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
21 comments:
I think in regards to the first question that those nations who did supply Iraq with military support were justified in doing so. Iran’s army with 305,000 soldiers, compared to Iraq’s 190,000 clearly had the initial advantage and the fear was that Iran would use its might to spread the revolutionary message of the ayatollah to other nations in the Middle East. In international affairs, balance between rival states is crucial, and over and over again we find nations aiding one faction in order to check the rising influence of its opposing faction (others include India/Pakistan, China/Taiwan, etc.). But in this case the collective backing of Iraq was overblown and the allocation of chemical weapons was unnecessary and in clear violation of international law. With Iran’s minimal support from abroad (bar Syria, Libya, Israel, and others) the amount of military assistance that was provided to Iraq seems just too much. The escalation of the war over its eight year duration can be seen as a result of this overblown foreign assistance. By providing Iraq with superior military equipment and intelligence, Iran would be forced to use human wave attacks, child soldiers, etc. in order to compensate for its deficiencies. As Iran started to gain an upper hand, pushing into Iraqi territory, Saddam would use chemical weapons, escalating the war further. With each year, tactics became increasingly brutal and the human life toll was immense. Whereas in natural conditions, Iran probably should have been able to defeat Iraq (due to its self-sufficient military and large population), assistance kept on pouring into Iraq, prolonging the war. And thus it came as no surprise that the United States would ultimately become involved in the conflict directly as soon as Iraq’s oil exports started to come under attack. The downed Iran Air flight #655 by the United States would act as a symbolic representation for the people of Iran that the world would go to all lengths to see Iran contained – a mindset, which when juxtaposed to the extensive military assistance to Iraq, doesn’t seem all that farfetched.
In the end I think its clear that Iran counter invading Iraq was strategically not a good idea. They gained no additional territory and simply prolonged the war with their counter invasion. I realize the was would likely have continued without their invasion but it surely didn't move the two countries towards peace. In regards to the question about chemical weapons and the world backing Iraq during the war, I think the answer to that question is less clear. You have to wonder what the world would look like today had the west not gotten involved for Iraq. Would Iran be the threat that currently is? I doubt it, there is so much animosity lingering from that war that I think, had the west not gotten involved, the middle east in general wold be a much more "western friendly" place.
Q: Do you feel it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons?
A: I think zachary simmons brought up a really important point - that countries were supporting Iraq in violation of international law. I am not all that politically savvy, but it seems that America and many other countries continuously break international law and feel that as long as they can either keep it secret or publicly rationalize it than their actions are okay. Considering this, I feel that it was wrong for the world to interfere.
Yet, if the world had provided aid to Iraq or Iran in concordance with international law, than whether I agreed with any particular country's choice to give or hold back aid would have to be focused more on international laws and changing them rather than, possibly, having any feelings of animosity against a given country... At this point, the more I learn the more frustrated and disgusted I feel with American policies and interactions with other countries and their continual display of hypocrisy - for example: they supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war but have now caused so much destruction in Iraq.
I feel that during war time murder is is the same as killing someone in ordinary times. I believe that in this day and age people think there is a huge difference between going to someones house and killing them and being in war and killing. I see no difference and killing is killing. With that said the use of chemical weapons by either side is wrong in my view. The ill effects of using chemical weapons not only kills and hurt the present day civilian living in that specific area but lives its mark for generations to come. Chemical weapons affect the environment natural resources and pregnant women. Using humans as mine detectors is just plain evil. They are saying to their people that you mean nothing and most cases I believe that young children were used for that situation.
I am opposed to war in any situation and until invaded I do not believe it is right to kill others. I think much more can accomplished by legal dialogue and helping each other out.
The issue of ethics in war is always a tricky issue. Iran was defending themselves against Iraq's invasion and in light of the fact that they had inferior military technology and the ayatollah had essentially no military experience I can understand why the human- waves attacks were used, even though I do not agree with them. Personally I believe war is one of the worst consequences of human existence and I find the images of the Iran- Iraq war particularly disturbing due to the mass amounts of military and civilian casualties, caused in part, by the human- wave attacks.
As for the use of child soldiers...I cannot envision a situation where this could ever be justified. Even if Iran was at a military disadvantage the Iranian government had no right to use children. If someone who is an adult decides to go to war they are taking a known risk. Children do not have the capabilities to make a decision like that, no matter how much they say they want to participate.
First, I would like to address the use of child soldiers, human wave attacks, human mine detectors, etc. As an American and a westerner, I think it is impossible for me to look at this form of martyrdom objectively. To me, there is no justification for people, especially children, being forced to participate in a war.
That being said, in response to the other question, I feel that I now understand more about how Iran can feel picked on. It seems that throughout its history, and especially during this war, the world has essentially forced Iran into a corner and thus caused Iran to resort to desperate and unpopular tactics both politically and militarily. I think that the western world is equally responsible for the acts of extremists.
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 think states have the inherent right to pursue their own interests and this can be expected however in regards to providing weapons for both side i think clearly this was aout not only strategic cooperation with israel but also because of the immense sums of money that were to be made by selling technology to both sides. The justification for the proliferation of chemical weapons I dont think can be made at any time. The use of such weapons even as a last resort by the iraqi's is inexcusable especially when supported by the united states. I think the role that the international community should have taken was one of diplomacy an intermediary role in promoting peace however with the vast sums of money to be made im not surprised at the way they acted.
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
I dont think this is excusable either i think in the effect on the population and the society as a whole a push for a draw would have been far more effective
I understand the hostility that iran has towards the outside world however i feel as though many of the problems are self inflicted and could be remedied if the theocracy wasn't in power anymore.
sorry last comment was me i'm dizzy hungry
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
I believe that in times in of war a nation often makes grave and often risky strides in an attempt to win the war effort. However, often times the sense of humanity and morality of those in command is lost due to their overwhelmingly strong desire to fight for their nation's name in battle. Keeping this in mind, the use of human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors can be viewed as inhumane attempts of those in command to win the war, even at the cost of lives. The use of such methods I believe is not done in an attempt to be cruel or intentionally immoral. The desire of those in charge of the army to win, without the proper means (funds for weapons, funds for formal training etc.) leads to such methods of battle.
However, the use of such tactics in not an exclusively Iranian practice. In Nepal thousands of children were recruited by the Maoists (Communist Party of Nepal during the country's 10-year civil war. Young children were trained in weaponry and served on the front lines (hrw.org).
How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
I feel that Iran, or mostly Khomeini, used this tactic knowing full well that people were vulnerble and would pretty much do anything that he asked at that point. He knew well enough that without using human mine detectors and child soldiers winning the war would have been much harder to accomplish. It was completely wrong to do this, but then again people volunteered to go to war. Psychology played a big role in getting people to sign up for the war, as people were manipulated into thinking that it was patriotic and for the revolution to fight in the war, but to manipulate children into fighting in a war means that the country has absolutely no other alternative and is basically using its last resort.
The issue of whether the counter-attack and invasion of Iraq needs to be looked at in several contexts. From a strategic view, the decision seems unfounded. Iran obviously understood the military limitations. Certainly any military leader could have understood that shortages of supplies and training would not make for an effective strike. However, ideologically it was important. Much like the early Bolshevik Revolution, the Iranian Revolution wanted to export itself. I feel that exporting revolution is as much about spreading one's ideals as using acceptance as validation of one's correctness. Iranians were sure Iraqi Shias would join them and revolt. However, I have a hard time separating the political from this. A state at war is invariably a more cohesive state. This time we need to look back to the French Revolution. In a time of great fear it is much easier to strike opponents down as enemies. Moreover, such threats lead to acceptance of centralization as well as economic hardship. I have a hard time believing Khomeini would have consolidated power without the Iran-Iraq war.
For the world to provide Iraq with military support and chemical weaponry it proves that many world leaders are guided by money and power. In the film “The Hidden Wars of Dessert Storm” one of the interviewees says that during the eight years of war 52 countries supplied weapons to either Iran or Iraq and 29 countries supplied weapons to both sides. In addition to intelligence support, the US supported Iraq with chemical and biological weapons. I find it crazy how quickly a country’s leader can go from being a close friend (temporary puppet) of the United States to number one on the FBI’s most wanted list. It seems as long as Iran is not following the wishes of the US government they will be an enemy.
Although Iran was not equipped with the weaponry Iraq had I am absolutely against Iran using child soldiers as human mine detectors, if an adult wanted to become a martyr they are definitely old enough to make that decision. Children are not ready to make those types of decisions; they were given plastic keys as incentives. I’m not an expert in military defense tactics but I’m sure there were other possibilities
Q: Do you feel it was right for the world, which felt threatened by Iran, to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons?
A: I feel that it was right for the world to provide Iraq with both military support and chemical weapons. Iran was a country that through its deep commitment to Islam, threatened the salience and stability of the other non-theocratic nations. Khomeni's revolution was a threat to democracy and political freedom, as the extreme form of Islamic religion contradicted Western ideologies.
Another important issue is not just the allegiance of some nations to Iraq, but the methods of support that these nations provided to Iraq. In times of war, any action that one side takes to defeat the other seems rational. War is a game in which one player seeks victory over another. The use of chemical weapons is justifiable, when used in the context of war. Employing unethical forms of combat to overtake a regime that was intolerant of ideologies outside of the extreme form of Islam was necessary.
Q: How do you feel about Iran using human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors (knowing that they helped Iran defend itself)?
A: It is difficult to create validity in my response since the comment that follows (in a way) contradicts the comment I posted for a previous question. With that said, I believe that although the use of human wave attacks etc. that helped Iran defend itself, were inhumane and in a way can be described as tossing the citizenry of Iran into the meat grinder. It is astonishing to observe the surge of nationalism that the Islamic Revolution created in Iran, amongst its citizens. It is also astonishing to observe how this sense of nationalism cause many Iranians to join the ranks. However, I believe that the sacrifice of Iranians could have been avoided if Khomeni accepted defeat. The lines of the border dispute, that started the Iran-Iraq War, ended up in the same spot before and after the war. It is easy to make the argument having hindsight. Perhaps Iran would have lost a big chunk of its land to Iraq had it not employed the use of humans as weapons (in a literal way). However, most of the martyrs that died in the war were either fueled by the charisma of the Revolution or were simply promised blessings in the afterlife. The use of children as mine detectors is disgusting. This situation reflects the abuse of those in power over the ignorant. In my previous comment, I stated that the use of chemical weapons in war is justifiable. However, as desperate as a country may seem, defeat should be accepted before it sacrifices the lives of thousands of lives for the ambitions of one charismatic leader.
In regards to the question about the world providing Iran and Iraq with chemical and biological weapons I don't necessarily think it was a good or bad idea, but I think the way it was gone about was wrong. First off, I think the United States in particular should have stayed out of the situation completely (i.e.: remaining neutral and not giving either nations weapons); or I think they should have picked a clearer side and provided aid only to that country. The issue with the United States giving weapons to both countries and more to Iraq, is that it sends a very confusing message to both countries as to who the United States is really supporting, etc.
While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. Furthermore, by providing military support and chemical weapons to Iraq was right during that time because the world did not want that Iran control the middle- East which could make oil crisis in Western countries. Iran was very powerful at the time because Mohammad Reza Shah had bought more then $12 billion worth of weapon from the United States in the 1970’s alone.
The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations all around the world to Iraq. As a result the Iran-Iraq War played a major role, and was a major turning point, in the international events that have led to the United States involvement in Iraq, including the Gulf War/Desert Storm, and the recent 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Many super powers around the world helped and provided Iraq with weapons to destroy the Iranian regime. I think that their support for Iraq had very negative consequences on Iran. The people of Iran initially did not support their own regime; however after they realized that they will be attacked by Iraq and essentially the rest of the world, they in turn supported the government and the soldiers. This caused young Iranian patriots torebel in defense of being victimized.
Iran used human wave attacks, child soldiers, and human mine detectors in order to defend itself. I am extremely against using such tactics in defense. But unfortunately this is a consequence of war. Many innocent people die in battle and there is no good way of doing it. A war is a war and all of it comes down to greed and struggle to gain more power.
Now that I have learned more about war I can why Iran focuses so much on spending all the the money that they gain from their natural resources on building a better military rather than focusing on improving the nation as a whole.
Without knowing the outcome, it is hard to say whether the counter-invasion was warranted.
In the aftermath of the revolution, when the Iranian people were more easily rallied against a common enemy, it was dangerous for Iraq to invade Iran. From Iran's perspective, their counter-invasion was strategically understandable but in hindsight, it did not accomplish any gain in territory, only a huge loss of lives.
As far as the world's involvement in giving Iraq weapons and supporting Iraq's military, it's hard to say. In this situation, I don't think it was right for almost the entire world to provide this support. It didn't accomplish anything except to prolong a war which was ultimately futile.
Clearly, human wave attacks, child soldiers and human mine detectors are detestable ways to win a war.
I don't think these are ever acceptable. In the haze of war, it seems that detestable decisions are often made which sacrifice the well-being of many innocent people. The Iranian government was not immune to this (though their tactics are particularly horrifying), it seems to be a constant in war. The U.S. has committed atrocities in war, and the use of chemical weapons by Iraq also needs to be considered. Governments do unthinkable things when pushed in wartime. It's despicable, but Iran is not alone in this.
I think the title of Times Magazine shown in class "Iran against the world" was very dramatic but interpreted the situation very well. Even the countries who were supplying Iran were doing it through back channels and not publically (China and Russia) going through North Korea, or the US with the Iran-Contra affair. On the other hand Iraq was supported by the superpowers, by Europe, and so even when it can be argued that Iran had more human force than Iraq, and that there was an Iranian advantage, the material strength was on the Iraqi side.With the United States providing material strenght to both countries a lack of legitimacy in the war appears.
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.
Post a Comment