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 to hear 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, keep on the lookout for more opportunities to post.
-Amir
27 comments:
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
The idea of it is disgusting, but the use of human power against Saddam's number of weapons says something important about Iran at that time: the Iranian sense of nationality was already deep and embedded in its people. If people were willing to devote their lives for their nation, its clear that these were passionate people of state. This is further seen in the fact that the Sunnis within Iran did not help the Iraqis unlike what Saddam predicted would happen. National identity at this point overruled tribal identities.
In light of understanding more about the war, do you feel like you understand Iran's position (in terms of foreign policy) better?
I feel like Iran's foreign policy is still very complicated and confusing despite understanding the war. Middle Eastern politics in general is extremely messy. If you haven't seen The Daily Show's "America to the Rescue" video clip I highly recommend it in order to understand the number of mistakes US foreign policy have created.
Back on topic here, the Iran-Iraq War just seems to have aggravated Iran further, and it doesn't seem like a huge surprise that there's anti-American sentiment. After the coup... after providing weapons to Saddam... in general America created its own problems with Iran. Declaring war against Iran would be the perfect cherry on top to seal all the anti-American sentiment which would make Iran the "martyr" state in the Middle East for standing up against the "big, bad bully".
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
Many people view these forms of defense as disgusting and inhumane, but they fail to recognize the circumstances in which they are employed. The best way to approach this question is with understanding and not criticism. The West is continuously critical of suicide bomb attacks and other "inhumane" forms of self-defense. However, Iran, and other nations that have been subjected to this criticism, had the capabilities and the military industrial complex to defend themselves with tanks, jets, and advanced weaponry, they would definitely choose those methods over the aforementioned ones. Tanks and jets are much more effective than human wave attacks and child soldiers. Iran would most likely prefer trained and physically capable adult soldiers to children; just as advanced mine detectors would be more beneficial than the use of humans. It is not that this culture is sadistic and barbaric, but that they defend themselves with what resources are available and in the best way that they believe to be possible.
Just as our forefathers and the revolutionaries practiced methods thought to be untraditional by the British, Iran is practicing warfare in their best way possible. With the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolutionaries destroyed English merchandise. To the British, the colonists must have seemed to be terrorist—people practicing Guerilla warfare (in the form of militia) and destroying trade goods. In no way am I condoning the practices of Iran, but I ask that the matter be considered from other perspectives.
Do you feel it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons?
Under the politics of the time, many of the decisions taken can be questioned. I believe both nations were in a strategic war that would determine their future as sovereign states. Answering the question, I don’t believe it was wrong for the world to sell military weapons to Iraq, since in every conflict through history theirs always allies and trade partners. However, I’m completely against the use of chemical weapons since they serve as the means for direct atrocities against civilians. What we have to understand and observe of the conclusion of this conflict is the UN’s lack of power to judge and sanction those involved in the trade of chemical weapons.
I don’t feel that it is right that the world supported Iraq by providing them with aid and weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. I believe in the self-determination of nations, and I think that as long as the fighting was contained between the two countries and no international laws were being violated that no foreign powers should have been involved in the conflict. However, I do think that there were laws being violated by both sides of the fight. Saddam Hussein was wrong to have used chemical weapons against the Iranian people, but I place the blame of using such weapons on the countries, like the United States, who provided and allowed the export of such chemicals and weapons to Iraq. On the same token, I fell that Iran acted wrongly in their handling of the war. Although outnumbered, the Iranian government should have never used children as soldiers and mine detectors. I don’t think that protecting military equipment and infrastructure should be as important in a war as protecting innocent women and children. By using children as soldiers, I believe that Iran did more harm to itself than it did to Iraq.
Learning the history of the Persian nation can really help one understand the current policies and attitudes of Iran towards the rest of the world. From the CIA coup against a popularly elected leader to an event such as the Iran-Iraq war where the entire world turned their backs on the people of Iran, the suspicion and paranoia of the current regime can be put into context.
The war, the longest convential war in modern history, seems to definately be a major point in Iranian history and play a large role in the minds of the Persian people even today. Isolated from the rest of the world, left to fend for themselves against an invading Iraqi force, one can see why Iran would be suspicious of foreign powers, especially western ones such as America which supplied the invaders. The world selling Iraq chemical weapons was a massively hypocritcal as well as immoral act. Considering that a decade later the world would condemn Iraq for its supply of and use of WMD's, including chemical weapons is hypocritical when we sold them to Iraq in the first place, and did not even condemn their use on Iranian civilians!
The use of human wave attacks, while tragic, should also be taken in context of the situation and culture. As far as I know the Basij force was a voluntary one, and the members were greatly regarded. The willingness of these people to die for their country when no other option was available points to the intense sense of nationalism present in Iran, a fact backed also by the Iranian-Arab support of Iran rather than Iraq during the war. Still, the use of children is reprehensible, and I believe unjustified even in those most dire of circumstances which Iran was facing at the time.
I think that counter-invading Iraq certainly helped Iran in the war, but I find Iran's methods of fighting so upsetting that I'm not sure if it was the correct move. That said, I find it disgusting that the world supported Iraq and provided them with terrible weapons. We hear so much about children that fought in Sierra Leone but we never hear about how Iran fought Iraq and exposed their children to the world's deadliest chemicals and weapons.
While it seems impractical that Iran would have "turned the other cheek" and tried to use peace and diplomacy to stop the war, I think that course of action would have changed the way that the world responded to Iran and it may have allowed them to clear their name more after the hostage situation.
The idea of using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors is quite disturbing but unfortunately a lot about war is disturbing. Once you explained the substantial advantage that Iraq had with regards to military weapons over Iran; it is understood. The Iranians used the only weapons that they had. They outnumbered the Iraqis quite a bit. Had they not used these methods they could have possibly not only lost even more lives than they did. Whose to say that Iraq could have succeeded in taking over the land they were seeking.
If the world feels threatened by Iran, a country that has no history of invading anybody for a few thousand years, it makes me question our notion of the world more than it does my idea of Iran. That said, with regard to the question posed as to the legitimacy of aid supplied to Iraq during the Iraq / Iran conflict, I find it completely unacceptable that anyone aided Iraq. First, the use of chemical weapons anywhere is completely indefensible. It is indefensible because of the indiscriminate nature of such chemical weapons that do not isolate only soldiers on the field but anyone else in the vicinity. On a ground level battle that would be civilians. These chemical weapons, as we have seen, also adversely affect generations to come. Secondly, there was also a territorial dispute with regard to the land that Iraq was laying claim to that closer scrutiny does not support. This in turn throws our motives as financial and strategic allies in to doubt. Finally, there was the sheer hypocrisy of our military support for a regime that we have since criticized and bombed for its behavior under our watch. We've all seen the famous picture of Donald Rumsefeld handing Saddam Hussein the gift of cowboy spurs during the eighties. Essentially, we are taking the position that atrocities are okay by our allies--in fact we will financially and militarily support them--if we have a strategic interest in the area. All this is to say then that we lose ultimately on the only front that counts in the long term when you make claims to virtue: the moral one.
Without knowing the outcome of the war, it was a gamble for Iran to counter-invade Iraq after two years of war. If Iran had advanced further into Iraq and captured the city of Basra, they would have blocked Iraq's access to open waters and would have disrupted the country's oil production which could be interpreted as wining the war. However things did not go as planned, and Iraq with the help of west pushed the Iranian army back to their border.
It would be difficult to support or condemn Iran's use of human wave attacks and human mine detectors, since it is hard to determine whether the military commanders knowingly manipulated the soldiers against their own will to carry out these missions, or the soldiers actually volunteered to this for their country. Many of the soldiers saw it as their religious duty do defend Islam and the Islamic Republic, and based on their religious views volunteered for these missions.
I must say that my initial reaction to human wave attacks and child soldiers was unfathomable,much like many of the other commentators. However, after sleeping on the idea for a few nights, I gained an appreciation for the degree of foresight and courage that existed amongst the Iranian people who realized that they really did not have much of a choice. They knew that many lives were at stake either way, and chose to fight to the best of their ability so that other lives could be salvaged. As hard a decision as it was to make, they understood that it was better to save some lives than to see all their people suffer under the ruins of a full-fledged Iraqi attack, and for that, a part of me commends them. But I'm uncertain if I would be capable of making such a choice myself.
I don't feel that the world was threatened by Iran, they were just obeying whatever the U.S. wanted and avoided helping Iran. If the rest of the world felt threatened by Iran, i'm sure they would have helped Iraq as much as the U.S. did, but but because they only wanted to not appease the U.S., the rest of the world just stayed out of the way.
Although it is a terrible strategy, the human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors, all worked for Iran and helped them do well in the war against Iraq, but it wasn't enough to stop Iraq and the U.S. When I asked my family about how parents allowed their children to be human mine detectors, they said that it was an honor for them to have their children die for their national and especially religious cause. At times, parents would be disappointed if their children did not die protecting their country and religion. It is obvious why Iran does not get along with the U.S. and its imperialsim. Iranians are very stubborn people and will not be forced to do anything, especially by a bully who is trying to take over their country.
Although Iraq based framed their position on the threat that Iran posed to them through Shi'ite Islamic revolution, and support for the Kurds, I believe the main underlying goal of Saddam Hussein's Iraq was to win the battle over oil. In this sense, I cannot condone the world's support in providing weapons to Iraq. I believe it is wrong for the world to support a war between two countries, and pick sides. War is far to subjective for countries not directly involved to understand, let alone support. I believe it sends the wrong message to the world when certain governments provide chemical weapons to countries in war. It is a far too drastic form of aid which only carries the implications of a global war, which we experienced in the first two World Wars. Yet, we will continue to see a system of this sort play itself out among allies. The forming of supportive relationships between countries, especially in a time of globalization, is an inevitable process.
Although one may argue that child soldiers and human mine dectectors helped Iran during the war, I could never support such tactics. This exemplifies the inhumane nature of war, and the ability of governments to put economical and territorial gains above human life. Descendants of this view would argue that these tactics enabled Iran to "save lives" in the long run. Such an argument is too hypothetical to bear any weight or credibility.
With regards to question 1, I think the decision to counter-invade Iraq would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, overthrowing Saddam would throw out the balance of power within the country in much the same way it has in the current Iraq war. The military and Sunni elite would resist invasion at all costs and would have to be completely crushed in order to make the campaign successful. This would cause more tensions and/or hostilities with the other Arab countries in the Middle East. Second, Iran already knew it was isolated on the world scene based before it counter-attacked Iraq. It's decision to go ahead with it seems like it severely overestimates Iranian power compared to the global military forces. Finally, by counter-invading the Iranians knew they were giving up a very valuable peace concession in return for a plan with questionable benefits, and they were endangering many more lives. Overall, I think the idea of counter-attacking was unnecessary and not rationale.
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)? I don't believe in training children to be soldiers and using human wave attacks. I believe the people that are doing these things are using innocent children to fight. I do think it is important to understand that these people feel like they have nothing to live for because of their circumstances. It is important to understand why they are doing these things in order to resolve these issues.
Iran's decision to counter-invade Iraq was not the most advantageous decision for Iran in the long run. At the outset of the war, Iran could be seen as a nation attempting to protect its sovereignty against an outside threat. However, once it went on the offensive on Iraqi soil, it played into the hands of its enemies; the international notions of Iran as an unstable, dangerous nation seemed to become more valid.
I do not think Iraq's supporters should have supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. Such weapons cause far too much civilian casualties and damage, and in my opinion should never be used to pursue aggressive goals. The suffering entailed in the use of such weapons usually vastly outweighs any potential gains.
Do you feel it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons?
I must first say that, in supporting Iraq against Iran, the U.S. definitely followed its precedent in supporting countries without thinking about the consequences of those actions. But whether or not it was right is a completely different question. It seems as though providing Iraq with military support and chemical weapons was a bad decision considering that it was Saddam Hussein specifically that they were supporting. Likewise, it seems as though Iraq’s invasion of Iran as an imperial move, aimed at capturing Iranian oil fields and annexing them into Iraq. The U.S. was supporting an imperial power led by a ruthless dictator merely because they were worried about the Muslim government in Iran. This seems like an overly prejudicial plan that was not well thought out, based mainly on the fear of a (Muslim) movement that the American government did not understand.
Obvious parallels must be drawn with today, when the U.S. feels extremely threatened by Iran’s plans to create nuclear reactors. The media currently is engaged in warmongering against Iran because they feel threatened, and many people recognize what a reckless plan that is. Going to war against Iran because we feel threatened today seems to be a bad idea, and in that sense the similar support of the Iraqi war against Iran 20 years ago was also a bad idea.
I believe Iran's decision to counter-invade Iraq was a pointless mistake that did not further resolve the conflict. It seems that it was a strictly political, religious, and nationalistic goal and not a militaristic or strategic one whatsoever, as Iran did not get far through Iraq's border. After two years, the war had netted no gains to either side and simply huge losses of life, especially on Iran's side. By this time though, the power struggle in the post-revolution Iran had ended and those in charge felt it necessary to continue after all of Saddam's anti-Persian and anti-Shiite sentiments poured out. Nevertheless, the idea to counter-invade was not well thought out by Iran who clearly did not have the technology to muster any real gain. All it brought was more years of a terrible war and more death.
Of the several questions posited, that regarding the tactic of human wave attacks during the war caught my attention the most. Though I can understand the strategy from the point of view of Iran, I nevertheless feel the incredible loss of life cannot be justified. Moreover, I found the use of children to be particularly morally reprehensible. Urging children to volunteer and die for their country and beliefs before they are mature enough to understand the concepts is a grave exploitation of the youth. I do not think the country should have called on them of all people to sacrifice themselves during the war.
Secondly, I felt that after the lectures on the Iran-Iraq war I felt I could understand a bit more about both Iran's position and the historical context of the two countries at the time. I did not know Iraq had received so much international support during the war, especially concerning the chemical weapons. The use of such weapons is another fundamentally unethical and inhumane facet of the war that came out during our discussions. Though the world feared the growing threat of Iran, I fail to see how that could have in any way justified the provision of chemical weapons- and perhaps worst yet, widespread condemnation of Iraq after the ghastly results of their use were circulated in the media, but an utter failure of international actors to mention their involvement. Lastly, this section of the class was especially informative and interesting in light of the U.S-Iraq/ U.S-Iraq relations that we have witnessed during our lifetimes. Even a brief overview of Iran's modern history greatly aids in understanding the country and its policies today.
"How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?"
The issue of what constitutes acceptable forms of warfare is thorny. The definition of "terrorism," for instance, is rather fluid. It depends on what side you're on.
That said, I still think it's possible to condemn certain forms of warfare, if only for pragmatic reasons. Yes, it may be argued that Iran's people by and large supported the war effort--and indeed they did. Many, many people willingly went to their deaths in human wave attacks. This is a testament to their belief in their country.
But that aside, it's also a testament to the value the government at the time placed on the value of human life relative to the the value of the state's goals. Iran's invasion of Iraq employing these tactics is tantamount to the claim that Iran valued victory (and remember, at this point Iran is no longer being invaded--they're safe from immediate Iraqi threat) regardless of the human cost. I think that very point defines the morality of their tactics.
In essence, Iran's use of human wave attacks and such like while they invaded Iraq is collectivism taken to the extreme.
I'm hoping this post makes at least some sense--then again it's 2:30 in the morning and I just worked a 13 hour shift today, so I may not be altogether coherent.
-Dylan
Without knowing the outcome, was the decision of Iran to counter-invade Iraq after two years the right one?
Although it’s difficult to separate the theoretical elements of Iran’s 1982 invasion of Iraq (e.g. the possibility that Iran could have overthrown Saddam Hussein) from the political outcomes of the invasion (US support for Iraq and an eventual cease-fire after 6 years of high causalities), I would argue that it was still a poor decision for Iran to counter-invade Iraq. From a strategic point of view it probably would have been more beneficial for Iran to use Iraq’s 1982 cease-fire request as an opportunity to rebuild its army, infrastructure and defenses. One of the reasons Iran’s “human wave” offense resulted in so many casualties is because they lacked support from other branches of the military (a lack of air and tank support was particularly devastating). The human wave offenses were ill-equipped to handle the well-established defenses Iraq had set up prior to 1980, and Iran’s army lacked the organizational capacity to pull off coordinated, massive-scale attacks on the frontline. If Iran had allowed for a cease-fire in 1982 (and let Iraq get distracted by Lebanon), it is fair to suggest that they might have been able to better equip their military to either invade Iran at a later date or at the very least effectively ward off future Iraqi incursions.
The lecture was very enlightening to the plight of Iran in a greater international sense. I have never really understood the causes of the Iran-Iraq War. It puts many of their policies in perspective. Iran is often painted as being an ideologically based regime (government?, or whatever word is best used) but in reality it seems to be a much more conniving, pragmatic orginization.
Also analysts (especially US) never seem to give any credit to the Iranian people as a force in Iranian politics. If I were just to watch CNN I would think the Iranian people were on par with the brain-washed citizens of North Korea.
Instead though it seems that the Iranian people are a much more potent force in Iranian politics, but the war did manager to center their attention on the direct threat of the Iraq army.
As for child soldiers, of course that is an atrocity. In a sense I can see why the government support it in a pure and cold cost-benefit analysis, that is without blowing up kids, the soldiers would die, thus weakening the army and threatening Iranian defeat, which would lead to more children deaths. All the same I think it is further evidence to how the Iranian government is not purely ideologically based and rather very much so pragmatic, if not in a very cold sense, but then again what government actually does seem to really care about the plight of its people beyond how it affects them.
The response of other nations to sell weapons to both sides is disgusting. Much like WWI, and in a sense the current "War on Terror" is just a huge excuse to make money on weapon sales. If international governments really wanted to help, they should have supported only one side, (probably the non-aggressor) and work to end the war and create a peaceful dialouge, as opposed to what they actually did which was prolong the war as much as possible.
In light of its strategic and military support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s and its subsequent invasion of Iraq following the events of September 11th, it seems clear that United States foreign policy is as fickle as it is ferocious. Despite rhetoric to the contrary (i.e. democracy, freedom, and human rights discourse), the U.S. has consistently violated its own publicly circulated mandates for just war and proper military conduct (think: carpet bombing in Vietnam, torture tactics in Nicaragua, secret military prisons in Central Asia, and abject strategies of sexual excess at Abu-Ghraib...just to name a few). Further, the United States repeatedly prioritizes national interest (read: oil) over human life and international law, making the provision of chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war thoroughly transparent and hardly surprising. It is only more grossly ironic that the Bush Administration's obsession with weapons of mass destruction was used as a justification for the invasion and, now, disaster of Iraq. I mean, duh.
However, what I find more intriguing is the biochemical support offered by certain European countries (namely, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom), as well as the Center for Disease Control. In terms of world peace initiatives, the U.S. is often figured as a rogue nation unwilling to comply with international law and human rights agreements, especially if those agreements do not serve our national interests. Europe, on the other hand, consistently positions itself as the moral voice in a world mired in violence and regional/religious/ethnic conflict. Thus, its provision of chemical weapons and military support to Iraq (despite fears of an Islamic world revolution spearheaded by Khomeini's rise to power) is untenable and absolutely undermines its moral authority.
Ditto for the CDC, which supposedly operates as an institutional body that investigates and contains deadly diseases, but, instead, sends Iraq over 14 agents with bio-warfare capabilities that are used against both the Iranians and, later, the Iraqis themselves. Again, this fact compromises the credibility of the CDC and raises further questions as to the hidden details of transnational politics. It seems all to often we make judgments on a nation's behavior based on sweeping generalizations that rarely contain the more nefarious back-door arrangements so common in political strategizing.
I think that after handling the Iraqi invasion successfully, and then having the opportunity to invade Iraq, Iran made the right strategic choice. I also don't know if it could have been any different considering the great nationalist wave that was created to withold the Iraqis in the first place. After rallying the country together to defend the homeland, it was only natural to take it a step further and attempt a counter attack. Quite possibly, they may have been victorious had it not been for the great amount of military aid Iraq received as a a consquence of their increasingly weak position. In retrospect the Iran-Iraq war seems like a war that Iran could never have won, for the superpowers, America and the Soviet Union, would never have allowed. Both America and the Soviet Union wanted Iraq to not fall to Iran. From the American perspective I think it was right to arm Iraq. America had just lost a cornerstone of their midde eastern policy, Iran, and they could not allow another country to fall outside of their influence. Although using child soldiers is deplorable in any situation, the Iranian country was stretched in its resources and it had to do whatever was necessary to survive as a nation. Owing to the way Iran was isolated internationally during its war with Iraq it is no surprise that it looks with skepticism and even hostility at the West.
Considering how countries gave munitions and chemical weapons to Iraq, it was not right. The circumstances, Iraq attacking as Iran as it was vulnerable further validates my opinion. Munitions instead should have been provided to Iran to repel unjustified attack. However the chemical weapons should not be provided under any conditions, it is just inhumane.
Considering how Iran used human wave attacks and sacrificed children is very horrible. Although they helped defend Iran, sometimes the ends don't justify the means. Although most of the people volunteered for the republic, I cant comprehend using myself as a mine detector.
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 I do not believe that providing Iraq with military support and chemical weapons was a right solution to the threat that they felt by Iran. Saddam Hussein was known at that time to be a dictator. I feel like the western world instead of putting oil unto the fire, should have tried to resolve the problem through deplomatic compromises or changes. I do not believe in war as a solution to a problem. And indeed, it didn't solve anything, it only made victims during the war. Western nations should not be responsible for more deaths, instead they should have tried to stop the war. Anyway, this is my "idealistic" view on the subject!
Post a Comment