U.S. intervention in Iraq

U.S. intervention in Iraq Introduction There are people that are opposed to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, as they believe that it will not lead to stability and democracy. These people, find similarities to Americas Vietnam intervention. For them, America has once more involved in a prolonged and indecisive political and military struggle, from which it will extricate with human and economic loses. On the other had, there are people that are in favour of the Iraq War and they believe that there is no comparison to the Vietnam War. They claim that it is the annihilation of Nazi Germany and its transformation to a democratic ally, that should be used as an analogy.[1] But, the comparison to the Vietnam War and its consequences was unavoidable, as it still influences the publics attitude towards foreign military intervention and was an event that is still in memories of todays American leaders. The question is whether there are any lessons from the American disaster in the Vietnam War that could be applied in Iraqs case. The differences between the two wars are very important: First of all, Vietnam in 1960 was a country with a long national history and a distinct national identity that was created after centuries of fighting against foreign domination. On the contrary, Iraq is a young state with many ethnicities and religions, that make unity difficult. Moreover, in Vietnam the enemy was skilled and experience with important external aid and international legitimacy. In Iraq the enemy had no martial ability and was politically isolated. Besides that, in Vietnam at first the war had the form of an insurgency that changed into a conventional conflict , whereas in Iraq happened exactly the opposite. The nature of the insurgency in the two cases was different, too. In Vietnam there were peasants that were centrally directed by the Communists, that had a clear politico-economic and social agenda. In Iraq, the insurgents were members of small groups that their methods consisted partly of car bombings and sabotage against U.S. forces and the war objectives werent very clear. Moreover, the U.S. was more restricted in military action in Vietnam that in Iraq, by the Chinese and the Soviet threat and they only cared about protecting South Vietnam. Nowadays, the U.S. with its military primacy is aiming at a regime change in Iraq. In Vietnam, the U.S. reached the 500,000 men and left the country after 8 years of bloodshed. In Iraq, the cost in human lives was much smaller and 3 weeks were enough to succumb the military resistance.[2] The comparison is becoming valuable by a political perspective: the lessons and the warnings that may come out of the Vietnam War for policymakers in Iraq War, especially on legitimacy and sustainability. The U.S. that failed to create and sustain a government and political order in South Vietnam, is now trying to do the same in Iraq. The Republic of Vietnam was a Cold War creation of the U.S. and it depended totally for its viability on America. In the end, most of the South Vietnamese didnt have the willingness to fight and even die for its maintenance. The sustainability failed mostly because the Americans abandoned South Vietnam, mainly because of the fall of public support on this war, as time was passing by with increasing American human and economic loses and no remarkable progress. State-building in Iraq is still in progress, so a critic on U.S. policy on this matter would be unfounded. This essay tries to recognize and analyze the comparisons between the American intervention in Vietnam and in Iraq. I believe that the differences are equally important with the similarities for providing political insights. This essay tries to evaluate similarities and differences on: relative U.S. military power, war aims, nature, duration and scale of the war, U.S. manpower lose rates, the enemy, military operations, role of allies, challenges of state-building, and challenges of sustaining political support. It ends with conclusions and recommendations. Relative U.S. Military Power From a military perspective, the international and regional balances were different during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. During the Cold War, the United States relied on allied military support, so its military intervention that took place in Vietnam (1965) had restrains. On the other hand, United States intervention in Iraq (2003) was characterized by freedom of action, as the United States was the only superpower and its military supremacy was globally uncontested. During the Cold War, China and the Soviet Union had under their influence many communist areas in Europe and Asia, including Vietnam, so the U.S. had to be careful regarding its military action in the region. Americans were trying not to provoke directly the Chinese and the Soviet intervention, so they were using their military power with restrictions.[3] But even then, China and the Soviet Union were helping the Vietnamese Communists by providing them with weapons of technological advance. On Iraqs case, Saddam Husseins military strength had almost disappeared by 1991 and in 2003 he couldnt find military support by external actors. For the Iraqi soldiers, training was not a priority, that is why in 2003 the Americans didnt face great difficulties in crushing Iraqi military resistance, taking over Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. War Aims The political objectives between the Iraq and Vietnam wars were different. In the 1960s the United States was trying to preserve the non-communist status quo in South Vietnam. In 2003, the United States expressed their intention to democratize Iraq in order to create a model for the rest of the countries in the Middle East. In South Vietnam, as long as the policies that were followed were in agreement with the U.S. interests in the Cold War, the absence of democracy was not an issue.[4] In the Vietnam War, the U.S. wanted to preserve the regime, by forcing North Vietnam to cease its military intervention in South Vietnam. For this purpose, a massive and well-organized military effort was necessary against a determined and skilled enemy. In contrast, in Iraq the U.S. wanted to change the regime and for doing so, less effort and time was needed, although the collapse of Saddam Husseins regime, gave the opportunity to anti-occupation groups to mount insurgent attacks on U.S. forces and reconstruction targets. Another difference was that one of the basic objectives in Iraq was the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, while in Vietnam there was not such an issue but a struggle over territory. Moreover, the war on Iraq was justified as a part of the war against terrorism, led by al-Qaeda, which attacked the U.S. in September 11, 2001. In Vietnam War, the Americans didnt feel threatened by some kind of terrorism back in their homeland, despite the fact that Vietnamese Communist forces conducted terrorist attacks against South Vietnamese officials and U.S. civilian personnel. But, these attacks were restricted in the region.[5] The main American war aim in Vietnam was to safeguard the credibility of U.S. defense commitments throughout the world. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State had stated: We have a commitment to assist the South Vietnamese to resist aggression from North. If the U.S. commitment in peace becomes unreliable, the communists would draw conclusions that would lead to our ruin. Indeed, failure to defend South Vietnam would lead American allies to question their credibility and communist advances would be encouraged in the Third World. The credibility of U.S. defense commitments was not an issue in the Iraq war. The Communist threat did not exist anymore and the American operations were not a response to Iraqi aggression. On the contrary, it was a war in order to prevent Iraqis acquisition of nuclear weapons and to stop the expansion of their biological weapons capability. This war depicted the U.S. willingness to use force against states that were seeking nuclear weapons and that could threaten them in the future. Nature, and Scale of the War The American intervention in Vietnam began as a materially self-sustaining, peasant-based communist insurgency in the South, against the South Vietnamese security forces that were supported by the U.S., and it ended up as a conventional military war between the U.S. and the North Vietnamese regular forces.[6] In contrast, U.S. military operation in Iraq began as conventional and quickly crushed Iraqs regular forces and ended up as a counterinsurgent campaign against terrorists. In Vietnam the Communists motivated a centrally-directed, perfect strategically revolutionary war, with a detailed political and economic program in order to mobilize the support of the peasants. Moreover, the communists in Vietnam had external support. The insurgency in Iraq was nothing like it. The Iraqi insurgents were former Baathist regime operatives, Sunni Arabs, al-Qaeda and other Islamist suicide bombers, hired gunmen and anti-American Shiites. So, the insurgency was not centrally directed. Moreover, it has no declared agenda, though it seems that their goal is to get the U.S. out of the country and cause instability on behalf of the restoration of Sunni Arab rule. Until recently the Iraqi insurgency rested mainly on the Sunni Arab community that consisted the 20% of the population. Now the insurgency has expanded but it cannot be compared to Vietnams situation where the peasants (80% of the population) formed the communist insurgency forces. When it comes to scale, the differences are many. In terms of the forces committed the U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam they reached 543,000 in 1969. Allied forces coming from other countries were 65,000 in 1968 and the South Vietnamese armed forced reached 820,000 soldiers. Communist troops numbered 700,000 in 1966.[7] By comparison, insurgent Sunni Arab fighters were no more than 5,000.[8] Militant Shiites, associated with the Muqtada al-Sadr movement and his Mahdi Army, may on the other hand number up to at least a few thousand fighters. The Vietnam War, unlike the Iraq War, had a huge and protracted aerial bombing component. In terms of bomb tonnage dropped, it was the largest air war in history. During the 1962-73 period, 8,000,000 tons dropped through Indochina.[9] U.S. aircraft losses due to hostile action were also numerous, as North Vietnam was supported by the Soviets who supplied them with technologically advanced air defenses. During 1962-73 period the U.S. aircraft loses totalled 8,500, 2,700 airmen were killed and 1,800 were captured and became prisoners.[10] In Iraq, U.S. air power comprised a large component of major operations and had one advantages over U.S. operations in Vietnam: the enemy didnt have effective air defenses. However, as in Vietnam, the helicopters proved vulnerable to hand-held missiles and to machine guns. During March 20-May 1, the Iraqis downed 30 helicopters.[11] U.S. manpower loss rates During the 1965-1972 period in the Vietnam War, the U.S. numbered 55,700 dead and 290,000 wounded, which is translated as 19 dead and 100 wounded per day. These rates are well above than in the Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, which records 2 deaths per day. By April 2004, U.S. casualties had reached 685 dead and more than 3,000 wounded.[12] The Enemy The number of the enemys forces was impressive in the Vietnam War, but so was the number of the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces, which combined to third-country allied forces, outnumbered the communist forces. U.S. forces in both cases had a fire power advantage over the enemy. Despite that fact, in the end the U.S. left South Vietnam to the Communists. One explanation would be because of the anti-war movement back in America and the hostility of the media[13]. Another, would be the outstanding performance of the enemy, based on the asymmetry of stakes. The Vietnamese conflict was a limited war for the United States but a total war for the Vietnamese Communists. The Americans underestimated the enemys ability and most importantly their desire to win even if that meant that they had to die over trying. For the Vietnamese Communists this war was about national reunification, independence and taking over the power in Vietnam.[14] The Communist forces losses during the American period of the Vietnam War had reached 1,100,000 dead and 2,000,000 civilian dead. In the 20th century, it is the highest military death toll proportional to its population (5%).[15] The enemy in Iraq is smaller in number, less ideologically and organizationally cohesive and has no external assistance. During the first period of the Iraqi insurgency, the most dangerous enemy elements were Baathist regime remnants that were trying to restore the old Saddamist order. The characteristics of the enemy since then seem to be changing with the constant appearance of anti-American Islamic militants in the struggle.[16] Religious extremists and foreign fighters begun to supplant Baathist remnants as the primary members of the insurgency, using suicide as an insurgent method and other types of bombings..[17] Additionally, an unknown number of criminals and unemployed former soldiers have been hired by the Baathists to engage in attacks on coalition forces for pay. Saddam Husseins capture brought into Iraq a number of foreign terrorists that now had the kind of freedom of movement that previously didnt have.[18] While Saddam was in charge, an effective internal security prevented any kind of insurgent activity. Moreover, terrorism against his regime was something that Saddam was fighting against. Moreover, al Qaeda takes advantage of the vacuum in the political system that Saddams regime fall created. Members of al Qaeda are considered as leaders of the major suicide bombings that have been taken place in the country, such as the attacks at the UN headquarters, the Jordanian embassy and Kurdish political parties.[19] Another part of the insurgents is people who seek revenge against the Americans for previous actions against their families and friends.[20] But, it is clear that Iraqi soldiers are not as capable as the Vietnamese Communists were. The Communists were organized into divisional-size units, whereas Iraqi fighters operate in squads. The Vietnamese Communists had external access to technological advanced weapons, whereas the Iraqis did not. But the Iraqi insurgents are better armed today, than the Vietnamese Communists in 1960, who relied on stolen and home-made weapons.[21] Iraq starting from Saddam Husseins era, has been a heavily-armed society. Last but not least, the Iraqis have no common ideology, strategy or vision for Iraqs future, while the Vietnamese Communists had. Iraqi insurgents operations are uncoordinated, even though all of them agree on the objective of Americans being thrown out of the country, they have not agreed on a strategy for doing so. Maybe their thought is to kill as much U.S. troops as they can in order to undercut domestic American political support? Military Operations In Vietnam the U.S. got involved in two wars at the same time: one on the ground in the South and an air war in the North. Both of them failed. In the South, the U.S. military forces believed that they could cause huge casualties, because of their fire power, on the Communists and that they would have the initiative in the war field.[22] But, they ignored the Communists readiness to sacrifice and their substantial manpower. Moreover, in fact, the Communists started most of the fire fights, which meant that they could control their losses by refusing combat when it suited them to do so. The enemy managed to keep losses within his capacity to replace them.[23] In the air war against North Vietnam the Americans also underestimated the enemys will to win. North Vietnam was a pre-industrial totalitarian area, so it was difficult to be defeated through air power. Moreover, the Soviets provided them with military means that imposed significant loses on American aircrafts.[24] North Vietnam had a powerful air defense system and the capacity of bomb damage repair, whereas Iraq in 2003 had not. The U.S. air losses in North Vietnam were significant. Apart from the enemys capacity and political restrictions in the use of force, there were other factors that influenced Americas military performance. There was no joint warfare in Vietnam.[25] On the contrary, inter-service rivalry dominated, producing disunity of command and precluding the provision of timely and useful military advice to civilian authority.[26] On the ground things werent any better. Rotational tours of duty of 1 year for enlisted personnel and 3-6 months for officers lead to small unit cohesion under fire and compromised the ability of officers and men alike to accumulate and sustain knowledge and skill in fighting. As a result, only the 15% of the U.S. military personnel in Vietnam were available for sustained ground combat operations, by 1968.[27] Communist forces were leaner because they relied more on stealth and cunning than firepower, and because they recruited hundreds of thousands of peasants to perform logistical tasks. Moreover, they lived in the field, unlike Americans. Vietnamese revolutionary war, combined mass political mobilization and a reliance of guerrilla tactics that deprived a firepower superior conventional foe of decisive targets to shoot at.[28] They relied on camouflage and night operations, hit-and-run attacks and use of terrain and populations as means of concealment. The purpose of Communists military operations was to weaken enemys will through protraction of hostilities. It was the only way for them as a swift victory over the Americans was impossible.[29] Insurgents in Iraq have different targets: U.S. and coalition troops, American civilian contractors, Iraqis working with Americans, oil and electrical power infrastructure. Moreover, Iraqi politicians, police stations and officers and members of the New Iraqi Army.[30] Their methods have evolved through time as the various groups have engaged in trial. They mainly include rocket-propelled grenades and use of improvised explosive devises. Iraqi police officers and other security forces are targets because they are considered to take over the power as soon as the U.S. forces leave the country. In addition, they are more vulnerable because their weapons are not as lethal as U.S. forces and they receive limited training in force protection.[31] Role of Allies In 1965 the United States did not bother to seek U.N. authorization for intervention in Vietnam because of the certainty of a Soviet veto.[32] In 2003, the United States sought an authorizing resolution but failed to garner even a majority among the U.N. Security Councils membership.[33] Indeed, in both cases, much of the rest of the world, including key allies, regarded U.S. military intervention as illegitimate. Not a single NATO ally joined the United States in Vietnam; on the contrary, only five other states aside from South Vietnam itself (Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand) contributed combat troops.[34] If Americas allies in the Vietnam War were few, the opposite was true for the Vietnamese Communists. Unlike Saddam Husseins Iraq in 2003, the Communists in Vietnam had powerful and decisive allies. Behind the NLF in the South stood North Vietnam, and behind North Vietnam stood the Soviet Union and China. Deliveries included fighter aircraft, antiaircraft guns, tanks and helicopters. The Chinese, provided the Vietnamese Communists with huge quantities of weapons. Unlike the Russians, however, the Chinese provided over 300,000 antiaircraft and engineer troops who, in the face of escalating U.S. bombing, manned air defense systems and constructed, reconstructed, maintained, and defended North Vietnams transportation network, especially its railroad system.[35] In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the United States has sought international support both to reduce its military burden and to enhance the legitimacy of its policy, although it strongly resisted giving the United Nations a major voice in post-war Iraq policy. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, this effort produced disappointing results, although the number of countries contributing forces to Iraqs postwar stabilization is much more impressive than those that sent troops to Vietnam. In both cases, the United States bore the primary burden of the fighting, although in Vietnam, unlike Iraq, a large indigenous force performed important static defense and other military tasks. In Iraq, the most notable contribution came from the United Kingdom, which contributed 26,000 troops. Since the termination of major combat operations in May 1, 2003, a number of other countries, for a variety of motives, some of them having little to do with support for U.S. policy in Iraq, have committed limited force contingents to assist Iraqs post-war stabilization.[36] Additionally, the more Americanized the already heavily American foreign presence in Iraq becomes, the more likely it is that it will provoke Iraqi nationalist opposition. Some Iraqi nationalists may be drawn to the insurgent cause by what they view as a prolonged U.S. troop withdrawal and the continued absence of a new U.N. effort to take over the establishment of a new Iraq.[37] Challenges of State-Building The Vietnam War ended as a war between two states, the northern Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and the southern Republic of Vietnam (RVN). The former established in 1945 and the latter in 1954. The U.S. supported the RVN against further Communist expansion. If it werent the U.S. political, military and economic support, the anti-communist regime could not have been created and sustained.[38] The U.S. helped with the state-building in South Vietnam for two decades. It founded governmental institutions, it armed and trained the RVN armed forces, it subsidized South Vietnams economy and it tried to direct the RVN toward democratization. Despite these efforts, state-building failed, first of all because of the RVNs military defeat in 1975. The RVN was defeated so quickly that made an impression even to Communists.[39] The U.S. were to blame for it partially. It reduced its principal goal from securing an independent, non-Communist Vietnam to looking for a withdrawal and when the final Communist offensive was launched in 1975, they couldnt re-enter the war or provide the RVN with materials.[40] The RVN was to blame for the failure, too. Their weaknesses were: professional military inferiority, corruption and lack of political legitimacy. Moral disintegration explains why their three times bigger in size army, with larger equipment was that rapidly defeated.[41] Important RVNAF units didnt go to combat because they were to protect the government from potential threats of a coup detat, and generals that were very skilful were considered as political threats. In addition, military promotions were given with no meritocratic methods.[42] Moreover, many South Vietnamese started stealing American military and economic aid in order to get profit. They didnt care about going to war as for them the Americans were responsible for this task. Black market operations were one of the major components of RVNAF corruption.[43] The Communists fighting power was superior as first of all their political program was very clear: kick out the Americans, give land to the peasants and unite the nation. In addition, they had a totalitarian political system that controlled and directed the society more effectively than in South Vietnam. On the contrary, the RVNAF lacked in discipline and patriotism that would lead soldiers to sacrifice their lives.[44] Unlike the RVN, the Communists succeeded in persuading the majority of Vietnamese in both South and North that it was the only legitimate political representative of national independence. The RVN failed to obtain the necessary legitimacy in order to survive without the American support.[45] In Iraq, as in South Vietnam, the political success will come after the creation of a government that will be legitimized by the majority of people and after the creation of security forces that will be in position to protect this new political order. South Vietnam had a corrupted government and large but incompetent security forces. Its enemy, however, was very capable. On the other hand, in Iraq there is no government and no worth-mentioned security forces. Moreover, any government that the U.S. will try to create must be likeable from the Iraqis and must be secured by U.S. military power.[46] The main threat to state-building in Iraq lies not in the insurgency in central Iraq, but in the potential for the recent uprising of Shiite militants to reignite, expand, and include large elements of that community or the development of the kind of sectarian civil war that plunged Lebanon into near anarchy for almost 2 decades.[47] The creation of a stable and democratic Iraq is difficult. The U.S. does not have the time with their side. Most of the Iraqis and their Arab neighbours look Americas presence there suspiciously and question its motives. So the Iraqi governmental institutions are erected under political pressure and under the objections of Iraqi sectarian leaders.[48] The U.S. with its military presence undermine the constructed governments legitimacy. U.S. withdrawal will reassure nationalists and provide governmental institutions with some space in order to develop.[49] One the other hand, a premature withdrawal a security vacuum may cause disorder that could lead to a civil war. Iraq has met in the past tyranny and authoritarian regimes, so a democracy in order to work needs institutions that can be trusted to deliver representative government, while protecting minorities. In addition, the development of a political society where groups will have the opportunity to be elected without provoking fears to the losers, is necessary. Otherwise, the losers may try to ensure their safety by resisting to national institutions.[50] The institutions need to be protected by security and gradually the U.S. intents to pass this responsibility on Iraqis. This action may lead to the legitimacy of the new Iraq government, provided that the new forces will not operate with visible support from the U.S. . [51] Challenges of Sustaining Domestic Political Support The American intervention in Vietnam failed because citizens back home stopped supporting it. Communists had more to loose from a bad ending of this war than the U.S, so their political will was much stronger. The majorities and opinions of liberal newspapers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times supported the Vietnam war in the first place, as long as it didnt last long, there werent many casualties and it didnt influence much their economy.[52] People trusted the U.S. Government and supported its decisions. But as war went on, this support started to decrease. By March 1969, 66% of the citizens were opposed to the continuation of this war. From April 1969 to December 1972 the U.S. military personnel dropped from 543,000 to 24,000. Public opinion made Nixon pullout the American soldiers even though he knew that this would favour the Communists.[53] In Iraqs case, public support may decreased because of the inability to find any relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Moreover, the costs of the Iraq War are extravagant and they are to blame partially for the cumulative national debt.[54] Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was a war of choice and as such, like Vietnam, publics tolerance in deaths was limited. Before the war started, .U.S. Government assured people that the hole world would consider them as liberators of Iraq. Effects on public opinion between expectations and realities needs to be seen. However, polls taken in March 2004 by CNN/USA Today showed a decline in public support. Only 49% was in favour of the Iraq War. Moreover, the 43% believed that their government mislead them about whether Iraq has nuclear weapons.[55] Conclusions These two historical situations are not identical. Operation IRAQI FREEDOM achieved its goal, that is eliminating a regime that could be a threat to the U.S. . Despite that fact, the U.S. had to face the costly results of state-building while insurgent violence is still on, that resembles the Vietnam situation. Many academics believe that establishing democracy in Iraq is beyond Americas power and that another regime type must be approached, such as a benign authoritarian regime type along the lines of Kemal Ataturks Turkey, as a transition to more representative governance.[56] However, the U.S. must not abandon Iraq as it did with South Vietnam in 1975. It is possible that such an action would lead to civil war. In my opinion the differences between the two cases are more than the similarities, especially in the military aspects. But underestimating the Iraqi insurgents would be a mistake that the U.S. did with the Vietnamese Communists in Vietnam. After all, even the appearance of the insurgency after U.S. operations surprised many. In addition, even though the appeal of the Iraqi insurgency cannot be compared to the Vietnamese Communists, the Iraqi insurgency has attacked key targets to Iraqs reconstruction. Policymakers need to be careful with the two aspects that are similar in both wars. The challenges of state-building and the need to maintain domestic political support. State-building in Iraq could fail for the same reasons that failed in Vietnam: inability to create a political order that gets legitimacy by the citizens. Moreover, the domestic political support cannot be taken for granted, especially now that people have in their memories the consequences of the Vietnam War. In addition, the absence of a North Vietnam in Iraq could change, with a hostile external state intervention. For instance, Iran, which has strong state interests in Iraq that have so far been served by the U.S. destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime may try to cause chaos in Iraq. Iran has no interest in the resurrection of a powerful Iraq, and certainly not a democratic Iraq, and it has the means to get thousands of Iraqi Shiites on the streets to protest the U.S. occupation. To conclude with, it is important to mention the greatest difference between the two wars. The Vietnam War is a finished event, whereas Iraq War is still in progress. We know what happened in Vietnam, but we do not know what Iraqs fate will be. Robert L. Bartley, Iraq: Another Vietnam? Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2003 Harry G. Summers, Jr., Vietnam War Almanac, New York: Facts on File Publications, 1985, p. 113. See John W, Garver, The Chinese Threat and the Vietnam War, Parameters, Spring 1992, pp. 73-85. Larry Berman, Planning a Tragedy: The Americanization of the War in Vietnam, New York: W. W. Norton, 1982, p. 92. Larry Berman, Planning a Tragedy: The Americanization of the War in Vietnam, New York: W. W. Norton, 1982, p. 94. Shelby Stanton, Vietnam Order of Battle, Washington, DC: U.S. News Books, 1981, p. 333 James J. Wirtz, The Tet Offensive: Intelligence Failure and War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991, pp. 247-251 David L. Anderson, The Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 286, 287, 288. Phillip S. Meilinger, Air Power: Myths and Facts, Maxwell AFB, AL; Air University Press, December 2003, p. 78. Anthony H. Cordes

Tall Buildings

The aspiration to construct tall buildings is not something new. They have always been used to demonstrate control and wealth. In the world of tall buildings, the design and construction and life safety are the most important aspects of offering a fictional building. The life safety of the occupant of buildings is very essential as today most tenants are worried more and more about how safe the building is? Issues such as unplanned fire, earthquakes, floods and terrorist attacks are major concerns. Such disasters have proved to cost millions of economic, financial and human loss.These disasters tend to have enormous effect on the construction industry; and professionals such as architects, fire engineers, structural engineers, insurers and emergency workers from all over the world were called to discuss the issue and find solutions. Their have been several procedures derived in order to attain security against fire It is not possible to attain the required level of safety by followin g one procedure. Thus several procedures if performed together prove to be helpful in attaining certain results against fire.Most of the fascinating tall buildings and there integrated systems that have reached a level of safety during several events such as the world trade centre1 and 2, the emirates tower in Dubai and many others. â€Å"Understanding the role, limitations and interface between systems is fundamental to system selection. Complementing to systems side of building design is the operating feature or human interface that supplements these sophisticated systems† (Craighead, 2003). To sustain the level of safety and quality it is necessary that security systems are designed with exceptional attention at the time when the design of the building is designed.Then there is the maintenance to keep fire security up to date and in working conditions these systems are to be checked and tested from time to time on regular basis. This paper will offer a review and descripti on of all of these aspects linked to high rise buildings. This study has been researched and developed in order to find requirements concerning fire safety in tall buildings, along with determining the relation between good designs and improving safety of tall buildings and occupants.Aims and ObjectivesAims:The aim of this paper is to provide an understanding of how a better informed design of tall buildings can address fire safety requirements. In particular, it seeks to identify how fire can affect the safety of a tall building and its occupants, It also examine the existing and emerging design solutions and legislation to address the problems and threats of fire safety in tall buildings. According to The New Civil Engineer, â€Å"The WTC disaster has caused us all to think hard about the best actions to take to make tall buildings safer,† (Forest and Wainwright 2002).To improve the overall safety of tall buildings, this research will view a specific aspect of fire emergenc y in more depth. This aspect is related with the comparison of using stairs and elevators in case of an emergency.Objectives:The main objectives or topics of this paper that I have evaluated briefly and thoroughly as per requirement are as following:1. Introduce fire behaviour in tall buildings and how it spreads.2. Outline the consequences for human lives and physical resources.3. Discuss how poor design of tall buildings has caused fire.4. Examine how good design like a balanced approach in using stairs and elevators with respect to the number of floors is useful in minimizing losses during fires.5. Synthesise the main points and outline the recommendations for the design of tall buildings.Hence after evaluating and analysing the sub topics mentioned above in an organized manner it can be expected that we would achieve the desired aims. To thoroughly evaluate the every objective we need to conduct proper research and use appropriate methods to achieve the desired results.Research MethodologyA number of sources have been used to compile this paper. The lists of references are outlined at the end of this paper. In main approaches were selected for this study, which includes:1) Collection of secondary data about history, evolution, development of the design and safety issues in tall buildings and identify how they relate to each other. This included the analysis of books, journals, internet sources and other relevant publications. In addition, codes, standards and regulations which have impacted on fire safety in buildings were also reviewed.2) Analysis of a case study illustrating examples of high rise buildings relating to their success and failure during a fire. This also entailed the examination of design solutions to fire safety.Chapter #2: Literature ReviewThis chapter focuses on the analysis of existing literature on the good designs in relation to tall building. The chapter even revolves around fire behaviour and means of escape in case of fire from tal l buildings. This chapter begins with the importance of tall buildings and what kind of threats pose these magnificent structure, the chapter moves on further with the concepts of good and bad design.At the end of the chapter some legislations and laws are discussed. Tall Buildings Defining a building as being tall and magnificent can be done through the number of floors it has by general people. Then there are terms used that include ‘skyscraper’ and ‘high rise’ these terms are generally used to describe tall building therefore I researched to understand these terms and found meanings that were equally vague:â€Å"Very tall modern building, usually in a city† (Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 2003).â€Å"A very tall building with many storeys† (Word Net, 2003).â€Å"A tall modern building with a lot of floors† (Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 2003).After focusing on dictionaries I spend some time researchin g from books, Skyscrapers have fascinated mankind since the start of civilization.It is not possible to define them by using specific terms linked just to the height or to the number of floors. â€Å"The height of a building is a matter of a person’s or community’s circumstance and their consequent perception† as Stafford-Smith said. Therefore, no definition of tall building can be generally applied.However, the structural engineers define a tall building â€Å"as one that, because of its height, is affected by lateral forces due to wind or earthquake to the extent that the forces play an important role in their structural design† as Stafford-Smith said. (Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design) Advantages of Tall Buildings Tall buildings are designed to supply the requirements of an intended occupancy such as residential, commercial or both together. They are not the only way to attain high density but they can in situations such as small areas of a city where land is limited.Moreover, tall buildings are usually situated or placed near the public transport nodes which reduce the necessity for car use. many people agree that they are advantageous . They can as well take part in a positive part in the design of the city centre by marking places of public, commercial or cultural importance. Also, Refurbishing and reusing the actual unoccupied space can allow the positive flow-on effects of regeneration to be spread more all over the city centre, and as long as they are well designed and located, they can be a positive way to develop in urban areas. (Construction Technology for Tall Buildings)In the early stages of planning a building, the whole design team has to agree on one form of structure to satisfy all the requirements considering the safety and fictional matters. Thus buildings not only help in developments and give accommodation to a huge number of people it gives employment opportunities during the construction of the b uilding. (Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design) Disadvantages of Tall Buildings With advantages tall buildings have many disadvantages, the disadvantages include the existence of too many occupied floors on top of each other means a big concentration of occupants, personal and business property.Which result in a huge possible fuel weight of the building? The disadvantages that it has to face in case of accidental fire is the likelihood of a great uncontrolled fire rising presents danger in tall buildings as it is a vertical structure. There will be delays in reaching the area to provide assistance for example if there will be a fire in the upper floor of the tall building it will be difficult to reach that floor and provide help.In a case of fire, it is difficult for all the occupants to leave the building by using lifts, staircases and emergency exits at once. The access of the fire department can be limited from both outside and inside the building. High rise buildings ha ve natural forces that affect on the fire and smoke movements such as wind which increase the stack effect due to the height of the building, this stack effect can move a large amount of uncontrolled heat or smoke through the building.Problems Faced By Buildings under FireThe construction of tall buildings is much more important than before, as design safety is becoming paramount to avoid the unacceptable loss of lives and the collapse of buildings. Therefore, the construction of tall buildings needs a better approach, combining better design and technological solutions. These solutions should be designed to avoid the collapse of tall buildings, when the supports for one floor of the building fail, causing the failure of the lower floors.To address this issue, recent studies suggest that tall buildings should include a ‘collapse’ floor every 10 storeys, this floor will be able to carry the weight of the floors on top. Modern buildings are at risk to fire because of the steel structural material that looses half its strength at 6000C, which can be easily reached when a building burns. To prevent this, we need to design strong and non-brittle buildings in order to absorb the shock without fracturing the structure of the building. . (Construction Technology for Tall Buildings)Design Plan and Safety Precautions for Fire SafetyThere are many fire life safety systems and equipments that can be used in order to make sure that the building is safe to use and that occupants can be evacuated safely and quickly, and that the right measures are taking at the right time. In order to understand what is required for a typical high rise building it is advised to review the laws, codes and regulations. The construction of skyscrapers necessitates more detailed planning to prevent errors from occurring in the lifecycle of it.Since September 11th 2001 in New York, design teams are more conscious about the health and safety of the community. Buildings are growing tal ler to supply the demand for more space. It is evident that stairs provided in tall buildings as a means of escape are not sufficient. Consequently, there is a need for alternative means of escape from tall buildings in case of a fire. Architects and engineers must provide better solutions when designing tall buildings, as recent event such as 9/11 revealed that existing safety measures are inadequate.For instance, major consideration should be given to how long it takes to get everyone out of a building on case of a fire, taking in consideration that the public cannot, in general, use lifts. . (Construction Technology for Tall Buildings) The planning of tall buildings is an essential procedure, particularly where the environment has old historic buildings. The process become so difficult in this case, and its not just to do with height, it is more to do with the difficulty of integration between the two different types.Consequently, it is important to ensure that the building will have a nice effect on the environment and produce a relaxing surrounding. (Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design) Tall buildings are difficult to build, not just for the safety issues, but also the required services such as elevators, plumbing, wiring, stairs, air-conditioning ducts. In addition to greater beams and columns, buildings require more elevators than short buildings. So, the construction of tall buildings makes business sense but necessitates huge architectural and engineering efforts.(Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design) The design and construction of future high-rise towers requires wide knowledge of good architectural principles; strong floor plates; Complex structural life-safety and building systems that have to be followed correctly. Key to this is through a well planned and better informed design process. According to the Triz journal Toru Nakagawa Staircases must be designed and built not just to be suitable, comfortable, and securely guarded fo r daily use, but also secure as emergency escaping ways in situations such as fire.They should be designed in a way to prevent the chimney effects as well as flame, smoke, and toxic gases when fire occurs. Moreover, the staircase should be a kind of ‘Internal Staircase' and of a ‘Separated' type of ‘Internal Staircase’; to avoid the rising of fire and to keep it as an escaping. In addition, the windows of the staircase should be opened widely in case of fire; these windows can be used as the entrance for rescuing activities. These windows should open remotely at the control centre of the tall building.According to the Ingenta connect by J. Y. Richard Liew â€Å"Design codes for fire safety in buildings can be either a prescriptive type or performance-based type. It is recognized that performance-based codes provide greater advantages over the prescriptive codes which allow designers to use the fire engineering methods to assess the fire safety of the struct ure. However, as the assessment of the whole structure performance is not easy, most codes currently used are still prescriptive codes or a combination of prescriptive codes and performance-based codes.The key feature for implementing the performance-based fire design codes is the assessment of the fire resistance of the structure†. (Liew, 2004) According to Will Pank, Maunsell Ltd Herbert Girardet, Urban Futures Greg Cox, Oscar Faber Ltd in practice, The Corporation of London,† Individual tall buildings are analysed in relation to their design to develop a rationale for fire engineering. The proposed fire solutions or requirements of the intent of the regulations. The main consideration is:The adequacy of means to prevent fire.Early fire warning by an automatic detection and warning system.The standard of means of escape.Provision of smoke control.Control of the rate of growth of a fire.The adequacy of the structure to resist the effects of a fire.The degree of fire con tainment.Fire separation between buildings or parts of buildings.The standard of active measures for fire extinguishment or control.Facilities to assist the fire service.Availability of powers to require staff training in fire safety and fire routines such as registration or licensing procedures.Evacuation ProcessWhen the raising of a fire alarm is occurred, the main entrance should receive the elevators according to the European evacuation plans. During an emergency, only stairs should be allowed for the evacuation purpose. Furthermore, the stairs may not be an efficient way of evacuation, especially for elderly and disabled persons. In this regard, three phases can be created from the time of an emergency until an area of safety is reached by all the people. In this regard, recognition time, reaction time, and egress time are the abovementioned three phases of an emergency.When the building has not been egress by the people, the time has been referred as the pre-movement time. The signs of danger influence the length of this period. In addition, type of the building, as well as, alarms are some other factors that influence the pre-movement time of an emergency. For instance, long pre-movement time might be observed during the night time in an apartment building. Three times longer, as compared with the actual movement time has been considered for the determination of pre-movement time according to a number of studies.After the recognition time, awareness of the emergency is attained by the occupants. Before the giving of fire alarms, one of the most critical parts of the emergency has been considered the recognition time. Information about the situation, as well as, source of the emergency is required by the people during the reaction time. The reaction time is often affected by the training for emergencies. Until the area of safety has not been reached by everyone, people move out of the building during the actual movement phase of an emergency.Determinatio n of the egress time has been concentrated by the evacuation studies due to the availability of its theoretical estimates. In this regard, figure 2 has illustrated the building filling, as well as, evacuation times with relation to the different up-peak handling capacities. For instance, thirty-three minutes was the building filling time, as the up-peak handling capacity was fifteen percent. At this stage, nineteen to twenty-two minutes was the average egress time. (Siikonen and Hakonen, 2003)

The Sovereignty of American Indians and the Mainstream Community: Is There a Possibility to Coexist?

Nowadays we often hear the word ‘sovereignty' when it comes down to the issues related to American Indians. Sovereignty and related words such as self-sufficiency, self-determination and personal responsibility are everywhere. It's nothing new. Indian tribes long have regarded their status as sovereign nations as allowing them special permission to determine their own laws, customs and ways. They see this as something assured them by the U. S. Constitution, innumerable treaties (by the way, sometimes broken or ignored by whites), federal-court decisions and legislation.What gives sovereignty new currency, however, is an idea in Congress that in the future the tribes could make the subject to lawsuits from private citizens, while now they aren't. It raised a contentious question whether the sovereignty issues of American Indians form any problem for the larger society. To reply this question, it is useful to consider what Indian sovereignty means in modern interpretation and how it affects the mainstream society.It is common knowledge that three fundamental principles underlie the nature of American Indians' tribal powers: tribes originally possessed the powers of sovereign states; conquest terminated external sovereignty; this restriction did not affect the internal sovereignty of the tribe and its powers of local self-government. Thus, sovereignty is inherent to American Indians, and their privileges with respect to court trials, taxation and some kinds of businesses like gaming and fishing within reservation lands could not be considered as violating the rights of non–Indians. From the other standpoint, self–government implies approval by the U.S. authorities that a certain measure of tribal decision–making is essential but that this process should be monitored carefully so that its outcomes are compatible with the objectives and policies of the larger political power. It means that American Indians' sovereignty is not absolute, and it is logical, as the Indian tribes are subject to the laws of the U. S. A number of critics of Indians' sovereign immunity argue that it allows the Indians freedom from being sued and permits them to ignore valid property and fishing rights of non- Indians, especially those living and working in reservations.The states are also uneasy with their privileges. As the federal government continues to work out details of its relationships with tribes, state governments which are the tribes' closest neighbors have a separate relationship with them, and it's often strained. The lack of state jurisdiction over Indians and reservations, federal controls and inherent tribal sovereignty are all resulting in ongoing disputes between tribes and states. American Indians are not only citizens of the tribe, but also of the U.S. and the state in which they reside. This ‘triple citizenship' creates an ambiguous matrix of regulatory and other jurisdictional requirements for Indians, on and off their reservations. Jurisdiction over non- Indians living within Indian lands also seems murky. But as Indian tribes gain more and more influence, state leaders realize that it is more productive and mutually beneficial to work with, not against, them. In fact, states have a chance to profit economically from good relations with tribes.Mutually beneficial agreements can set up revenue sharing from tribal gas, liquor and cigarette taxes or gambling. Tribes are marketing natural resources and sport hunting and fishing. Some Indian bands are among the states' top employers with their manufacturing plants, hotels and casinos, and large tribal governments. With all this going on in many Indian–owned companies the most employees are non-Indians. Tribes successful at gaming are diversifying their economic ventures.Some tribes consider gaming as a means towards an end of their business diversity. The discussed above clearly testifies that American Indians' sovereignty in fact rather benefits than affects the mainstream American society. On this account it looks reasonable that states and Indian tribes need to sit down and try to work out together what their mutual needs and concerns are, and find a system by which they can, harmoniously and jointly, cooperate to reach some common ground.For sure states and tribes have mutual interests – human services, environmental protection and economic well-being create opportunities to cooperate and develop solutions, while maintaining autonomy. The first step in the process of cooperation is to gain mutual understanding. State legislators have to accept the growing tribal presence within the federal system so they can effectively address policy questions about shared governing. And tribes need to understand the effects of their actions on states.Ideally, state legislatures would provide the setting for state and tribal governments to work together to resolve issues. Legislation could be written to address state-tri bal negotiations in general, or specific issues such as health and human services, natural resources or gaming. The declared principles to which the nation has dedicated itself are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for American citizens, thus, the bonds of past Indian wardship must be broken forever.

Mental Illness And Its Effects On The Brain - 1754 Words

One in five adults has experienced some type of mental illness. In addition to this, one in twenty has lived with a serious mental illness such as Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, or major depression (Singletary). These statistics show that metal health illnesses are a widespread issue in our world today. Although many people do suffer from mental illnesses, a large number do not receive the care they need because they simply cannot afford it. Mental health illnesses are just as serious as physical injuries, and therefore should receive equal insurance coverage. Mental illnesses are diseases that attack the brain. With the brain being the control center of our bodies, it is easy to see why these illnesses are so serious. Research†¦show more content†¦Imagine always being on guard against danger, living your day to day life in constant fear of a traumatic event you have experienced. Imagine trying so hard to block the memories out, avoiding others and losing contact with the world around you, but no matter how hard you try to forget, you just can’t. Imagine being terrified at the very thought of leaving your shell. These feelings of helplessness are what people suffering with PTSD are forced to cope with (Simpson). Now, imagine having Schizophrenia. You often hallucinate, and some of these hallucinations become so real to you that you lose the ability to distinguish what actually exists from what is in your head (Barbour). The effects don’t end there either; along with the debilitating effects on the mind, peopl e with a mental illness can have various physical symptoms. These include headaches, stomach problems, chest pain, fatigue, or difficulty sleeping (Simpson). The bottom line is this: mental illnesses have profound negative effects on people’s lives. This fact only emphasizes why they need to be adequately treated. There are many different treatment types available for those suffering from mental illnesses. For people with PTSD, often the only way to get better is through confronting and dealing with their traumatic memories. These patients will likely need to see a grief counselor. In addition to this, people with depression who are at risk for suicide may need to undergo psychotherapy, which