Summary Of Fool's Errand By Scott Horton

“What We Are Fighting For” written by Canadian veteran Rex Murphy challenges the reasons for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Murphy begins by advocating that Canada entered into the war on terror not only to back our American allies but also in retaliation to the Al-Queida attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. He states that we needed to do step in since in both of these attacks not only killed Canadians, but jeopardizes our sense of security. Murphy continues to discuss Canada's current role in Afghanistan. Firstly, he discusses how we need to displace the Taliban Government as a means of protection for the future, both for the Afghan people and Canadians. Secondly, Murphy believes that we play an important part providing the

While we deal with our own feelings of fear and anger regarding the violence perpetrated against us, both physical and non-physical, it’s important to remember that we aren’t the only ones who feel victimized in the conflict. Perhaps it is true that the Middle East, for the most part, distains the West, but not for nothing and not even

Theoretically, it holds that the United States (US) invaded Afghanistan as a self-defense strategy following the 9/11 attacks. Practically, however, as US foreign policy is about conquest, self-protection and resource-extraction, it seeks strategic dominance of geographical space to sustain its global relevance. The rationality of the US suggests the need to continuously accumulate capital, resources and military proficiency to ensure autonomy. Therefore, a pragmatic reading into the motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan negates the self-defense theory. Rather, the shifting coordinates of power within central and southern Asia crafted the perfect criteria for US intervention. This work explores the motivations and systemic cover-ups designed by the Bush administration in ordering military troops into Afghanistan in 2001. It will hold that this invasion was not just a War on Terror, but rather a tactic to ensure US prevalence within the region, and henceforth, the rest of the world. Thus, why did the US invade Afghanistan?

interests between great powers with a million causalities. Either in 1980s or today in twenty-first century, the controversy of US involvement in the Middle East never stops.

The United States has engaged in numerous international interventions in the Middle East. The two major events that have shaped the politics of U.S. foreign policy, Israel, and the Arab states are the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the Six Day War of 1967. President Eisenhower and President Johnson each took different approaches while confronting these crises. The personalities, motives and predispositions of the Presidents and their circle of closest advisors explain how they shaped their policies and how they responded to the events. The decisions these Presidents made have had a long-lasting effect on the region. Over the course of this paper, I will compare Eisenhower’s policies in the 1956 Suez Crisis and Johnson’s policies in the 1967 Six

Throughout the history of the Middle East, Iran and Iraq have been in a dispute. In recent years many factors have caused a global involvement in this conflict. Many young adult Americans have grown up with this conflict as part of their daily evening news. So much so that many people now pay little attention to this constant strife and haven’t stopped to wonder--Why is the United States involved and how did the Iraq War begin? In order to gain understanding, it is essential to explore the various aspects of land, religion, power, and oil and events which led to the Iraq War.

Is peace possible in the Middle East? This question weighs heavy on the minds of many individuals and international players. Turmoil and conflict in the Middle East not only affects the people inhabiting this region, but also has global consequences. To answer this question, one must analyze the sources of conflict in the Middle East, historically, currently, and in the future. The limited amount of natural resources in this region has arguably served as the most major source of conflict in the Middle East. Other contributing factors to conflict are the leadership styles of the key players in positions of power, and religious strife. History is often the best indicator for the future. Unfortunately, the Middle East has had a history of

A transformed Middle East has shaken traditional relationships with former allies. Indeed, there was a time when Washington coordinated effectively with leaders like the monarchs Hussein, Hassan and Abdullah; or Sadat, Mubarak, even Arafat, who could deliver their constituencies and act on the Arab stage. No longer. The rise of Iran, largely as a result of the Arab world’s melt­down and the U.S.­Iran nuclear agreement, has strained relations further. And if America lacks partners on whom it can rely, how in essence can it manage problems effectively, let alone lead to resolve them? A transformed Middle East has shaken traditional relationships with former allies. Indeed, there was a time when Washington coordinated effectively with leaders like the monarchs Hussein, Hassan and Abdullah; or Sadat, Mubarak, even Arafat, who could deliver their constituencies and act on the Arab stage. No longer. The rise of Iran, largely as a result of the Arab world’s melt­down and the U.S.­Iran nuclear agreement, has strained relations further.

The conflict in the Middle East has been generating dead bodies for more than four years now, yet it seemed so distant and complicated for most first world citizens, that only few would engage.

Providing security in the middle east has been a priority and also a challenge for the international community, especially within the last two decades. Through this time period the middle east as a region, despite its wealth of natural resources, has experienced severe conflict caused by corruption, religious tensions, and the disenfranchisement of local citizens just to highlight a few crucial issues. Because of these issues the Middle East has been a hotbed for instability. My article, “What Will It Take to Prevent a Security Decline in Mosul” is a briefing by two RAND Corporation security fellows Shelly Culbertson and Linda Robinson. In their briefing they discuss main challenges the international community must prioritize addressing in

The topic of peace has been on the mind of historians, political leaders, and the general public for as long as our history has been recorded. Will there ever be peace in the Middle East? Will the age old battles, both foreign and domestic ever end? This question, pondered on throughout decades of Western civilization, has both a simple answer and a complex reasoning. To even begin to uncover the answer, one must understand the conflict and its deeply rooted origins to even draw a hypothesis of the outcome. We must first venture into the guarded minds of radical Muslims, our coalition forces, and the minds of the non-violent Muslims who seek liberation from the grip of evil. We must delve into the history of the Islamic world, the tales of

The past 60 years in the Middle East have been compiled of political, territorial and religious turmoil. Despite the numerous wars and conflicts found throughout the history of this region, problems within the last half-century followed the 1967 War. The consequences that followed not only succeeded into further conflicts, but also established an underlying future for the region. Whether it determined alliances, enemies or configuration, the 1967 War laid out the preliminary foundation for its regions future.

For decades, the United States and fellow western nations have been heavily involved with and invested in the Middle East. Geographically, the Middle East region contains a large percentage of the industrialized world’s most prized resource, oil. Throughout this time, the United States has participated in Gulf War I, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, and numerous other contingencies and operations. Most recently, the region fell further into turmoil with the civil unrest and uprising in Syria, the formation of ISIS, and the injection of influence from competing world superpowers. Within this latest conflict, the United States government faces significant challenges to vital national interests due to the high geopolitical stakes in the region.

What must first be understood is that we live in a world community. What affects one nation can and often does affect other nations. As a proof of concept we’ll examine unrest in the Middle East. One of the

The United States has a complicated history with the Middle East, and this has often been reflected in foreign policy decisions. The significance of the region has always remained strong, even as the main goals and methods of accomplishing those goals have twisted and evolved over time. In recent decades, dealing with increasing opposition to US interests by those in the Middle East has become a more prominent concern. This was drawn into the forefront of citizens' minds in 2001. While the 9/11 attacks did not serve as a major turning point in the US’s foreign policy towards the Middle East, they did act to accelerate a decision path that the United States was already on.