Yesterday in class, Mr. Crotty talked about the Falklands War, the war between Great Britain and Argentina for the Falkland Islands off the Argentinean coast. One of the main reasons for this unexpected victory for the South American country was due to what the nation was fighting for. Ultimately, winning this war came down to which country wanted it more. In this particular case, Mr. Crotty explained, Argentina fought for its pride, unifying the Argentinean people, while the UK fought for a few islands that meant very little to them. It made me think of other wars that seemed to be “upsets” and the reasons that the underdog came out on top.
Since its formation in 1948, Israel has been in constant dispute with its Arab neighbors, and somehow, this tiny nation has been able to defeat countries like Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, as well as terrorists groups. Today, because Israel is so closely linked to the US, many nations realize that Israel is a stronger power than it would seem. However, The Israeli Independence War in 1948 was an incredible victory for Israel that solidified its reputation as a strong military power. This war began after the Jewish nation declared its independence, and as a reaction the Arab countries I listed above attacked Israel. After 10 months of fighting, somehow Israel defeated the Arab nations. The way Israel won that war is still hard to understand. Keep in mind, the US did not support Israel the way it does today. Ultimately, Israel’s victory was a product of good strategy, a unified people, and a real reason to fight. The Arab countries were poorly set up. The different nations were not unified, and finally, they were not fighting for survival the way Israel was.
Anything can happen in war. While the stronger military power usually wins a war, if a country is fighting for survival or pride against a nation who is fighting for something less significant, I think that the country who fights for something important can win. Israel defeated the Arab armies for a few reasons, but the fight for survival fueled the nation towards victory. Another example of this pattern can be found in the American Revolution, where the colonial army was weaker but fought for more. Another example would be the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943 where the Jews in a Polish Ghetto refused to be taken to Treblinka extermination camp. These men, women, and children held off the Nazis for almost an entire month, longer than the entire country Poland. All of these examples are extreme cases of the underdog coming out on top, and in all of these wars or battles, the winning side was fighting for pride and, more importantly, survival. I guess a large factor of winning a war is not based on the actual fighting but being unified as a nation as well as fighting for something more than your opponent.
7 comments:
i think it's hard to remember sometimes that war is a mental game. We usually think of war as purely physical, but it's really hard to fight for something you don't believe in.
i'd also like to point out that Israel requires all men and women to serve in the military unless they provide valid reason not to do so (i.e., religious, physical, or psychological reasons). i think that really adds to their patriotism, and clearly it adds to the strength of their forces, too. imagine what the US Army would be like if we had that requirement....
I like how you contrasted your point with the Falklands war with Israel, portraying them both as underdogs. Unfortunately, Argentina lost. Although I agree with you that a country that believes in something greater than their opponent does, they will prevail. But unfortunately, you should probably choose your battles wisely or else you'll end up like Argentina.
I can think of two other wars that you fail to mention that make your point even more. The first one is the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese were huge underdogs, yet they somehow managed to defeat a Superpower. Although a large reason for America's defeat in Vietnam was its own doing, the Vietnamese's guerrila style of fighting and their use of the land helped pull out a victory.
The second war that comes to mind is the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghanis benefited by receiving arms from America, yet that was not the only reason for their victory. Like you talk about, the Afghanis knew what they were fighting for; it was right in front of them.
There is obviously plenty of evidence to back up your point that a country's purpose in a war can determine their mentality and in turn, their fate. Also, I agree with Sam in his relation to Vietnam, which can be broadened to the Cold War and all its subsequent Proxy Wars (i.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.). In all those cases the USA or the USSR was fighting to defend their respective ideologies whereas their enemies were fighting to defend their homeland, and in many cases, the intervening Superpower lost because of it.
Although the British actually won the Falkland Island War, you point is a good. Perhaps the reason Mr. Crotty got the wrong information about that war was because although the Argentinian military suffered a huge loss, the country actually benefited from the war. They benefited because the "underdog" mentality of taking on a superpower spurred nationalism. So, I think your point still works.
I think the point you made was very insightful. It is very important for any team, side, or a country to be united over a common cause. Stepping away from war, we can see this example and relate to it very well within our city. Our beloved Dallas Cowboys have all the talent in the world, but because they are not a united team, nor playing for a common goal, the team faltered. Last year, the New York Giants defied all odds to win the Super Bowl, the only explanation is that they were in fact the best team.
I agree. We can look at other wars too. World War II, there were WAY more axis soldiers than allied soldiers, and we won. Vietnam, there was no domestic support like in WWII. I think domestic support has a lot to do with it, if the entire country is behind something it's a lot easier to get recruits, people are more willing to make weapons, and even on simply a base level, people I guess fight harder when there's some good at stake.
Post a Comment