Iraq

Explain why the ending of the Cold War was not followed by a period of world peace and stability. The ending of the cold war did not leave any sign of hope for the world to live in peace and prosperity. Until this second, there are hundreds of men, women, and children being killed, injured, raped, and executed for various reasons, some of which may be legit while others are war-related objectives. The world, not sure if this is the right word for it now, has gone and still is through some very tremendous events in the last 17 years or so, starting off with the gulf war which shocked the world in one night, the Kosovo war, Al-Aqsa Intifada, the war in Afghanistan, war on terror and Iraq, the list can go on and on, some which remain in the books of history and some which are still written about in history books today as that they are ongoing conflicts and example would be the war on terror. To make this whole concept I just talked about more clearly, I will try to explain the reasons to why the ending of the Cold War was not followed by a period of world peace and stability, by talking about the gulf war and how one night changed the lives and situations of many nations, mainly Israel and Palestine and how the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) played a major role in this war, leading to the Palestinian Intifada and the current events that are happening right now.

The Gulf war was simply a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force from 35 nations authorized by the United Nations (UN) and led primarily by the United States in order to liberate Kuwait. [1] The Gulf War had two major impacts. First, the war was a catalyst for regional changes that started several years before the eruption of the crisis itself. The polarization of the Arab world was intensified by the invasion of an Arab state by another. Second, the war demonstrated which political terms existed in the Middle East at the time of the Iraqi invasion. On a rhetorical level, Saddam Hussein established a link between the Persian Gulf crisis and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, thus demonstrating the destabilizing effect of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Iraqi leader compared the Iraqi invasion with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and demanded Israeli withdrawal before even considering a pullback from Kuwait. [2] During the Gulf War, the Israeli public took a step to the right, legitimizing the sanctions the Likud-government posed on the Palestinians. The sanctions were a result of two circumstances: the failure of the Palestinians – especially the PLO and the moderate political leaders in the West Bank – to condemn the Iraqi invasion; and the images of Palestinians cheering the Iraqi Scuds raining down on Tel Aviv. [3] Israel closed the borders between ‘Israel-proper’ and the occupied territories, preventing Palestinian workers from attending their jobs in Israel.

Despite an increase of nearly half a million in the Israeli population due to immigration from Russia between 1989 and 1991, the Israeli policy resulted in a reduction in the GDP and a deterioration of the economic situation activity (ibid. )[4]. For the Palestinians, an already difficult economic situation got worse. This resulted in a boomerang-effect for Israel, intensifying the level of conflict with the Palestinians With the outbreak of the intifada, the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict moved inside the occupied territories, and the Green-line was re-drawn. The broad mobilization of nearly all layers of Palestinian society in the earliest stages of the uprising strengthened national unity. This kind of communal uprising turned out to be more difficult for Israel to fight than the PLO-launched guerilla-attacks from Arab territory during the 1970s (Hunter 1991). Despite the optimism[5], the standard of living continued to deteriorate because of the mass-arrests, arbitrary detention, and curfews carried out by the Israeli security forces (IDF and the border police).

While many would agree that the mentioned above can be directly linked to the events that are going right now in Palestine and that has gone on for the last couple of years, many would disagree, but if you want to look at it from a historical angle, it has a lot to do with the Gulf War. The end of the Cold War is the main point of reference in this analysis. However, important changes affecting the political situation in the Middle East started years before the Berlin-Wall was torn down, and the Soviet Empire crumbled. Therefore one might ask if the ‘window of opportunity’ would have ‘opened’ if the Cold War had continued. Would the locally initiated structural changes by themselves create momentum for peace? My answer is that the combined effects of changes at the extra-regional level (the end of the Cold War), the regional level (the Gulf War), and the local level (the intifada) in sum ‘opened’ the window and let groups in the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships willing and ready to negotiate peace inside. Ultimately, Israel was successful in containing the uprising. The Palestinians’ force was inferior in relation to the well equipped and trained Israeli Defense Forces. However, the Intifada pinpointed numerous problems with the IDF’s conduct in the operative and tactical fields, as well as the general problem of Israel’s prolonged control of the West Bank and Gaza strip. These problems were noticed and widely criticized, both in international forums (in particular, when humanitarian questions were at stake), but also in Israeli public opinion, in which the Intifada had caused a split. [6]

Reference

1. Abadi, Jacob (1994): “The Gulf War and Its Implications for Israel”. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol 17, No. 3 (55-78).
2. Freedman, Robert. The Middle East after Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait, University Press of Florida, 1993 (213-215)
3. Walsh, Ben. Modern world history, John Murray, London, 2001
4. Choueiri, Youssef M. (1997): Islamic fundamentalism -rev. ed. London: Pinter
5. Kuper, Adam and Jessica Kuper (eds. ) (1996): The Social Science Encyclopedia (Second edition). London and New York: Routledge.
6. Keddie, Nikki R. (1992): “The end of the Cold War and the Middle East”. In Hogan (ed. ) The End of the Cold War. It’s meaning and implications (151-161).
7. Clarke, Richard. Against all enemies: Inside America’s war on terror, Free Press, 2004 (62-64)
8. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999, Knopf, 1999. p. 612

The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s Throughout the last fifty years there are many events that significantly shaped who we are today and changed America’s future greatly. Throughout these decades the American experience has greatly varied. There were several wars such as the Cold War, Vietnam War, and the Gulf War all which took its own toll on the American people and their economy. The civil rights movement, protest, and demonstrations throughout the decades were validated by the impact they left. Through the various presidents we witnessed many scandals and terminologies that remain and affect America today.

McCarthyism, Cold War Ideology, Eisenhower’s politics, The New Frontier, and Reaganomics will stick with the American people forever. These are chain of events that constantly shaped our country for what it is today. This paper will hit on a few of these events that had the most powerful effects on the American People and the economy. McCarthyism/ “The Red Scare” of The1950’s Cold War ideology crystallized after the end of World War II. After World WarII, Americans began to be very afraid of communists taking over the United States. American referred to communist as “reds” this symbolized the communist as worse than urderers. At one point during World War II the United States had an alliance with Russia and Britain; however that alliance ended as America began to rebuild and Europe continued to struggle. A power struggle known as the Cold War began between the United States and Russia creating more fear in the American people of communism. Americans became more and more suspicious of the Soviets; Americans thought being associated with the communist were as bad as being one yourself. The fear and concern p. 2 The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s rose amongst the Americans fro communism which caused mass suspicion.

The Truman doctrine was put into place by President Truman. The doctrine enforced loyalty against communism. Many were being accused of being connected to communism or communist with no real evidence, in that came the Red Scare. The Red Scare or McCarthyism Era is a termed used to describe anti-communism era of the 50’s which was named after Joseph McCarthy. He was a former U. S. Senator who used the public’s fears against communism to gain political standing. He claimed to have a list of suspected communists. He accused many in and out of governmental positions of being communist or having commingled ith communist. There was and is no real evidence to base his claims. This caused a great deal of miss trust for the American people and the government and caused a great deal of social issues. The senate held hearings and along with McCarthy and the HAUC many were black listed. McCarthyism had a major hand in the change in feelings America had about both politics and society. The Civil Rights Movements of the 1960’s In the 1960’s racial challenges was discouraging and overtaking the society. The African Americans bore the antagonistic reaction to the economy and were racially segregated in every way from society.

Their civil rights were violated and were not part of the national agenda for change. The African American race was usually referred to as “Negro” or “Colored. ” The Civil rights of the 1960’s came with a high price. In spite of The Declaration of Independence which states “All men are created equal” the injustice that the African Americans endured was one that wasn’t easily spoken out about. There were risk that took place in standing up for their right, many gave everything they had p. The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s and lost everything, if not their lives. They endured and stayed committed to change this injustice. In effort to build a coalition for racial equality many of races and creed gave up their place in society and thousands lost their lives. There were strong black men and women that played key figures in the Civil rights movement they were Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Emmett Till, and Dorothy Height. In 1967 The Detroit Riot took place because police raided a local illegal drinking hole for African Americans.

In The 1963 March on Washington there was an estimated 250,000 people who gathered for a peaceful demonstration to promote Civil Rights and economic equality for African Americans. This is where Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech took place. During the civil rights movement many demonstrations, protest, and riots took place and was successful in the coalition for racial equality. The Watergate Scandal of 1970’s The 60’s were full of chaos many thought that the chaos of the war and the social changes made would carry on into the 70’s. The Vietnam War continued to divide the ountry. It was at war that many contested and by the early 70’s many of the American people views were begining to change. Daniel Ellsberg turned over secret Pentagon reports to new paper. President Nixon could not stop the publications of these pentagon papers and it infuriated him. President Nixon had a group who were called the “Plumbers” because they fixed the leaks in The Whitehouse. They set out to discredit Ellsberg and with a job well done they were assigned a new job. They were in charge of derailing the democratic ticket. The Plumbers broke into the Democratic National . 4 The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s Committee and bugged the office. A security guard spotted the men and called the police. The Plumbers were apprehended. All of this was going on while President Nixon was seeking his second term as President. President Nixon was re-elected by a landslide. As the time passed and the break in was investigated it was traced back to the officials of the CREEP, which was the committee to re-elect the president. President Nixon denied any involvement to the break ins. The president was forced to turn recordings which directly ndicated him and that he tried to cover the entire thing up. The break in’s became known as the Watergate Scandal. Watergate was known for the fall of President Richard Nixon. In 1974 the courts named President Nixon as a co-conspirator in the obstruction of justice over the Watergate matter scandal. President Nixon feared impeachment and on August 8, 1974 he announced his resignation. 1980’s Reaganomics In the 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president during what was considered the worst recession since the great deppression . He came in with a plan to fix the deficit introducing The Economic Recovery Act.

This plan would restore the economy over and within the next three years. President Reagan truly believed that economy needed awakening. In the Economic Recovery Act the income bracket would receive a twenty five percent tax cut, breaking down to five percent the first year and ten percent the next two years. Many American felt as though the president was favoring the upper class by cutting the top rated tax by twenty percent yearly. Through the recovery act wealthy people could grow more wealth and create more business’s therefore stimulating the economy.

By creating more business’s it would in turn create more jobs and drive the p. 5 The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s prices down. Reagan’s Economy Recovery Act was passed on July 29, 1981 it did boost the economy but failed at repairing the deficit. Unemployment and poverty was on the rise, the president had taken a huge chance with the tax cut, and it was the largest tax cut ever. His theory was based on supply-side economics. Today we know it as “Reaganomics” Unfortunately President Reagan did not understand that in order for the tax cut to work spending would have to be cut.

Budgets were cut but do to the high amount President Reagan spent on military issues the budget did not balance out. Reagan’s Economy Recovery Act affected Americans in many ways good and bad. The people who benefited most from the tax cut were the wealthy. They seemed to becoming wealthier. The Lower income/poverty Americans had more trouble getting ahead. It is all depending on what side of the economy you were on to say if “reaganomics” worked or not. 90’s The Gulf War After serving as Vice President under President Ronald Reagan, President George W.

Bush became president in 1988. President Bush faced a world that was drasticly changing, after forty years the cold war had come to an end,The Berlin wall came down, and the communist empire was no longer. The hardest challenge President Bush was to face was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. On August 2, 1990 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait one of the major oil producing countries in the Middle East. He was also threatining to move into Saudi Arabia. Americans were in fear because without receiving oil from Kuwait the prices would sky rocket.

Iraq’s invasion came about after p. 6 The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s Kuwait lowered the world price for oil production by increasing it’s own oil production. Iraq was in debt to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and with low world prices on oil production Iraq would never be able to pay off their debt. President Bush called upon the United Nations and operation Desert storm began. America sent 40,000 troops and 118,000 troops from allied nations.

The United nations also sent a quarter of a million soilders to Saudi Arabia also known as Operation Dessert Shield. These troops were mostly Americans and sent to protect Saudi Arabia. Suddam Hussien had been highly trained in chemical war fare and was makin and testing chemical warfare wweapns of mass destruction. Suddam was testing these weapons on his own people and the American troops found and destroyed these weapons. Operation Desert Storm eventually conquard Iraq’s million-man army. The war lasted exactly 100 hours and 40,000 troops were involved.

Many of the soilders came home with what they call Gulf War Syndrome. Democrats protested the war, however it was needed and The President called on all to help. Ultimately Suddam was left in power and refused to allow the United Nations to conduct any and all inspections for chemical weapons of mass destructions. Suddam began harboring terrorist and providing training for them. With his own little terrorist army and a safe place to train the could prepare for retaliation. If you look back on these events from the 1950’s – 1990’s you will see how they shaped

America as we know it today. All of these events had a dramatic impact on Americans, and our society socially, economically and politically. We are still very much affected by these and many p. 7 The Forever changing Events of the 1950’s -1990’s other events of these decades. As we go through our own eras and decades much of it seems to be the same, in many ways. Presently we ourselves are going through much of the same obstacles, war, recession, civil rights, unemployment and poverty. We will continue to face these things as we continue to grow as a country.

In ten years I believe there will still be the same things effecting America for it seems that history just repeats itself. References Page 1950’s McCarthyism/ “The Red Scare” was retrieved April 20, 2010 from http://www. eisenhower. utexas. edu/Research/Digital_Documents/McCarthy/Mccarthydocuments. html (2002 )Written by Barbara Mack – Pagewise retrieved from http://www. essortment. com/all/mccarthyismred_rmfw. htm 1960 African American Civil Rights movements of the 1960’s Written by Toonari and retrieved on April 20, 2010 from http://www. africanaonline. com/civil_rights. tm African American Civil Rights movements of the 1960’s retrieved on April 20, 2010 from http://www. pbs. org/wnet/aaworld/timeline/civil_01. html 1970’s The Watergate Scandal (2002) Written by Noell Wolfgram Evans retrieved on April 22, 2010 from http://www. essortment. com/all/watergatescand_reji. htm (2010) The Washington Post Company retrieved on April 22, 2010 from http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/ 1980 Reaganomics (April 1996), Christopher Frenze Chief Economist to the Vice-Chairman retrieved on April 22, 2010 from http://www. house. ov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct. htm (1979-89)Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. “Chronology of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, 1979-89. ” retrieved on April 22, 2010 from http://www. reagan. utexas. edu/archives/reference/preschrono. html (accessed 18 May 2005) 1990’s President Bush and the Gulf war was retrieved on April 21, 2010 from http://www. whitehouse. gov/about/presidents/georgehwbush (January 17, 2001) A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book Edited by Jeffrey T. Richelson retrieved on April 22, 2010 from http://www. gwu. edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/

Wars can be justified through the utilitarian theory and cost benefit analysis. These are dependent on whether the intention of the war is right and the cause for the war is just. Further, wars are only justified when other forms of conflict management have been tried and have failed. There are many types of war, however this essay will focus on military war in particular. Utility Theory and Just War The theory of utility is one way to justify war. The utilitarian approach is defined as the pursuit of the greatest good of society for the greatest number f people in society. There are two branches of utility theory – act and rule.

Act utilitarianism looks closely at the Consequences of the act Of war in order to justify engaging in war. Rule utilitarianism will only condone war when the reason for entering a war is just in itself, is based on good intentions and not for selfish reasons. In essence, act utilitarianism can be summarized as the ends justifying the means, while rule utilitarianism can be summarized as genuine intentions justifying the means. For instance, the Allied Forces declaring war on Germany’s invasion of their gibbous as well as on their anti-Semitic activities is an example of utilitarianism in action.

The declaration of war was to prevent further harm to the world even if it did mean a significant loss to the Allied Forces by engaging in such actions. The end of the German terror as well as the protection Of the persecuted justified the means through which this was achieved. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism while easily distinguishable in theory, is much harder to apply in real life. The example given above can be categorized under both types of utility theory. The protection of a large persecuted number of people justified entering into war against the anti- Semitic administration in Germany.

Viewing it in this manner allows rule utilitarianism to come into play. At the same time, looking at the consequences of war -? which would be the saving of not only Jews, but also the prevention of invasion of other countries in Europe allows act utilitarianism to justify the Allied Forces declaration on war on Nazi Germany. Utility theory does run the risk of being manipulated and abused and has been used by terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists to justify the use of rower and force for “jihad” or what they call, “holy war”.

However, it must be noted that utility theory condones war only if it causes the greatest good for the greatest number of society. Even if “jihad” is considered to be the greatest good, it is only from the perspective of a select few people with biased opinions. Hence, a terrorist’s justification of war via utility theory cannot be said to be a true justification at all. Be it act or rule utilitarianism, so long as the ends result in the greatest good for the largest number of people in society and are made with the best intentions in mind, war is justified.

Cost-benefit Analysis and Just War The benefits should outweigh the costs in order to justify engaging in war. Cost-benefit analysis is a way of weighing the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. It helps us determine whether an approach was worth the adoption and practice in terms of benefits in labor, time, Cost savings and so on. It is largely considered an economic analysis and is an approach that can be taken when determining whether a war is justified because of the high socio-economic costs involved in war.

A good way to go about analyzing this would be to look at a case study of the Iraq war. The Gulf war resulted in 220,000 Iraqi casualties and a few hundred thousand wounded Iraqis. The costs of war amounted to 6 trillion US dollars. These numbers are neither small nor insignificant. The benefits, however, are the exact opposite. As far as tangible benefits go, the Iraqi economy saw a slight growth in its GAP since the end of the war. Part of this, is a windfall due to high oil prices but if the war had not taken place, oil sanctions imposed on Iraq would have severely curtailed Iraqi oil sale.

This would have further crushed the already dying economy pre-war. Of course, since Cost-Benefit analysis is primarily economic in nature, on paper, the growth in Iraq’s GAP is touted by pro-war candidates as being worth the effort. However it would be ridiculous to imagine that Iraq’s economy would have grown enough to cover the costs of war even, much less to actually grow enough to recover and sustain the country post-war. Further, as cost-benefit analysis also should include some elements of intangibility, one must take note Of the accessory costs that came along with the war.

Besides the devastation and disease that struck Iraq, neighbors Iran also saw acceleration in its nuclear programmed because it saw that as the only way to prevent an imminent US invasion. This is not good for the global economy because it makes the Middle East a very dangerous place. Further, there is a high continuing rate of violence in Iraq because society sees it as the only form of protection for them. Of course, regime change and the demise of Sadism Hussein must be considered in the benefit analysis but despite that, Iraq is still in shambles -? both economically as well as socially.

Overall, a cost-benefit analysis allows us another opportunity to evaluate a war and to decide if it can be justified. In the example of Iraq, we can see how it can be used to prove that it cannot be justified. Counter argument However, despite these two analytical methods of justifying war, they come with a caveat. The caveat being that they are only used to justify war when negotiations have failed between parties; all peaceful methods have been already exhausted and war is the final and only option available to them. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Many a time, countries prepare for war while negotiations are ongoing. Worse still, they may not even engage in any peaceful forms of collaboration or settlement at all. The notions of war always remain at the back of countries’ minds. The Cold War may seem like a successful instance where there were no missiles or bombs unloaded on either the USSR or the US. However, there was a war nonetheless and a war which lasted 30 years. Despite supposed ‘peaceful’ negotiations between the two superpowers, the thought of missile warfare was always at the back of their minds.

It would not be far-fetched to imagine that this severely impacted the success Of their discussions. One cannot fully and calmly negotiate with a finger on the trigger. It was merely a combination of luck, timing and the right set of leaders that prevented the outbreak of a disastrous third world war. Conclusion War can be justified through two methods – utility theory and cost-benefit analysis. These allow an intangible and tangible account of the ways in which a war can be explained as being necessary.

2 Moderately unfamiliar Assumptions About AY-Qaeda Introduction to Homeland Security Research Paper August 17, 2013 Mr.. William R Did Lori 2 moderately unfamiliar assumptions about al-Qaeda Abstract From intellectuals to policy-makers alike. All of the extraordinary output on the subject of al-Qaeda, has recently led to a number of far-reaching theories about the group which remain startlingly unexplored.

The two assumptions, this paper examines and reveals each one’s foundational role in assertions as well as debates about leaked, despite the relatively unexplored status of each. These 2 assumptions relate to: (1) the role of the internet in actual terrorist activity; and (2) the association between combating a global “AY-Qaeda and combating al-Qaeda In Iraq”. Introduction Miller’s ever-burgeoning bookish literature which anyone familiar with terrorism would recognize, quickly titled the ‘Six rather unusual propositions about terrorism’.

Is what my research paper plays off. In 2005, Miller’s astute and incisive piece brought to the forefront six unfamiliar assumptions about terrorism that should already have spawned discussion among intellectuals In the field, but ad not, until his work provocatively presented those propositions. In a similar stratum, this research paper focuses on 2 rather unfamiliar theories about al-Qaeda which I think demand far greater research, attention, and debate than Miller’s had received thus far.

It Is my Intention to focus these reflections on some Insufficiently explored theories regarding particularly al-Qaeda. However, most of the theories relate more broadly to terrorism concerning Issues In general. What Is meant here by the phrase moderately unfamiliar assumptions ? By ‘ unfamiliar this dialogue reposes that the thinking explored here prowl beneath many of the affirmations made by intellectuals on al-Qaeda. This coupled with getting beneath many of the affirmations frequently put forward by political types (politicians and policy-makers).

Humbly, this Is not to Imply that these particular assumptions are shared universally: in fact, many of the theories are really opposing pairs of, dichotomous conjectures, Witt those partisan to one side to a certain debate embracing that conjecture while their opponents reciprocate the other. Centrally the point is that these outright and racial foundational notions concerning al-Qaeda, are for many assertions made by those addressing key issues and debating in the field.

By ‘ assumptions these reflections suggest that Miller’s six assumptions have been given inadequate attention in terrorism scholarship and dialogue. Not saying that these assumptions have been converted into the bases for other claims because they have been considered so obviously true and were taken for granted, or so indispensable research as to be automatically accepted for any scholarship whatsoever to continue. Contrarily, these assumptions engross some complex, inconsequential matters.

This being said too often they have been accepted and neglected in favor of important research in other directions. What I hope to achieve with this paper is to draw attention to them, and in doing so, persuade their investigation through due diligent research and in depth analyses. Far too often these assumptions have not been totally ignored, but they have been left moderately unexplored. In addition, they also have been taken as the basis for other claims and assertions.

For this reason, this research paper investigates 2 of the six assumptions, n an attempt to reveal what is habitually taken for granted in many conversations about al-Qaeda. This coupled with the consequent penalty for assertions made about counterterrorism and terrorism. In addition, proposals for how each assumption could be explored more completely and systematically are offered. This research paper then concludes by making a note of social science, and that it may never offer perfect answers on issues such as those brought up earlier.

Moreover, headway towards a more scrupulous and more researched deliberation on these matters would represent significant progress. Assumption 1: The role of the internet The first moderately unfamiliar assumption requiring in depth research concerns the function of the internet in the dynamics of al-Qaeda, and its product of terrorism. Generally it has become normal to refer with awe to the purportedly amplified central – role that the internet has assumed in the progression of terrorist activities regarding al-Qaeda and its cells .

As for the most part, in a thorough discussion, Atman (2006) suggesting that it ‘is no embellishment to say that the Internet is the solitary most significant factor in transforming mostly local Jihad concerns and actions into the truly universal network that al Qaeda has developed into today’, and culminating in the claim that ‘al Qaeda is hastily becoming the foremost web- directed guerrilla network in the world’ (up. 124, 149). Atman and others who trenchantly talked about the position of the internet in al-Qaeda progression collects evidence of vast amounts of Jihads online activity to craft their case.

Chat rooms, emails and Web sites all bristle with Jihads discussion, dissemination, and debate, providing resources vital to individuals studying al-Qaeda. However, the real mentality of such virtual movement to al-Qaeda and its acts of terrorism remains a relatively unexplored theory in these intellectual accounts of the internet transformation role for al-Qaeda. Some questions some, are internet-based communications in tact bringing together factions who would not otherwise have met?

Or question two dose it Just simply provides an easier, less costly, and more rapid platform for terrorist or radical type exchanges that nevertheless would likely have otherwise taken place? Thirdly, do the social networks acknowledged by Seaman (2008, esp.. up. 109-123) being facilitated ND amplified through use of the internet, or is the primary meaner of face-to-face contact still the way in which definite terrorist goings-on come about? Lastly, is virtual training materials replacing actual physical terrorist training camps.

Or dose those found guilty of the 7 July 2005 bombings in London, demonstrate connections to ‘conventional’, physical training camps and are they still a key element of terrorist activity? Moreover, dose a rather simplistic, but nevertheless helpful, similarity underscores the point and again asks this question. If an unfamiliar person were to investigate my wan communications, they would surely find an enormous amount of correspondence taking place over the internet, mostly through emails and research. They might be coaxed to conclude that such correspondence would not be taking place if I were lacking access to the internet.

Now a conclusion such as this is not inevitably warranted however, as many of the very same correspondence that I currently converse through emails are the very same I would communicate if the internet didn’t exist. Instead I would use phone calls, letters, and face to face letters, meetings. So, my use of the internet definitely would exhibit an advancement in my earns of communication, the real effect if truth be told would be a displacement of associations and communication that would on the other hand occurred otherwise. So that meaner that the substantive effect would, in reality, be far slighter than it first appeared.

Scholarly Works such as that of “Limit already have begun to suggest that at least somewhat similar phenomenon may characterize the role of the internet in radical Salamis discussions and activity. ” [1] “Limit (outwitted a doubt, the internet has played an important and significant role in spreading al-Qaeda ideology and usage, especially as images and videos from Iraq have disseminated quickly and widely around the country, and indeed, around the world. But the oft-asserted and oft-bemoaned link between the role of the internet and actual terrorist activity remains undocumented, unclear – and a sixth rather unexplored assumption.

Research must continue in the direction provided by Bunt (2003), Wingman (AAA, Bibb), and others, and evolve further still from an analysis of what terrorists try to accomplish over the internet to what in fact the actual effects and consequences of such virtual activities are. ” Assumption 2: The relationship between fighting ‘AY-Qaeda in Iraq’ and fighting al- Qaeda globally On November 16, 2002 in a notoriously proclaiming speech President George W. Bush stated that “We’re taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don’t have to face them here at home. [3] This bold statement that he and several of his constituents have repeated numerous times since. In response, pundits , scholars, and critical politicians, like Simon and Benjamin (2005, up. 192-193), have retorted that such a notorious proclamation coupled with the conception of the threat faced in Iraq by Americans and its allies alike, is deeply misguided. Several of these critics push and take it a step turner still, declaring Nat t there is little to no correlation between now America fares in Iraq as well as how a global counterterrorism campaign in opposition to al-Qaeda would proceed.

The dichotomy of these opposing views constitutes some relatively unexplored yet significant opposing assumptions. Of course Bush and his constituents reciprocated several arguments in their favor as well fore example: “not only that killing or capturing terrorists in Iraq prevents them room ever getting to American shores,”[3] also, and probably more convincingly, “that dealing “AY-Qaeda in Iraq” a visible defeat will turn the tide of global support against the group. [3] Supporters of these views in particular are later fond that invoking Osama bin Alden’s own claim that “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. ” This statement by Bin Laden was used to the advantage of Bush which meet that, for those who supported his comments, meet that success in Iraq holds the the key and potential of becoming a success globally in slowing the momentum spawned by al-Qaeda in recent years. By saying this the assumption of the right is that crushing ‘AY-Qaeda in Iraq’ can and will contribute to crushing al-Qaeda globally.

Conversely, Left wingers (Bush’s critics) uphold that there was little to no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the American invasion in 2003 coupled with the notion that America’s expensive and gory efforts in Iraq are in fact, purely a distraction of capital and attention from the global operation against the terrorist group that actually attacked the US on 11 September 2001. The left wingers in general focused on the first and weakest of Bush’s two main arguments.

The Intel into Iraqis show that terrorist cells in Iraq are in fact mostly Iraqis as opposed to outsiders who were not affianced in terrorist actions before America entered Iraq. Consecutively, critics assert that even dealing “AY-Qaeda in Iraq” a evident defeat will yield little to hinder al-Qaeda globally. This assumption in this regard by left wingers is that even a comprehensive defeat of “AY-Qaeda in Iraq” would offer an immaterial role to America’s global counterterrorism efforts. So the question is which one these partisan assumptions “if either” are correct.

This is enormously the meat of today’s debate/research concerning forward momentum in Iraq. The dichotomy of opposing assumptions sadly, and shockingly, had been given virtually no attention by intellectuals at the time. Scrupulously, the question of whether an observer crushing of ‘AY-Qaeda in Iraq’ would persuade Shadiest and potential Shadiest worldwide hadn’t been the subject matter of almost all detailed research at the time. Cook’s (2003) intuitive paper entitled, “The recovery of radical Islam in the wake of the defeat of the Taliban,” spelled out the type of research that could be a necessary modeled.

In that paper, Cook traces Jihads debates and proclamations to reveal the ways in which America’s notable but incomplete defeat of the Taliban in late 2001 was hastily rationalized and explained away by Shadiest globally. This left them with little if no impression helpful to America’s counterterrorism efforts. [10] Some would say that what is needed for success in Iraq is a parallel study, tracing Jihads debates since 2003 coupled with investigating whether the evident success or failure of “AY-Qaeda in Iraq” shows to have had any impact on generating or dampening though undoubtedly more difficult concern for al-Qaeda globally.

Also it is by no meaner definitive as to the probable results of future developments in Iraq, such a study of the past ten years would provide enormous input to ongoing debates coupled Witt laying the dauntlessly tort evaluating, in a grounded and intellectual manner, the inferences that success by the US against “AY-Qaeda in Iraq” either will or will not yield useful effects against al- Qaeda on a broader scale. In addition, exploring another prospectively intuitive approach to these dichotomies of assumption could emulate Shannon and Tennis’s (2007) fascinating “Militant Islam and the futile fight for the reputation”. 27] Just as these intellectual types examine past manifestations of American determination in order to evaluate whether militant Psalmists ever truly rework their opinion of the US as wish-washy, current and future research can and should explore whether defeats in one ring for worldwide terrorist groups in reality have any impact on the drive of such groups globally. Research down both these positions, and in other directions additionally one hopes, would fall short of providing any definitive answers as to the connection between the war against “AY-Qaeda in Iraq”and the war against al-Qaeda globally.

The fall of Saddam Hussien has brought down new opportunities in the Iraqi oil sector for American oil companies. According to OPEC records the ban on sale of Iraqi oil after the first Gulf War has resulted into the preservation of Iraqi oil fields and now Iraq has second biggest oil reserves in the world. Iraq is a once in lifetime opportunity No matter on what side of the war the company was but it is ethical after the fall of Saddam regime to help out the Iraqi people to make the most of their lives.

By investing in Iraqi economy the company will not only provide additional employment to Iraqi citizens but also bring in new technology which will help the economy in long run. Secondly as Iraq is on the path of becoming a liberal and secular democracy it is much more ethical to do business compare to countries like Saudi Arabia where the oil wealth is controlled by few which has led to concentration of wealth in few hands and the benefits are not passed on the people.

By making an early move in the Iraqi oil the company will put itself in a position to enter the lucrative and fast growing market of India with which Iraq and United States have good business relation. India’s demand for oil has been increasing in past half a decade with booming economy and already companies like Chevron have started making investment in the refining sector and if DWI able to make foray then it can secure the future of the company (The Economics Times, 2006). Apart from oil the company can venture into telecommunication, housing, financial services, environment and manufacturing sectors.

Investing into these sections will help in fostering the growth of middle class in Iraqi society which for years has been systematically destroyed under the oppressive regime and left on the margins. By investing in these sectors will generate massive employment compare to the oil sector so it will bring prosperity to the middle class of Iraqi society. If one looks holistically then this will go a long way in establishing a sound democracy in the country as best democracies in the world are formed on the back of strong middle class and relative equality in the society.

Legal perspective The commercial laws in Iraq are formed in an environment familiar to any western business and are one of the most progressive in Middle East. According to Iraqi Ministry of trade the next set of laws will include bankruptcy protections, enforceable property rights, and a well-functioning judicial system. For investment in Iraq the Iraqi government has formed the Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force. The task force makes the laws for investment in Iraq the salient features of the present law are (Iraq Ministry of Trade, 2006)

 According to article 10 of the law investors from every country will be given equal treatment and opportunity.  Article 12 : Iraqi workers will be given preference but companies are free to hire workers which it deem necessary for the operation and Iraqi workforce doesn’t have enough technical know how.  All the companies are exempted of any fees for the first three years when the license to investment is granted. No fee for three years will not only help in adjusting the initial investment but also help in securing long term profitability.

Security concern for American employees in Iraq All American employees hired by American companies working in Iraq are covered under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Selecting partner in Iraq At present Iraqi government is striving to build a free economy and has virtually brought down all the trade obstacles in terms of trade and protectionism. Tariff in Iraq are at 5 percent and corporate tax rate in the country is only 15 percent. The Secretary of Trade Gutierrez met with Iraqi Minister of Trade Dr.

Abd-al-Falah al-Sudani in September 2006 and discussed five key areas of trade and one of them is privatization of state oil companies (Iraq Ministry of Trade, 2006) . This will provide massive opportunity for DWI to enter the Iraqi market.

Bibliography

1. EEOC(2006) “Employee Rights When Working for Multinational Employers” Retrieved on 19th November 2006 from http://www. eeoc. gov/facts/multi-employees. html
2. Fram, Alan. (2004). “Iraq costs are $119. 4 billion and rising; lawmakers ponder how money might have been spent. ” Associated Press. http://www. boston. com/dailynews/153/wash/Iraq_costs_are_119_4_billion_aP. shtml
3. Iraq Ministry of Trade (2006) “New Investment Laws”. Retrieved on 19th November 2006 from http://www. export. gov/iraq/
4. The Economics Times (2006)“Chevron picks 5% in RPL for Rs 1350 cr- The Economic Times” Retrieved on 19th November 2006 from economictimes. indiatimes. com/articleshow/1487859. cms
5. Washington Files (2004) “Evans Urges Private Investment in Iraq”. Retrieved on 19th November 2006 from http://canberra. usembassy. gov/hyper/2004/0212/epf408. htm

Oil In today’s society one of the economic issues has been in the Middle East on oil. Oil was the backbone of the western countries and it was very important to imperial and super powers, such as France, Britain, United States of America and the former Soviet Union. One critic says, “That the declining Ottoman Empire paved way for the rising European imperial and colonial powers interested in securing various territories and controlling access to Asia”.

So as a result, western populations have been influence to a type of propaganda or life style of the Arab and other people in the Middle East, especially Israel. Another Educated critic says, “In the Middle East is the most militaries region in the world and most arms sales head there. A suppressed people that sees US influence as a major root cause of the current problems in the Middle East has led to a rise in Islamic militancy, acts of terrorism and anti-west sentiment, anti-US in particular.

When looking at some of the actions of the US, it can often be seen why this is unfortunately so”. Third critic says, “To maintain superiority, control and influence over the region, the West has placed corrupt Arab leaders into positions of power and supported the overthrow of those that are not seen as favorable. The writer personally thinks that it should not be a person over the goods such as oil, cotton, and others resources in the Middle East.

Problems with supplies and resources where an issue everywhere around the world but mainly in Asia round the Middle East countries known to be Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The Last Critic says, “This has also served to keep their populations at bay, in return for implementation, power and personal wealth of the elite. Sometimes this has been done in the name of fighting communism. The common theme underlying it though has been the struggle to control access to important resources such as oil”. Overview: Economic Issues in the Middle East on Oil By Loganberries

The Case Study on “Organizational change at Royal Dutch/Shell” This case study on “Organizational Change at Royal Dutch/Shell” deals with the organizational change that the world’s largest non-state-owned oil company made to respond its operating environmental changes in 1990s (Hill, C 2005, pp. 476-477) While there are a few different structures of global organizations such as worldwide area structure, worldwide product divisional structure and global matrix structure, the Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch/Shell (hereinafter Shell) decided to be structured with a matrix structure from the 1950s until 1994.

Under the matrix structure, the head of each operating company reported to two bosses; one boss was responsible for the geographical region or country and the other was responsible for the business activity worldwide (Shell’s business activities included oil exploration and production, oil products, chemicals, gas and coal). There were two major benefits that Shell enjoyed from this matrix structure for about 40 years. First, their decision making process was based on the consensus building between the two bosses. Because of its side effects such as slow and cumbersome process, it might be not proper for some organizations.

However as the nature of Shell’s business environment is that most big decisions are long-term ones that involve huge capital expenditures and as a result they could review thoroughly all the big decisions, this decision making process was beneficial to the company. Second, this slow decision making process caused substantial decentralization by default to the heads of the individual operating companies. Thanks to this decentralization, Shell could respond to local differences in government regulations, competitive conditions and consumer tastes.

Even though there were drawbacks such as slow and cumbersome process, the matrix structure fit the environment of the global oil and chemical industries in the 1980s. In the 1980s, Shell sought to grow through acquisition. It bought out the remaining 30% shareholding in Shell Oil in 1985 to consolidate its American operations. While the oil price plummeted in the winter of 1986 when the price fell from $31 per barrel to $10, Shell managed its budget by half: the company had to work much harder to develop new projects more cheaply. As a esult, Shell could make huge improvements in drilling techniques such as slim-hole drilling and directional drilling. The use of 3D seismic became widespread. (from Shell’s official homepage; 1980s to the new millennium). All of these activities worked well under the matrix structure of Shell until the end of 1980s. There was a huge environmental change in 1990. It’s the Gulf War. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, partly prompted by the low price of oil, led to uncertainty about production and prices spiked. Iraq wanted to gain control of the world’s third largest oil producer to give it more control over the world market.

Following the Gulf war to liberate Kuwait, crude oil prices entered a period of steady decline, reaching their lowest level in 1994 for 21 years (BBC, Why the oil price keeps rising, June 2008). As the oil prices declined, naturally there was pressure on Shell’s profit margins. Although it had traditionally been among the most profitable oil companies in the world, its relative performance began to slip in the early 1990s as its competitors adapted rapidly to the environment changes. As a result, this suggested that the Shell senior management team review its strategy and the fit between strategy and organizational structure.

In 1995, Shell abandoned its 40 year old matrix structure and adopted divisional line structure based on its new strategy to lower the operating costs just as its competitors did. Under the new divisional line structure, Shell now operates with five global product divisions- exploration and production, oil products, chemical, gas and coal. The difference between the organization after 1995 and that before 1994 is that the power of the each global division will increase and the responsibilities of the country (or regional) chefs are reduced.

The Shell’s change led to enhanced fit between operating environment, strategy and organizational architecture. As mentioned earlier, Shell’s operating environment changed in the early of 1990s with continuing slack demand for oil and weak oil price which caused pressure on profit margins. In order to overcome the challenges, Shell changed its strategy to lowering operating costs by a sharp reduction in head office overhead and the elimination of unnecessary duplication of facilities across countries.

This new strategy could be achieved via the change of its reorganization in 1995 from matrix organization to divisional lines structure. As a result of the change, Shell could reduce the need for a large head office bureaucracy and eliminated unnecessary duplication of facilities across countries. Eventually, production may be consolidated in lager facilities that serve an entire region, rather than a single country, with which it could enjoy the greater scale economies. In summary, Shell’s organizational structure change in 1995 could contribute its business strategy changes which were driven by the operating environment changes.