World Intervention Of Islam In Christian Civilization example essay topic

There is an opinion that Americans cannot speak sincerely as they fight not against the international terrorism, but against the world intervention of Islam in Christian civilization. At least, it corresponds to the conclusions derived from report made by National Intelligence Council in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. According to this report, "the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives" (Mazetti 1). In case this opinion is correct, it is difficult to imagine that the mechanism and methods of protection were chosen correctly and safely for Christian civilization itself. In case the opinion is truthful, we shouldn't realize Hantington's theory about confrontation of civilizations. We rather have to search for the variant of World public agreement between Christianity, Islam and other world religions and ideologies that will relate to division of spheres of influence.

It means that each confession lives according to their religious rules in its canonic territories and never enters the territories of neighbor religions. At the same time, such approach leads to further intensification of the conflicts and, as a result, to global threat. What is 'global threat'? This term is used by politicians mainly to find additional 'excuse' but not explanation of the events taking place in the modern world. Global threat will remain abstraction that is easy to use for propaganda and support of brutal force used for regulating conflicts, especially when it implies the reasons of energetic safety of the U.S. and the interests of the main 'players' at the stage of globalization - transnational economical and political monsters. Military actions in Iraq were mainly explained by a certain 'global threat' in virtual image of 'weapons of mass destruction'.

During the course of active discussions on the eve of attack nobody had doubt in idea of necessity to put an obstacle in way of distribution of weapons of mass destruction and find the mechanisms of its total annihilation. However, aggression against Iraq showed that the war cannot solve the problem, because the war is just a "beginning of a cycle" (Kolko 291). Before the conflict UNO tried to solve the issue, but interests of getting control over the economical resource got a victory and America attacked the country that was a UNO member. Besides, America often experiences difficulties in relations with regimes and leaders that were formed and used by America as a certain alternative to real political processes in various regions.

For example, Hussein was a counterbalance to Iran in American foreign-political game. Yet, he was removed due to reason that Hussein was unable to compensate for the American loss in the region after collapse of Shah pro-American government in Iran. It is easy to understand that conditions of force policy increases chances of use of the weapon of mass destruction in contrast to policy of strict international control. However, American government doesn't want to listen to that fact, probably, due to their assurance that it will never occur. The next issue also has no solution. As a matter of fact, all governments and organizations that exposed interest to possession of the weapons of mass destruction (or those who didn't put obstacles in the way), bear responsibility for it.

It is known that many component parts of weapon of mass destruction became easily accessible by the countries that are criticized and threatened by the West with direct and indirect assistance of U.S., Great Britain and other NATO countries. Iraq war is a tragic reality and a reproach to the modern civilization. Pentagon started to recruit peaceful civilians as it claimed that the country is not able to cope with Iraq problem without involving "private contractors" (Censored 2006). Peaceful civilians' deaths put the blame for the Iraq war on NATO countries that had to control and allowed no distribution of weapon of mass destruction. Nevertheless, the world expressed no protest concerning this war that had no excuse and justification. Such attitude shows the weakness of the modern global world regime and absence of effective institutions and instruments of control over the politicians.

The Iraq problem wasn't created by Hussein. It was created by the forces striving to formation of total economic and energetic control over the world community. In such a way, it confirms thesis that Iraq is the reflection of danger that is carried by globalization.

Bibliography

Censored 2006.
12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators". 7 November 7, 2006 web.
Jackson, Richard. "Between Iraq and a Hard Place: Richard Jackson Suggests That the United States Is Losing Its War on Terror". New Zealand International Review 29.4 (2004): 8.
Kolko, Gabriel. "Iraq, the United States and the End of the European Coalition". Journal of Contemporary Asia 33.3 (2003): 291.
Mazetti, Mark. "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat". The New York Times. September 24, 2006: 1.
Mcmillan, Stuart. "Is the Non-Proliferation Regime at Risk? Stuart McMillan Explores the Threats to the Existing System of Arms Control Posed by Recent Events". New Zealand International Review 29.3 (2004): 2.
Millen, Raymond A. "What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building". Parameters 35.4 (2005): 133.
Wish nick, Elizabeth. Strategic Consequences of the Iraq War: U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia Reassessed. lisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2004.