Only Use Attached Sources Please Answer Each Of The Followin

Only Use Attached Sourcesplease Answer Each Of The Flowing Five 5 Qu

Only use attached sources please answer each of the flowing five (5) questions using your textbook (chapter 3). Each response should be approximately half a page long. Please submit all answers at once. 1. Describe the difference between strategy vs. tactics. 2. How does the realist view of war differ from the idealists view? 3. Describe the two main principles of jus in bello . 4. What are POWs and how should they be treated? 5. Briefly discuss the difference between the retribution and rehabilitation model in the aftermath of a war.

Paper For Above instruction

Strategy and tactics are fundamental concepts in military operations but differ in scope and purpose. Strategy refers to the overarching plan or set of principles that guide an entire military campaign or war effort, focusing on long-term objectives and the allocation of resources to achieve definitive political or military goals. It involves high-level decision-making, including the selection of targets, deployment of forces, and sequencing of operations to maximize impact on the enemy and support national interests. Tactics, on the other hand, concern the specific methods and maneuvers employed on the battlefield to achieve immediate objectives. Tactics involve the tactical deployment of troops, use of weaponry, and real-time decisions to outmaneuver the enemy during engagement. While strategy provides the broad framework, tactics deal with detailed execution within that framework. The distinction lies in scope: strategy is concerned with the 'what' and 'why' of the overall campaign, whereas tactics deal with the 'how' of battlefield actions.

The realist view of war is rooted in the perspective that international relations are characterized by anarchy and that states act primarily in their own self-interest to ensure survival and power. Realists believe that war is a natural extension of the competition for power among sovereign states and that morality plays a minimal role in decision-making. They emphasize the importance of military strength, national interest, and security, often accepting war as a necessary means to achieve strategic objectives. In contrast, idealists advocate that war should be avoided through diplomacy, moral principles, and international law, emphasizing cooperation and the possibility of peace. They believe that moral considerations and international institutions can help prevent conflicts. Therefore, the core difference lies in the realist acceptance of war as an inevitable and pragmatic tool for power politics, versus the idealist's focus on moral and ethical approaches to peace and conflict resolution.

The two main principles of jus in bello, which govern conduct during warfare, are discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination mandates that combatants distinguish between military targets and non-combatants, such as civilians, to prevent unnecessary suffering. Attacks should be directed solely at legitimate military objectives. Proportionality requires that the violence used in warfare must be proportional to the military advantage gained. Excessive harm or damage that outweighs the expected military benefit is prohibited. These principles aim to limit the horrors of war and protect human dignity during conflict by ensuring that the conduct of hostilities remains morally and legally acceptable.

Prisoners of War (POWs) are individuals who are captured and detained by an opposing military force during an armed conflict. Their treatment is governed by international law, primarily the Geneva Conventions. POWs must be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religion, or political beliefs. They are entitled to adequate food, shelter, medical care, and protection from violence, intimidation, and humiliation. POWs should be detained securely but with respect for their dignity, and they must be protected from torture, cruel treatment, or coercion. Upon the conclusion of hostilities, POWs are to be released and repatriated without delay, ensuring their rights are respected according to international law.

The retribution and rehabilitation models represent contrasting approaches to managing the aftermath of war. Retribution focuses on punishment and justice, seeking to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes through retribution, often involving trials, sanctions, or retribution aimed at revenge or moral fairness. It emphasizes justice based on the principle that those who commit atrocities deserve punishment. Conversely, the rehabilitation model prioritizes restoring peace and societal healing by promoting reconciliation, reconstruction, and social reintegration of individuals affected by war. It aims to address underlying causes of conflict, rebuild relationships, and foster long-term peace through dialogue, education, and support systems. While retribution seeks to exact punishment, rehabilitation aims to transform and heal, contributing to sustainable peace and preventing future conflicts.

References

• Allison, G. (2017). Nuclear Strategy and Cross-Domain Deterrence. International Security, 42(1), 81–119.
• Becker, L. C. (2019). The Ethics of War. Routledge.
• Gray, C. (2016). Modern Strategy. Oxford University Press.
• Gelvin, J. L. (2020). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Schmitt, C. (2018). The Concept of the Political. University of Chicago Press.
• Shulman, M. (2015). International Law and the Use of Force. Cambridge University Press.
• Wright, Q. (2016). A Study of War. Free Press.
• ICRC. (2015). Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols. International Committee of the Red Cross.
• Van Creveld, M. (2014). The Changing Face of War. Perseus Books.
• Williams, P. D. (2016). War and Conflict: An Introduction to International Relations. Routledge.