germany sold chemical weapons to Iraq during a time of war. It’s ridiculous. No excuse. Let people fight their own war.
3) War is a terrible thing and I really don’t think third party observers(like us) have any right to judge countries that are in the midst of war. Iran was caught completely off guard and had to defend itself. The children lost in the mine fields is a definite tragedy, and I’m completely ignorant of land mine searching, haha, and don’t know any well defined techniques of finding land mines so I can’t really compare and contrast. Never the less, it’s a heated subject because Iran was desperate to defend themselves, yet, the plain fact of using innocent children as mine detectors is unbelievable to me. So overall, I really don’t have a directed opinion, sorry.
4) Learning more about the Iran-Iraq war has helped me a lot to understand Iran’s suggestively negative attitude towards the United States. We helped kill a million Iranians with chemical weapons. It’s such a tragedy. Before I took this course, I never even knew about the Iran-Iraq war. I struggle to be the most non-ignorant person that I can be, haha, but it’s interesting how I was going to public school for twelve years, taking at least one history class each grade, and this war was never mentioned. Blows my mind. Maybe the teachers would be required to filter so much information that they don’t even bother teaching it. I don’t know. I hated high school and never went so, maybe it was covered and I never knew about it.
sorry, I meant "BLOG POST" haha, damn.
Those were some cool pictures.
In retrospect, I'm indifferent about Iraq's handling of the war. Using children as mine-detectors was of course terribly inhumane, but that's warfare! All's fair in war--that's why war is so ugly (why are we trying to beautify something that is inherently inhumane?). I'm sure Iranians were not excited for their children to be minesweepers, but it was either that or get conquered by Iraq (apparently, a worse fate for the Iranians).
In addition, I don't think it was right for the world to provide military support and weapons supplies to either Iraq or Iran. The world should not have encouraged the war!
As it has been mentioned before, i dont think children should be involved in wars. however, when a group of people love their country, land, heritage and cultrue, they will go to any means possible to stay in control of there country. I haent done reseach about it but i do not think majority of children were forced to go to war.
As human mine detectors is concerned, animals were used if available. However, when there are no technological ways of detecting such element like mines, what should the soldiers or the citizens of a country do.
Also, i believe in one of the blogs of our classmates, there was a statement about war-rules and things in that area. the only thing i would like to say is that during wars, there are no rules. the ways of fighting is changes as time passes and is a never ending process. Going back in history, the honorable way of fighting in the war between United Kingdom and the "Americans" was that they soldiers had to stay in lines and shoot straight at one another. however, we see the weaker side which one use other means which was taking cover behind build or natural elements.
*When I use the words moral or immoral in this post I am referring to what is genuinely considered acceptable during war by treaties like the Geneva conventions.
Like all wars the Iran-Iraq War included evil/inhumane acts by all parties, including 3rd parties to the conflict. I have no moral problem with a country picking a side in a war--selling arms to Iraq was not in itself immoral, selling chemical weapons, banned by treaties signed by Western powers was.
It is incredible how a country as divided as Iran at the time of the invasion was able to unite the country, but that does not condone the use of child soldiers--which I consider a lower point than chemical weapons (chemical weapons used on child soldiers though..). Human wave attacks were used in WWI by every western power--they only seem immoral in hindsight because they were forced by the threat of death.
I think the Iran-Iraq War certainly defines how Iran views countries like the US as a threat. It is interesting that the US also sold arms to Iran, which might have actually reinforced the belief that the US is completely self serving.
There is no doubt about war being the most awful and cruel situation a country can find itself in. It costs too many lives, leaves the country in a collective trauma and builds up even more hate in the aftermath of the war as the cruelties and victims won’t be forgotten. This is still true for Iran and Iraq as well. The child detectors and the use of just huge waves of soldiers seem of course horrible to people, who never really were confronted with desperate military tactics. However what disturbs me the most is actually two things. First of all the call for sacrificing yourself for your country and Islam is such a tragic thing, if we consider the pride and will of soldiers who thought their death would at least mean something. The connection to religious purposes is always dangerous as is makes rational thoughts and approaches to a legal conduct of war obsolete. All that matters is the pure self defense and pride of the religous community in which a life means nothing compared to the power of defending religion and nation. The interference of the US is another point that really made me think about the abysmal depths of international relations. Supplying countries with inhuman and outlawed weapons is not only immoral considering the role that the US always claims to play in international democracy and human rights development, it is also ambiguous when we look at how the Iraq-US relations went on in history. Perhaps future generations at least learn from these mistakes.
The US funding Saddam Hussein and Iraq against Iran wasn't something I am proud of, especially considering our tendency to play dictators in countries off against one another and then turn around and dispose of them immediately, all mostly regardless of the general population's wishes, but I would agree with wotdatninja said about perspective. The US doubtlessly had reasons, however flawed, as well as the rest of the world, no matter how unfair to Iran. It is also important to remember the world circumstances at this time period. Cold War tensions were high and in the fantastic American-militaristic fashion of finding some enemy to vanquish in a capitalism crusade, Iran pretty much just got screwed. Given the lack of even my conception at the time, I find it hard to feel guilty, but Iran got screwed for being different and high attentions because of its strategic location next to the USSR.
As for the child mine detectors, I feel this is not as black and white as it seems. In a desperate situation, desperate moves would have to be made, and Iran clearly made them. But again, remember the circumstances of Iran versus the rest of the world, and as well the cultural differences here. What we consider human rights are not exactly, word for word, the same in an Islamic culture. I'm not saying Islam promotes child slaughter, but there is a tradition of martyrdom and a strong belief in fighting to protect Islam. I think this had a very large effect on children volunteering because of societal indoctrination. The US is very different, but after all, we sent teens into battle in Vietnam, and child soldiers are common in many different countries amongst the third world. Given the situation, Iran used everything they had, and triumphed. They have not forgotten the sacrifices of those children who gave their lives.
The Iranians use of child soldiers was wrong as was the Iraqi use of chemical agents. However, in both cases, each was simply clinging to whatever slight advantage that presented itself in particularly dire moments of the war. The Iranians had a far higher population that fueled it's human wave attacks. The Iraqi's, though not by any virtue of their administration, were showered with foreign aid and made use of it when possible. It was a brutal struggle and the longest of the 20th century and each country was desperate. War crimes tend to happen within such context. Consequently, I believe the onus should fall on the the rest of the world for taking responsibility for any crimes against humanity that may have transpired. Countries that gave loans or weapons to either country lengthened the war and thus allowed more atrocities to take place. And to what end? It's true that nobody could have known the wars outcome but supplying it for so long only encouraged the bloody stalemate.
There is no ethical basis for using children as mine detectors. I understand the utilitarian argument for such a tactic, but it simply does not hold up in any way. The fact that some of the children volunteered for the task does not make it any better, as they were too young to fully understand what they were doing.
As for our funding and supplying weapons to Iraq, we did not do the right thing. The US has a history of sticking its head into situations that it shouldn't and it often backfires, just like it did in this case. I understand that we had reasons to back a side in the war, but supplying weapons only escalates the situation. Yet we wonder why a lot of the world hates us.
After reading up on the Iran-Iraq War, I think that even without knowin g the outcome, I understand why they counter-attacked and refused ceasefire offers. Amidst a revolution, keeping the war going was in essence affecting the revolution, and keeping the unity behind the war was important to Khomenei.
On the topic of children being used as mine detectors, I believe it is completely sadistic. Even if you argue that it was for the country, religion, or whatever, subjecting an innocent child who doesn't understand the entire situation he or she has been thrust into is completely inhuman. Also, using children as soldiers is just as bad, in my opinion.
I feel that it was not necessarily wrong that the world provided support for Iraq. In these situations, it is necessary for countries to act in their best interests. If supporting Iraq meant providing a country more security, then so be it. What I do not agree with is the use of chemical weapons. war is already dirty and deadly, and to use these chemicals to kill is terrible. There are laws that agree with me, and its a shame to see they are not being enforced when needed. I feel like I do understand a bit more about Iran's position in terms of foreign policy, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? eight deadly years might say no.
I just hate seeing this video because it reminds me of the child "mine detectors" and the waves of men brainwashed into thinking that they will go to a higher paradise if they tie a bandana around their heads and literally sworm the line of Iraqi tanks. As an Iranian exile, this reminds me why I hate this so-called "Islamic Republic" who sends their innocent to die. Just as the Islamic Republic have blood on their hands, so does the United States and Germany. Both of whom supplied chemical weapons that still affect the Iranians who haven't died from it today. Germany should be blamed for using Iranians as test subjects: selling chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iranians. They would then treat some Iranians for free to see what the physiological effects were. Thanks for always looking out for the best interest of the international community guys!
Post a Comment