Like any other war fought by foot soldiers on one end and the coordinating or commanding officials on the other, the Iraqi war was characterized by the bourgeoisie and proletariat relationship. This paper will thus discuss and analyze the Iraqi war from both Weber’s bureaucracy and Karl max’s wage labor capital approach that existed between the officials and the people. In doing this, the paper will seek to bring to fore the division of labor that existed within the united states military camp during this war in relations to Weber and Karl Max theories. The relationships of soldiers at different ranks with different military roles and how they interacted during the Iraqi war can be best illustrated using Weber’s six major principles of bureaucracy and the legitimate domination principle. According to Weber, bureaucracy is way of administratively organizing a large number of people like soldiers who need to work together in a coordinated manner. Weber made critical elements of his bureaucratic principles that can be applied to the organization of people including the soldiers in a battle field. During the Iraqi war, there existed clearly defined levels of labor and authority meaning that there existed lower cadres who were under the control and supervision of a higher administrative level (Wasim 108). In this kind of organization, authority resided in the positions of hierarchy and there existed clear vertical division of labor. Before any decision was made within a battalion, communication had to move vertically from officials higher in the pecking order. Under this principle, labor was also critically divided among the soldiers depending on their position in the power hierarchy. The officials higher in the administrative pecking were tasked with communicating with the defense headquarter back in Washington. Such information was passed to the commanders of each battalion who would make the communications and decisions to the soldiers who are the ultimate implementers of the decisions. Just like evident in any army, rules guide the behaviors of each personnel and failure to follow instructions precisely leads to disciplinary action. Weber described this under his third principle in which he described how rules made at higher levels are executed by officials at the lower level. The Iraqi war was no different if compared to this principle as advanced by Weber due to the fact that rules of engagement while in the country were either made in Washington or by the coordination office in Iraq and implemented by the soldiers at the lower level. Organization within the fighting and coordination units of the United States army was also done based on functional specialties where each assignment was done by specialists (Boyer 151). As a result, the United States army in Iraq had different units at different levels that were tasked with different roles depending on their specialization. Responsibilities within the battle field were also assigned to positions and units but not to a specific individual according to the sixth principle of Weber’s bureaucracy. The Iraqi war terrain was quite foreign and unfamiliar to most United States army generals making it important to consider experience and qualification when assigning specific tasks that affected field operations to the army commanders (Eden, 213). The
Cite this document
(“The Iraq War: The Officials vs. The Soldiers Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/sociology/101799-the-iraq-war-the-officials-vs-the-soldiers
(The Iraq War: The Officials Vs. The Soldiers Essay)
“The Iraq War: The Officials Vs. The Soldiers Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/sociology/101799-the-iraq-war-the-officials-vs-the-soldiers.
Cited: 0 times
Instructor Date The Iraqi war: Officials v Soldiers The Iraqi war is one of the most studied historical wars in modern history both in military colleges and in historical discourse due to the important lessons that can be derived from the conflict…
In early 2002, General Franks’ “Generated Start” plan “called for very early infiltration by CIA teams, to build relationships and gain intelligence, and then the introduction of Special Operations Forces, particularly in northern Iraq and in Al Anbar province in the west”1.
Same is the case with the Iraq invasion under the United States and the coalition of 49 countries that started in March 20, 2003. The Iraq war, also called, Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom by the US military, was alleged on the grounds of various accusations against Iraq.
Prior to it, Iraq had also violated 678(1990) and 687 (1991). In addition to this, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and UN Security Council have accused Iraq of non- cooperation (Weller, and Mark, 182-183.). The Iraq- Us war has been one of the disastrous wars of recent times.
Whatever the motive Bush Administration had, it certainly does not seem to bring anybody or us any good to take the war on Iraq. It has been a policy of the US in the recent years to take preemptive actions in the most bloody and deadly manners, against the nations who pose to be the potential threat to the American nation.
would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not. Two days later the war began with an air strike against Hussein and the Iraqi leadership. Ground forces (almost exclusively Anglo-American and significantly smaller than the large international force assembled in the first war) began invading the following day, surging primarily toward Baghdad, the southern oil fields, and port facilities; Kurdish and airborne Anglo-American forces opened a northern front late in March.
Answering these one by one will make the picture clearer.
It was known that for the U.S and its allies for a military intervention in Iraq, a prior authorization from the United Nations Security Council was a must. It is believed that the invasion of an independent country like Iraq was a breach of international law laid by the U.N.
It is believed that United States has again entered a foreign quagmire from which it is unable to withdraw without causing some heavy scars to the American psyche- not to mention severe damages to the economy, military assets, American soldiers etc. However proponents of this invasion fail to acknowledge any similarity between the two conflicts.
When World War Two broke out, it was a signal that turbulent times were ahead. Men were recruited to fight for their countries. Women had no choice but to let go of their men. It was unknown to everyone what the future will bring, but when the war broke out, it seemed
7 pages (1750 words)Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic The Iraq War: The Officials vs. The Soldiers for FREE!