Project Reflection for U.S. Military Intervention

After completing this research assignment, I feel that I have walked away from this project with a better understanding of how our military operates and its true motives in a given conflict. It is somewhat disheartening to realize that most of the conflicts that we find ourselves in are based upon economic benefit or the possession of materials we don’t already possess. It was an eye opening project that led me in a direction of learning that I would not have been able to obtain if I simply went through a U.S. history text book to find information.

I initially chose to study the Persian Gulf War because I was lacking even a basic idea of why the war was fought and I truly wanted to learn more about the intervention. At first, the research for the project led me in a pretty straight forward direction. I was primarily focusing on the one dimensional aspects of the conflict such as the military campaigns of Saddam Hussein and the logistics of Operation Desert Storm. However, as I traveled deeper into the informational abyss that the internet provided, I found myself learning more and more about the economics during the 1980’s. This led me to question the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s intentions in assisting Kuwait in the removal of Iraq from its lands. I then researched the histories of oil and gas markets and began to make comparisons between the fluctuations in oil prices and the dates of military conflicts and found that whenever the U.S. became involved in a conflict with a country with large oil reserves, oil prices would climb. Whenever the U.S. emerged from a conflict with victory the oil prices would decrease. From here I was able to conclude that the Persian Gulf War was fought to keep control over oil while using the humanitarian liberation of Kuwait as a public appeal to morals. This allowed me to look as other interventions with a totally new perspective that rested on economic expansion. I think that this was that most beneficial lesson I have learned from the humanities coursework this year and I believe that I will continue to apply this newfound perspective in the future.

One of my favorite aspects of this project was the class viewing of other projects through PowerPoint presentations. It was very rewarding to listen to my classmates’ interventions in a visually stimulating experience. I learned a great deal from this event and I even learned of a few interventions I never even knew took place. An example of this would be Denvir Clarke’s presentation on the U.S. intervention in Columbia and the relation to the war on drugs. I had no idea that military involvement in Columbia ever occurred before and I was very surprised to learn of the CIA’s secret involvement in the issue.

I believe that the key take away from this project was a valuable lesson that we can all learn from: Always look behind the media and the one dimensional resources before you can true take a stand on an issue. I now try to look at the story behind the story in any provocative issue before I can even formulate an opinion because so much may be going on behind something like the media that might never be recognized as a truth. In fact, I would very well assume that the majority of our population has never known, does not know or will ever know some of the truths that are hiding behind clever rhetoric. That is why it is of the upmost importance that the American populous understands the lesson being taught through this project. So much can be changed through perspective and in order to preserve the future we must first understand the true perspective.

Iraq: An Economic Destination

The military intervention with Iraq is well remembered in our history as one of the first of many occupations in the Middle East. What we can learn from this intervention is that military action was called for as a humanitarian response to the Kuwaiti people as Iraq invaded their country, but there is no denying that the taking of Kuwait was an alarm to the U.S. administration. The fact that Kuwait was in such proximity to our oil interests in Saudi Arabia triggered an immediate response in order to protect any rise in oil prices and to secure resources in Saudi Arabia. This was the primary directive for the war.

In the mid ‘70s, Iraq’s relations with Iran were aggressively deteriorating after an Islamic revolution took place in Iran and the newly formed government began to grow hostile towards Iraqi officials. As relations finally fell through, Iraq was in the position of initiating a war with Iran in order to achieve the following: 1) to gain possession of the coveted Persian Gulf, 2) to assert dominance in the Middle East and replace Iran as the most powerful Persian State and, 3) to effectively end any further Persian-Arab conflict. By the early ‘80s the cry for war was almost deafening. Although the tension between the two nations was high and the demand for war was increasing exponentially, the actual decision to engage in conflict was rash and ultimately costly. Phoebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgment and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's"(Pike).  Saddam Hussein committed to a long bloody war, with Iran ultimately winning. This left Iraq with many casualties and majorly indebted to surrounding countries and the United States, which supplied Iraq with weapons and money.

After the end of the war, Iraq fell into a deep depression in the late ‘80s and morale among its people and government was diminishing. Hussein began to look for possible ways to regain the nation’s losses from the war and find more revenue to finance the crippled country. He then turned to neighboring Kuwait, seeking the immediate access to the Persian Gulf, an essential asset in Persian trade, and to attain large oil reserves that Kuwait possessed. In a fit of rage, Hussein launched a full-fledged offensive on the small kingdom on February 8^th, 1990, taking Kuwait City in less than a day. Most of the world was appalled by the hostile takeover of Kuwait, but western involvement took place five days later due to the U.S.’s urges to use diplomacy through the United Nations (which initially voted for sanctions against Iraq). Iraq’s one and only major export was oil, making it very susceptible to trade embargos. The only nations that seemingly supported Iraq were Pakistan and Jordan, even though they refused to offer military support. The rest of the Arab States united together, which was traditionally uncommon in Arab history, and even sent troops to combat Iraq as they condemned the invasion. Saddam had underestimated western involvement and began to take more serious measures. By September, Iraq began gathering western hostages in Kuwait and transporting them to Baghdad, using them as human shields. Surprisingly, hostages were released shortly afterward after UN diplomats convinced Saddam that hostages would not cause the U.S. to repel an offensive. On August 7^th, 1990, coalition forces began to land in Saudi Arabia and prepare for an invasion of Kuwait.

The war itself can be called an “open-shut case,” with very few large-scale battles beside “Operation Desert Storm,” and minimal coalition casualties. The UN gave Iraq the ultimatum of immediately pulling out of Kuwait and restoring the legitimate government and disassembling the puppet regime that was installed. Through the use of modern technology such as laser and computer guided missiles, the coalition forces were able to cripple Iraqi air and land forces without ground invasion. During operation Desert Storm, the largest offensive of the war, military precision on the part of General Norman Schwarzkopf allowed for a very effective offensive against the Iraqi army ultimately driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and well into Iraq. At this point, President Bush called for an immediate ceasefire and UN council meetings were arranged to plan the surrender of Iraq. On February 28^th, 1991, Iraq officially surrendered, leaving the country crippled and in even more debt than before. The U.S., on the other hand, walked away from the war in favorable standing with most Middle Eastern countries and, more importantly, their oil reserves.

The most interesting concept of this war is the relationship between Iraq and the United States and how this relationship changed so quickly. During the Iraq/Iran war, Iraq was considered to be an ally of the United States. In an event called the contra-affair scandal, President Reagan and his administration provided Iraq with multiple weapons including long range missiles and chemical weapons in hopes that Iraq would provide the U.S. with cheaper oil prices. This scandal was later exposed in the federal courts during multiple law suits against the Reagan administration. What we have learned from this event is that the Reagan administration was incredibly adamant about possessing a relationship with Iraq in the hopes of securing a trade in oil.

The possession of oil and natural resources is a key factor in our relationship with a country like Iraq and any Middle Eastern state. These countries are not viewed as humanitarian locations but economic stock houses. Oil is one of the most important resources to our economy and our livelihood. Our entire society relies on oil and petroleum-based products in one way or another so the mission of obtaining oil is set as a priority to the U.S. government. James Williams, a notable analyst of oil history, stated, “Following what became known as the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, crude oil prices entered a period of steady decline. In 1994, the inflation adjusted oil price reached the lowest level since 1973,”(Williams). The actual methods of obtaining oil, ether diplomatically or by force are often disregarded in order to keep our nation at the top of the totem pole. This race is what determines many of our foreign relations with countries of the Middle East. Although the Bush administration claimed that the Persian Gulf War was fought in response to the moral obligation to re-liberate Kuwait, many other countries in the world such as Rwanda (Langford) were under similar oppression. The U.S. intentionally ignored and continues to ignore these countries because there is no economic gain to be made. The U.S. can even be considered a colonial power in our modern world because of our pursuit of economic resources. It even seems as though humanitarian interest is not a factor when decisions are made to engage in warfare with a country that either threatens U.S. interests in natural resources or is in position of natural resources.

 The consequences of this war have not only lead to the termination of a positive relationship between the United States and Iraq but also brought many factors into foreign relations with Middle Eastern countries in general. The war even caused an unethical approach to the war on terror ultimately leading to the second invasion of Iraq. This was also a war that was fought in the pursuit of foreign oil while using the conflicts surrounding the events of 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. The greed and quest for international power is a key driving force in our relations with countries that do not have the means to protect themselves or could easily be controlled by the American establishment. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was unethical and was a violation of international law and a response was required from the rest of the world to restore order. However, the U.S.’s involvement with the war was primarily focused on protecting oil interests in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern territories. So now the question is asked: Are the wars we currently fight justified as humanitarian protection and justice? Or are we fighting an economic war with live fire? The answer is dependent on three things: the strength of the nation we are at conflict with, the values of the natural resources said countries possess and what events surrounding the war could potentially be used as a justification of action. We must always remember to constantly analyze U.S. policies and dig deeper into foreign relations to truly find the justifications (or lack thereof) of the military conflicts we find ourselves in.

The American Revolution Claim

America has been built upon the ideals of justice, liberty and hard work and has proceeded through history as a glorified nation that is presently unstoppable. The reality of our country’s origin, however, is very misguided in a way. The actual events of our history are very often censored and transformed like a Photoshoped image of a model; pretty, flawless and not showing the slightest bit of weakness or scandal. “America is perfect in every way, shape or form!” some might exclaim, but to an individual who has driven into the very depth of the Revolution and understands the actual concepts and motives behind the uprising itself will see through these clean lines and see the truth. For the reason of censorship, it is my official claim that America was built as a means of the rich colonial leaders, now called founding fathers, gathering more wealth through independent trade and exporting as well as establishing a government that would keep the common people and the poor in their respectable classes and keep the wealthy in power.

            In order to fully understand the origin of the revolution, we must look back to earlier conflicts within the colonies. Bacon’s rebellion was a strike against the government in protest to the westward expansion regulations against Native American engagement. Overall the rebellion was a failure but it was the very first attempt at overthrowing the government as a means of gathering more property and wealth, all orchestrated by a well to do leader, Francis Bacon. This would later serve as an example to future leaders who desired the profits of independence. At the end of the French and Indian war, Britain was in a considerable amount of debt for protecting its American colonists from invasion. This called for an increase of taxes that were very necessary for revitalizing the British economy. The immediate response from the colonists was anger and protest to the increase in taxes such as the stamp act and the raised tea prices. Granted, there was no direct representation from the colonists in parliament concerning taxation but we have to consider the fact that Britain was in a form of economic crisis after the war and quickly needed to draw funds in order to pay off war debts. I personally feel that the steadfast action of taxing the colonists was justified considering the fact that Britain had just saved the colonists from possible invasion. It is around this time that the rich colonial leaders saw the opportunity arise to launch revolution to form a new, more profitable nation of a never changing political system.

Originally, the colonies’ economic revenue was achieved through the large plantations in the southern colonies (of course the actual success was caused by the free labor of African slaves). The colonial leaders then saw fit to gain more economic benefits by using the taxes impressed by the British forces as an excuse to revolt against parliament. The taxes were a positive benefit to the leaders who used this as a means of gaining colonial support and possibly organizing a militia as collateral for battling Britain. The westward expansion acts were also put into effect in order to provide Native Americans with the land that they deserved to settle upon. According to Edwardo Galeano, “The thirteen colonies are hungry for the west. Many pioneers dream of taking off over the mountains, with rifle, ax and a handful of corn as baggage.” I think that was an attitude that was shared amongst not only pioneer colonists but the entirety of the American public, particularly the upper class.

Utilizing popular figures of respect and admiration such as Patrick Henry (who according to Ray Rafael did not even make the actual Liberty or Death speech written by a man named William Wirt in 1817), Thomas Jefferson, was an advocate for the equality of all men while at the same time an owner of many slaves, and Benjamin Franklin who did absolutely nothing to the contribution of American revolution save for a few relatively useless inventions as far as uprising goes. The way the colonists viewed the input of these figures was generally positive and in some ways awe inspiring because it was a symbol that all Americans can collaborate together no matter whom they are and fabricate a better country together. This was a calling to all colonists and turned the nation into a strong bonding force to establish liberty and democracy. In reality, however, the self appointed leaders of the revolution were using propaganda such as the Liberty or Death speech or A Speech to the House of Burgesses as a means of creating a wave affect that would turn even the most sensible people into loyalist hating patriots. In some instances, loyalists, often referred to as Tories, were even stripped, tarred and covered with feathers as a means of humiliation. This shows that the levels of American entitlement were extremely high and in 1775, the Boston “Massacre” was just enough to push the entire nation into revolt.

It wasn’t until a year later when the Declaration of Independence, (which had obvious contradictions as far as equality was concerned with African Americans and women) was signed and the action of the colonial leaders plan was set into motion. By war’s end, the nation was unified and a central government was formed as a so called democracy. However, through a clever formation of the American Constitution and self appointment of presidency and high official positions, the nation was actually a republic that had the ability to keep the rich in power while keeping the rest of the nation politically happy and patriotic. All throughout history, this form of government has not failed and continues to run today. One can argue that for the sake of efficiency this political action is necessary but it is difficult to call a nation democratic if only the highest of society can truly cast a vote and have enough power for it to make any difference. Should we be as patriotic as our media and history books proclaim us to be? I say no for the reason that as bias a nation as we truly are we cannot leave any at all decisions or feelings to a system that is based on a controlling and even anti-American base.

A Claim about Christopher Columbus

It is a historical fact the Christopher Columbus accidentally sailed to America in 1492 in order to look for the rich resources of Eastern Asia. It is true that he landed on an island off of the coast of the American mainland and encountered native peoples who were more primitive that their European counterparts. This much is clear as far as historical accuracy or inaccuracy is concerned, however, from this event onward the true story becomes a bit hazy. There are multiple accounts of what Mr. Columbus found, why he was really venturing westward to begin with and what did he bring with him intentionally or not. After reviewing numerous sources that each explains this chapter of history and it is well within my personal opinion as a student that Christopher Columbus was undoubtedly searching for wealth and glory as a means of greed, obsessed with the supposed gold that he would find in his travels and, unknown to him at the time, would eventually bring and early form of negative colonialism to the natives of the American Islands.

            The very first accounts of Columbus’s travels date back to 1492 when he began writing his own journal of the journey he was about to take , however there is historical evidence that supports that he was born to an Italian wool craftsman and was educated in the process of mapmaking by the time he was in his late teens. During the time period of which he lived, a great majority of the population had certain misperceptions about the world outside of what was already discovered or claimed. For instance, one account depicts the Atlantic Ocean as “…a few miles from land, the sea ended in darkness and was inhabited by frightful monsters; and that if any ship should sail out too far, it would be swallowed up and never return.” Columbus was educated enough to understand that the earth was round and that a direct course to Asia would prove economically beneficial to Europe because it would eliminate a dangerous and time consuming journey on land from East Asia to European nations.

Columbus then approached King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain in order to provide funding for his self created experimental voyage and was eventually granted access to three ships to search for the new route to Asia. What many people don’t know, however, is that there were many added bonuses to Columbus’s journey that would probably pushed to be a little more valiant than the depictions we find in today’s textbooks and internets research sites. Howard Zinn, an acclaimed historian known for his works in the fields of American history, explains in his writing in chapter one of A People’s History of the United States, “In return for bringing back gold and spices, [the king and queen] promised Columbus 10 percent of the profits, governorship over new-found lands, and the fame that would go with a new title: Admiral of the Ocean Sea.” This proves that if Columbus found anything in the Atlantic he would have returned to Spain a wealthy man and withholding the glory of a successful explorer. This statement is a direct reason why Columbus would even risk such a dangerous and uncertain and it can be summed up in one single term hat would follow him everywhere he went: Greed.

As soon as Columbus landed on where he thought was India (he was actually in the Caribbean Islands and claimed the award of 10,000) he claimed the land in the name of Ferdinand and Isabella or more appropriately in the name of himself for he would have governorship over whatever he found regardless of whom already settled there. Upon direct contact with the native inhabitants of the Island, who were by nature and culture a peaceful and sharing community that very rarely fought and shared absolutely everything with each other, Columbus immediately took hostages in order to interrogate them about the whereabouts of the self envisioned fields of gold according to Zinn. Contrary to popular believe as well as what the textbooks and online bios of Columbus explain, the initial friendly interaction between the Spaniards and the natives was extremely short lived based on the soon following gold search and sudden decline in the overall population of native inhabitants. The accounts in Columbus’s personal journal, exist somewhat contradictory statements for he says in his entry upon the first day landing on the island, “As I saw that they were very friendly to us, and perceived that they could be much more easily converted to our holy faith by gentle means than by force, I presented them with some red caps, and strings of beads to wear upon the neck, and many other trifles of small value, wherewith they were much delighted, and became wonderfully attached to us. Afterwards they came swimming to the boats, bringing parrots, balls of cotton thread, javelins, and many other things which they exchanged for articles we gave them, such as glass beads, and hawk's bells.” Yet, he goes on to say later on, “They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” I find this is in no way an attitude that would represent the intentions of someone who truly wanted to help people for even reasons as meager as opening up new trade routes.

After Columbus’s eventual death in 1506, The Spaniards eventually realized they were in an entirely new continent and began to colonize everything possible. Among some of the new waves of settlers to these newly forming lands, was a priest by the name of Barhtolemé de las Casas. He is credited with writing about the early forms of foreign colonialism that was present after Columbus had conquered the Island of Hispaniola. He was originally a priest for the Christian forces who were settled on Hispaniola and was even a property owner before he realized the atrocities that were being committed against the native people He openly expresses in his memoirs that he had never before come across such cruelty and abuse of power over any group of people. I find this particularly shocking and real for me because of Casas’s position as a Catholic priest, a position that defines honesty and compassion for others. If there was anyone who could provide a real report of what was actually happening in that place at that time period it would have been him.

So where does this all add up? I suppose you could say that Columbus was ignorant of what could have happened when he landed where he did and his primary intention was to find direct trade routes to Asia but I would claim that this is untrue. If money were not involved in the voyage to quite literally find more wealth, Columbus would never have left the docks of Spain. I think that this predetermined path of greed and European expansion is what pushed Columbus to accidently discover the Americas and eventually destroy a culture. Sure, you could blame the way things were back then as far as Europeans seeing themselves as the “Super-Race” but when it comes to basic human morals and integrity, there is no excuse for the unrightfully takeover of land, the enslavement of an innocent people and the eventual downfall of not only an island civilization but an entire continent. Therefore, is quite fair to say that Columbus in his entirety was a villain.