REFLECTIVE SUMMARY

BRITAIN AT WAR?

BRITAIN AT WAR?

 

 

 

Britain at War?

Student name: Nayef Alkhalifa

Course: Introduction to International Relations

Instructor name: John Cronin

Date: 24/11/2020

Introduction

War posits a fundamental relationship among the states to illustrate aspects of international and regional engagement to offer fundamental support or degeneration. A country's involvement in war resonates with fundamental reasons such as territorial security, supremacy, and international relations in political perspectives within other states worldwide. According to the author, warfare is a cosmopolitan experience, accommodating the common bane of humanity. Eurocentric approach on ware accommodates political and social inquiry on war at provincial levels that comprehend wars in terms of histories and sociologies. In contrast, the author provides an alternative perspective on war to accommodate significant wars in colonies such as Britain's political dimensions, situation considerations, the war in transactional perspective, international hierarchies and co-constitutive of war, embracing societal relationship with world politics and dominancy (Barkawi, 2016). Similarly, Britain as a colony state presents significant war aspects accommodating Britain's political dimensions, situation considerations, the war in transactional perspective, international hierarchies and co-constitutive of war, embracing societal relationship in world politics that posits significant attention to multi-factor evaluation. The question of Britain at war resonates with the author’s position on war concepts within colonies to embrace situate forces, transactional war context, international hierarchies, and post-colonial war concepts that raise consciousness on colonies wars and attributes of warfare. Britain connections on the Persian Gulf, M 16 Secret wars in Kenya, democracy, and war, British future torture proofing, UK complicit connection with Saudi State, Gulf wealth concerns posits significant research-based articulation on Britain wars. Therefore, the paper provides a research-based articulation to confirm existing post-colonial wars in colonies and international relationships.

Content

Britain's presentation on the Persian Gulf accommodates several aspects, showing imperialism and arming repression that indicates aspects of war as a former colony. According to the authors, aspects such as Gulf neo-imperialism, new strategic availability, training, repressive technologies, and companies mapping accommodate signify position on the British Imperialism in the Persian Gulf (Raphael and St John, 2016). Consequently, such ideas resonate with the author’s (Barkawi, 2016) position on warfare that accommodates: situation considerations, the war in transactional perspective, international hierarchies and co-constitutive of war, embracing societal relationship with world politics and dominancy. Arguably, the presence of British Imperialism in the Persian Gulf posits possible warfare on a political and economic basis that accommodates inter-boundary constituting different states. Accordingly, articulations on such imperialists’ mythologies posting a possible notion on Brain war within post-colonial war paradigms.

Neo-imperialism in Gulf presented the undeniable position of wars within different countries in several ways. According to the Chilcot Inquiry in July 2016, the UK engagement and invasion in Iraq posit all indicators of war and destruction, particularly on the natives. Specifically, the outcome resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis death, available political and economic inefficiency as a result of the involvement and invasion, and Islamic State in transactional context and warfare situations. The outcomes presented a substantial articulation of Blair's administration's failure to impressive detailed visualization and articulation on political, economic, and social paradigms. Similarly, the concepts of Britain's war resonate with significant scholar’s argument on warfare and cosmopolitan presentations, and the common bane of humanity in exposition and outcomes (Barkawi, 2016). Admittedly, the concepts of Imperialism in the Gulf particularly indicate a possible UK involvement and invasion, causing deaths, economic inefficiency, political dependency, and religious articulation in warfare experiences and outcomes.

Several Britain articulations on the Gulf further demonstrate possible war aspects in the region. Available strategic articulation on the British military and strategies indicates economic and security methods to maintain the flow of oil in the region and significant access to market and resources (Raphael and St John, 2016). The increasing British military troops between 2002 and 2009 indicated a new strategic presence for security aids and possible larger forces introduction in the future. Virtual partners and new bases positioned a significant strategy in the British military systematic availability in the Persian Gulf. Similarly, training and assistance accommodate significant articulation such as military and private training to quash unrest and provide robust internal security. Understandably, such military and private training projected a passable unrest situation in the future, showing aspects of war in Britain as a colony in post-colonial warfare. Repressive technologies articulated a possible increment in monetary value for military aircraft and warships. However, a research-based indicates a repressive approach in technologies in the region assist regime with internal securities (Raphael and St John, 2016). Mapping of the Companies indicated significant strategies, accommodating major companies that required legal authorization to export notable paramilitary goods in the Persian Gulf. Arguably, the UK administration presentation paid attention to a need to control riots, reports on sniffer rifles, advanced technical surveillance needs that indicated significant articulation on possible war presentation on internal security obligations. Admittedly, the Gulf- Strategic Unit indicates a permanent presence of British military occupancy in the Persian Gulf. Thus, such a report indicated the UK military-strategic presentence to ensure a controlled oil flow from and protection to fundamental market and resources regions.

Britain's secretive war indulges in African countries such as Kenya, engaging the American CIA and Britain's M16. Notably, the M16 collaborated with paramilitary teams in the Kenyan intelligence department as a liaison on the Counter-Terrorism Unit, indicating Britain's secret war involvement in Kenya. The team substantially collaborated with the RRT in identifying the targets and managing their location before paramilitary team engagement (Shabibi, 2020). According to the report, Britain's M16 provided a fundamental role and responsibility in suspects’ identification and possible execution, concealing identities as a strategic plan towards war involvement. Admittedly, Britain's participation in Counter-Terrorism wars in Kenya posits as a possible indication of war involvement, accommodating security and supremacy requirements for Britain's political and economic articulations. Similarly, the occurrence supports the notion of war as state-to-state warfare intense. For instance, terrorism is an issue that acclaims international attention to societies, sociologies, political paradigms, and religion, hence Britain's involvement in such a secret war from the evidence indicates war as a metropolitan experience that articulates world political and primary internal security needs. Therefore, the secret war in Kenya, deploying M16 posits a possible Britain war involvement in the region.

British accountability, denial, and abuses are not new in the discourse of power and warfare evaluation among researchers and academicians. According to the authors (Blakeley and Raphael, 2020), British torture in War terror poses a notable manifestation of fundamental human rights and abuse amid the war against terrorism. For instance, according to the CIA reference to black facilities and require no considerations to fundamental human rights and articulation presents undeniable fact in Britain war. Similarly, the ISC report indicates significant pieces of evidence on the British engagement in the prisoner's mistreatment resonated with fundamental concepts of war as cosmopolitan experience, accommodating bane of humanitarian considerations. Consequently, machinery denial articulates suppressing evidence in managing prisoner and global wars in the warfare paradigms, indicating the possible war at colonies such as Britain in a global war presentation and collusion in torture (Blakeley and Raphael, 2020). Finally, the authors present significant proof on the future British torture in the political and warfare articulations. Therefore, the presentation on Britain's involvement in such activities in a positive perspective indicates aspects of war accommodating situation considerations, the war in transactional perspective, international hierarchies and co-constitutive of war, embracing societal relationship with world politics and dominancy (Barkawi, 2016). Thus, pieces of evidence further support existing wars in colonies such as Britain.

Finally, according to the reports on the UK implicit involvement in the Saudi Arabia unfortunate wars has shown a shameful relationship and drivers towards Saudi State violence (Wearing, 2016). Specifically, aspects such as the UK and Saudi concessions, significant dealing UK export control, and all-around deal posit possible contributor in arguable State violence in Saudi State. According to the report, Saudi is one fundamental UK arms customer that is used in violence and unrest resulting in notable war outcomes such as death, injuries, and people displacements. Admittedly, the UK arms support to the Saudi State particularly strikes in Yemen posit a possible and arguable implicitly Britain war involvement due to violation of international laws. Further, the UK arms sales and military support to the Saudi post arguable driver on wars and atrocities in the religion. The authors provide a positive conclusion to articulate possible management of such war through proving a beneficial relationship between the Saudi and UK in arms sales and military supplies. Therefore such pieces of evidence indicate explicit UK engagement in Yemen strikes and wars.

Conclusion

In conclusion, war accommodates political dimensions, situation considerations, the war in transactional perspective, international hierarchies and co-constitutive of war, embracing societal relationship with world politics and dominancy. Pieces of evidence such as Britain connections on the Persian Gulf, M 16 Secret wars in Kenya, democracy, and war, British future torture proofing, UK complicit connection with Saudi State, Gulf wealth concerns posits significant research-based articulation on Britain wars. Thus, the research reconfirms possible Britain involvement in wars in various regions, accommodating concepts of international relations and global politics.

List of References

Barkawi, T. (2016). Decolonizing war. European Journal of International Security, 1 (2), 199-214

Blakeley, R., and Raphael, S. (2020). Accountability, denial, and the future-proofing of British torture. International Affairs, 96 (3), 691-709

Raphael, S., and St John, J. (2016). Arming repression: the new British Imperialism in the Persian Gulf. London: War on Want.

Shabibi, N. (2020). Revealed: the CIA and MI6’s secret war in Kenya. Declassified UK, 28 August

Wearing, D. (2016). A shameful relationship: UK complicity in Saudi state violence. London: Campaign Against the Arms Trade.

Wearing, D. (2018). AngloArabia: why Gulf wealth matters to Britain. Cambridge Polity