American History

The ability of states to engage and participate in conflict corresponds to pursuing their interests. It corresponds to the clash on objectives and goals that in turn fosters new dynamics related towards engagement and determination of appropriate response over contrasting views among parties. These elements in turn generate the responsiveness and impact that each party derives from the process. Utilizing Clausewitz view on the situation provided by Operation Desert Storm, it can be seen that its analysis corresponds to (1) nature of the conflict, (2) the value of interests, and (3) the dynamics surrounding its scope and relative experience brought by the war.

Nature of the Conflict
Assessing the conflict that happened in Operation Desert Storm, it can be seen that it connotes the struggle between parties over control of land and territory. Under this process, we can see that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein claims control over Kuwait and thus invades and occupies the location (The National Security Archive, 2001). However, the U.S. coalition and the United Nations saw this invasion as a direct violation of Kuwaits sovereignty and fostered an appropriate response towards the issue. The end result of this dynamic then corresponds to the escalation of war with the primary objective of driving away the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait (The National Security Archive, 2001).

Assessing the reality and nature of the conflict according to Clausewitz view, it can be argued that the interaction between competing parties illustrate the dynamics and nature of the war. In here, it can be seen that the constant interplay of campaigns, operations, and human interactions in order to convey an end-result. That is why, this view of Clausewitz points out the nature of war as a social intercourse between conflicting parties (Clausewitz, 1976). In particular, Bassford (2008) argues that It is a wrestling matcha contest between independent wills, in which skill and creativity are no more important than personality, chance, emotion, and the various dynamics that characterize any human interaction (p.1). Seeing this, the responses showcased by members of both the Iraqi and U.S. coalition exhibits this kind of principle and facet. This can particularly be seen in the manner they conduct operations to the capacity to interact and communicate during the conflict.

Value of Interests
Reflecting on the nature of the conflict between Iraq and U.S. coalition forces, Operation Desert Storm was indeed a manifestation of collaborative efforts from different groups on how to approach the conflict from the military perspective to the diplomaticpolitical interactions (National Security Archive, 2001). Seeing this, the conflict can then be analyzed from the viewpoint of interests and portrayal of differing levels of national policy and political issues shaping actors engaged in the war. This element in turn consolidates the particular response initiated by members of each party and thus shapes the outcome of the war and conflict. At the same time, the scenarios highlighted in Operation Desert Storm provide inputs on as to how interests also capitalize the direction and how the scope of war can be played out by these interests accordingly. In essence, this serves as an important determinant in identifying the roles that leaders and soldiers do play prior, during, and after the conflict has occurred.

Relating this to the idea provided by Clausewitz, it can be seen that he argues on the importance of politics and policy in related to the process of conducting war. Here, it can be seen that he sees the importance of these two processes because they not only facilitate crucial decision making over these issues, it also brings about the capacity to justify decision making in the occurrence of war regardless of how violent or the manner it was executed accordingly (Bassford, 2008). It is through such ability that the development of war coincided with the interplay of politics and policies as it diversified the level of its scope and application depending on the realm of interests and objectives.

Scope and Experiences
Lastly, the scope and experiences provided by Operation Desert Storm was indeed relevant for both the winning party (U.S. coalition) and that of the Iraqi forces. It can be seen that the nature of the conflict only revolved around removing Iraq from Kuwaiti boundaries and maintain peace and order within the process (The National Security Archive, 2001). Recognizing these changes, the elements then of experiences of war came to be seen mainly during the liberation of Kuwait and provided the scope of military activities directly or indirectly connected to these objectives.

Assessing Clausewitz analysis of this perspective, the aspect of having a particular end-goal in any conflict would only prove to be limited because of the capacity to adjust accordingly in any given situation. Here, it is necessary to point out that operating on decisions should circumvent on both short and long term objectives accordingly. Here, Bassford (2008) argues that Clausewitz saw both history and policy in the long run, and he pointed out that strategic decisions are seldom final they can often be reversed in another round of struggle (p.1).In essence, the depiction of defining then the scope of how Desert Storm should commence can be attributed to a leaders capabilities to determine the course of the operation. It is in here that they try to exercise rationality and promote the value of exercising competency corresponding the implications and challenges related to violence (Clausewitz, 1976).

To conclude, analyzing Operation Desert Storm using Clausewitz perspective connote a deeper conceptualization about the relevance of interests, nature of the conflict, and experiences during the whole situation. Here, it takes into account his perspectives on how the interplay of relations corresponds to important decision making during the course of the war. At the same time, deriving the usefulness of policy and politics in this determination also promotes greater view and appreciation of the perspectives of conflicting parties. It is through such ability to denote each aspect of Clausewitz themes with Operation Desert Storm it puts forward specific ideas on how the value of war should be understood and the determinants shaping its decisions, prospects and goals.