Abstract
The paper introduces the book, "America's Longest War: United States and Vietnam 1950-1975", by George C. Herring. Specifically, it discusses three topics from Chapter 6 and then explains each according to what the author writes. It also looks at how the Vietnam War is being compared increasingly to the current war with Iraq and how, as this chapter clearly shows, there are many reasons for the comparison. It shows how President Johnson began fighting an uphill battle as public opinion about the war began to swing against it, just as President Bush is facing growing opposition to the war with Iraq.

From the Paper
""The President's Decisions." President Johnson, partly on advice from such advisers as Clifford, Westmoreland, and Bunker, decided in late 1967 that new forces should not be sent to South Vietnam, and the country should be more prepared to fight on its own. The author writes, "Johnson's advisers agreed that from a long-range standpoint the key to achieving American objectives was south Vietnam's ability to stand on its own" (Herring 239). By early 1968, the President had informed South Vietnam that we would continue to send assistance and equipment, but "limited manpower." During this time, President Johnson also agreed, heavily leaning on the advice of Dean Rusk, that bombing in Vietnam should be cut back, and peace talks should open again with the North Vietnamese. It seems that many of the President's decisions were based on guidance from his closest advisors, and somewhat on public opinion."

Tags:iraq, president, johnson

Abstract
The paper argues for the United States to act in concert with other nations in containing the Iraqi dictator. It provides a history of the United Nations endorsed 1990 Gulf War. The author describes how the U.S. interest in Iraq is its oil and weapons of mass destruction. The author of the paper expresses fear that a unilateral U.S. war on Iraq would cause terrorism and anti-American sentiment worldwide.

From the Paper
"In 1991, the United States, with the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council, launched an offensive against Iraq shortly after the latter invaded Kuwait. The war's aims, according then president George Bush, were the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, stabilization of the Gulf, and protection of Americans in Kuwait. (Ambrose & Brinkley) Two major reasons for the war not mentioned by Bush, it is widely acknowledged, were the protection of American oil interests in the region and the disarmament of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. After few days of bombings Iraq surrendered and withdrew its forces from Kuwait, thereby realizing the stated objectives of the war. As the war ended, and throughout the 1990's, the UN, under American leadership, enforced various sanctions on Iraq with the hope of preventing Hussein's regime from obtaining biological and nuclear weapons. Nowadays, particularly after Hussein expelled international arms inspectors from Iraq in 1998, and even more so after the relative success of the war in Afghanistan, many Americans are convinced that the US, with or without international backing, should invade Iraq with the goal of removing Hussein and inserting a regime that will be favorable to American interests. While reasonable arguments are being made about the dangers emanating from the Iraqi regime, the unilateralist military overthrow of the Iraqi government is likely to have negative ramifications on both American and universal interests for many years to come."

Tags:arab, council, international, law, security, terrorism, bush, president, saddam, hussein

Abstract
This paper explains that over 500 detainees from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have been brought to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by the U.S. government under the assumption that they are dangerous terrorists and a threat to the United States. The author points out that (1) they were brought to Cuba because it is not U.S. soil thus the military can deny them the rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution, such as due process, independent counsel and a speedy trial, and (2) they do not even have rights under the Geneva Convention since the U.S. has not declared them prisoners of war, instead labeling them "enemy combatants". The paper contends that the fallout from this situation at Guantanamo Bay has been that the world now sees the U.S. as a hypocrite following constitutional rights only when it is in the country's best interests.

Table of Contents
Constitutional Amendments of the United States of America
Introduction
Justice for All
Convenience of the "Enemy Combatants" Label
What's Going on at Guantanamo Bay?
The Abused as Abusers
International Quagmire
Crusade for National Security
The End is Near?

From the Paper
"There are even conflicting reports from the same agency. The Red Cross released a report in 2002 stating that there was no torture going on at Guantanamo and then later did an about-face and condemned the treatment of those same prisoners (Cole). Some prisoners who were released talked about physical and mental torture, being isolated for months at a time, being led around with a dog collar, being attacked by dogs, having to wear women's clothing and of being subjected to the desecration of the Quran in front of them (having pages ripped out and flushed down the toilet). Many of these "tortures" have been confirmed by the US government, namely the FBI (Ardiente), with a shrug and grin, as if they are a practice so common (or relatively innocuous compared to what else they might do) that they are confused as to why anyone would be upset by them."

Tags:constitution, denial, enemy-combatants, hypocrite, muslim

Abstract
In this article, the writer maintains that the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war hold very similar foreign policy agendas, which rely on falsified intelligence information to enact pre-emptive war. The writer explains that the lack of presidential action to halt the War in Iraq further reveals the growing problems of war powers that allow nations, such as the United States, to attack smaller countries without reliable proofs of a threat. Further the writer notes that both president Bush and President Johnson invoke similarities in how war is created and enacted through poor intelligence and aggressive policies toward lesser nations.

From the Paper
"In many ways, the instigation of war through fabricated intelligence was seen in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which can also be seen in the false intelligence the United States used to launch a War in Iraq. In this manner, both of these wars offer examples of similar wars in that they were based on false intelligence and were preemptive in design. The historical background to the Vietnam conflict was brought on by the rise in anti-communist campaigns, such as those made by McCarthyism in the 50s."

Tags:iraq, vietnam, war

Abstract
In this article, the writer examines perceptions that Australia's involvement with the Iraq war has increased the risk of an attack. The writer argues that further examination reveals the decision was purposeful in advancing that national interest as it has increased the security of Australia by securing access to US defense systems and support and reinforcing Western Hegemony and ideology. The writer maintains that Australia's continuing trend of forming foreign policy in consideration of U.S. interests is proficient as long as Australia balances its negotiations with Asia and continues to advocate itself as a considerate middle power.

From the Paper
"However Howard maintains that the theft of Iraq's oil resources was not and never has been a justification for the presence of its military forces in Iraq. Nevertheless it has become apparent that Australia's participation in the War in Iraq is based on complex rationality, dictated by the US and can be understood as primarily to provide legitimacy to the US in the case of a very illegitimate war, for the sake of strengthening the military alliance.
"Australia's participation in the 2003 War in Iraq was also influenced by the desire to secure a FTA with the US, yet arguably Australia has gained little from the FTA, and ultimately is it merely another political act to strengthen the ANZUS alliance, and secure the US's 'friendship'. Military considerations were central to the forging of closer economic ties to the US (Head, 2003). In today current in environment of economic interdependency it was perceived that economic ties would great power in strengthening of the overall relationship with the United States. "It is appropriate that the defence core of the relationship be broadened by adding an economic core (DFAT, 2001:5)". Supporters rightly point to the positive impacts such agreements can have on entrenching international law and encouraging peaceful economic interdependency."

Tags:security, foreign, policy, global, politics

Abstract
The paper analyzes the strategic paralysis theories of John Warden and John Boyd and their application and effectiveness in the 1990-1991 Gulf War. The paper shows how these theories are theoretically sound and have practical validity as well. However, the paper goes on to explain why the fundamental assumptions made by both Boyd and Warden mean that their theories of strategic paralysis aren't always applicable. The paper therefore concludes that strategic paralysis theory is a realistic concept, but cannot be realised in all circumstances.

From the Paper
"Colonel John Boyd hypothesised that one could strategically paralyse their enemy through affecting his decisions-making processes. He developed a theory of decision-making process that he claimed all humans were subject to. The process had four phases: Observe, Orientate, Decision, Act. Subsequently, it was named the OODA loop. In practice, the OODA loop consisted of a person observing a change in the situation, orientating their mind to the new situation and developing plans, deciding on a plan, and acting on that chosen plan. Boyd theorised that one could defeat an enemy through getting inside their OODA loop. This could be done through going through one's own OODA loop quicker and with more accuracy than their enemy. This meant that while the enemy was still thinking about the changed situation and what they were going to do about it, the situation would change as a result of you having acted on a new decision. Doing this would result in the mental paralysis of the enemy. The enemy would become confused and his willingness to resist would deteriorate, Boyd hypothesised."

Tags:Gulf, War, Iraq, John, Boyd, John, Warden, enemy, gravity, global, jihadists

Abstract
This paper discusses how Anna Quindlen's article, "We've Been Here Before" attempts to liken the current War in Iraq to the U.S.A's war in Vietnam which started in 1959 and ended on April 30, 1975. It looks at how Quindlen attempts to convince the reader that the two war situations are the same by offering a series of points that are intended to show the similarities in the two wars and create the idea in the reader's mind that they are so similar they should be considered the same. The paper contends that Quindlen's argument is based on false analogy and that the whole article is riddled with fallacies of many types which include red herrings, ad hominum attacks and appeals to misery. The author of the paper maintains that these fallacies combined with the false analogy fallacy are the reasons that Quindlen's argument fails.

From the Paper
"The most common fallacy in this article is the ad hominum fallacy which means to launch a personal attack towards someone. The subject of this personal attack is President Bush who in almost every paragraph receives criticism of some sort. Quindlen attempts through many different measures to undermine Bush's character, frequently calling him arrogant and claiming that the War in Iraq is based on his ego. She also mentions that Bush has not attended a single soldier's funeral which is an underhanded way of telling the reader Bush has no sympathy for the dead in Iraq and cares only about victory. This is an obvious red herring, a diversionary argument that in no way supports her original claim. It seems that the majority of the argument is devoted to convincing the reader that Bush is not a suitable leader and that he is a man of poor character. This may or may not be true but as with the red herring goes nowhere in proving that the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq are the same or even similar. "

Tags:vietnam, war, iraq, bush

Abstract
This paper compares the challenges faced by the U.S. in its counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with those faced in the Vietnam War and those faced by the USSR in the Soviet-Afghan War. In comparing, this paper focuses on the challenges of insurgent foreign support, public support at home for the counterinsurgent forces, and the effectiveness of counterinsurgency doctrine. Through this research, this paper concludes that the counterinsurgency challenges faced by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing new.

From the Paper
"Today, the United States (U.S.) finds itself in counterinsurgent conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On September 11th 2001, global Islamist Jihadists belonging to Al Qaeda and led by Osama Bin Ladin, performed a succession of devastating attacks on the U.S. Subsequently, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in order to punish what it believed to be those Islamic Jihadists that had attacked them, and to oust the Taliban government in place that it believed to have harboured such jihadists. A secondary result of the September 11th attacks was the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was conducted as the U.S. said it believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was linked to the jihadists that had attacked them. Since these invasions, the U.S. has become bogged down in counterinsurgency efforts largely against those Islamist jihadists it had aimed to attack in the first instance. Indeed the global Islamist jihadist movement coordinated primarily by Al Qaeda is fighting an unrestricted war against the West."

Tags:military, doctrine, oil, guerilla, warfare, Vietnam, War, Soviet-Afghan, War

Abstract
This essay looks at the role of air power in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, arguing that it was largely used as a deterrent to an escalation in the conflict. First, the author examines how air power was used in the conventional role during the conflict. It then goes on to look at the vested interest that both sides had in not escalating the war. The essay explains how this led to air power being used to dissuade both sides from intensifying the conflict. The author states that international opinion, especially that of the United States and the Former Soviet Union, may also have a influenced both sides from having a more aggressive air conflict.

From the Paper
"Air power during the Iran-Iraq war was used to a small degree in conventional combat roles. It was used on a number of occasions, primarily during the early stages of the conflict, in the ground attack role. On the arguable first day of the war, 22nd September 1980, Iraqi air assets conducted strikes on towns, cities, airports and industrial instalments. Of importance, this included attacks on 10 Iranian airfields. In retaliation, the Iranian air force struck back at two Iraqi airbases on the same day. Over the following days, such Iraqi strikes continued with lesser intensity until by the 25th September they were largely limited to attacks on easily reachable bases close to the border. Paralleling the Iraqi actions, similar ground attacks by Iranian air assets also continued until the 25th September when they stopped almost completely."

Tags:Arab armies, air force, Middle Eastern Wars, air power

Abstract
An analysis of the current budget deficit and its causes--a slow economy, tremendous spending on the Iraq war and tax cuts. The paper also addresses the economic effect of a deficit on the economy and the desirable and adverse effects caused by a deficit. This essay concludes that spending would be more productive if directed to structural elements of the economy.

From the Paper
"Budget deficits occur when government expenditure is greater than revenue, forcing the government to borrow to meet its requirements. There are many potential economic effects of a deficit; the most apparent is an expansionary effect on the economy caused by injections of money being greater than withdrawals. Fiscal policy, among many other mechanisms is used to manipulate the economy. However, budget deficits should be used as to not adversely affect the economy. The federal budget deficit set the new record of $374 billion in 2003, doubling last year's efforts (Fram). The record deficit has been caused by the slow economy, tremendous spending on the Iraq war and tax cuts for the rich. This indicates that the great America does not know how to balance the checkbook, and certainly does not know how to spend wisely."

Tags:bush, debt, fiscal, iraq, monetary, spending, surplus, tax, tax, trade, war