|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is a substantially revised version of my doctoral thesis, written in Toronto and submitted to the Department of Political Science at York University during the summer of 1991.1 wish to express my deep gratitude to David Dewitt, my academic supervisor, who afforded me the intellectual trust and freedom to “go off on my own.” My thanks are also due to David Bell and David Leyton-Brown, the two remaining members of “David3,” whose constant support and encouragement provided me with the scholarly stamina to see this study through to completion. I would also like to thank Gabriel Ben-Dor of Haifa University for his encouragement and guidance.
Along the way I have benefited immensely from the friendly contributions of a number of people, especially the weary but patient participants in the Donner Workshop on Security and Conflict Resolution at York University. Many of the ideas presented in this book had a long period of germination at those semiformal gatherings.
I have profited most deeply from the constant friendship of Mike Burke, who, in addition to scrupulously examining parts of this study, helped me to cope with the tribulations of academic life and to understand the “whys” of such an endeavor. My debt to him is inexpressible.
I also wish to acknowledge the support of the York Centre for International and Strategic Studies. In particular, I would like to thank Heather Chestnutt for her kind assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. This study was partly researched using the facilities of the Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University and the Kurdish Cultural Library in New York.
I am indebted to the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, whose financial support made this study possible.
Finally, I wish to express my admiration to Beverly for making it through the long haul and to thank Meredith for getting here in time to prove that there is more to life than research and writing—19 February 1991 was probably the lesser challenge for all of us.
W. Thom Workman
1
Introduction: Toward the
Critical Contemplation of the
Iran-Iraq War
The first Gulf war—better known as the Iran-Iraq War—was tragic by any account. When one considers its economic costs, physical destruction, and human toll, there is merit in the claim that the Iran-Iraq War was the Third World’s first “Great War."1 Indeed, it was the longest conventional war of the twentieth century.2 Estimates suggest that upwards of one million lives were lost: a further two million people were wounded. Almost 40 percent of the adult male population in the two countries took part in the war. Material damage has been estimated at upwards of $350 billion; and the overall costs of the war have been estimated at $1,190 billion. More than one million people were uprooted in the course of the fighting; at least 157 Iranian towns with populations of more than five thousand were damaged or wholly destroyed; and some 1,800 border villages were virtually wiped off the map.3 The Iranian and Iraqi economies suffered steep declines in oil revenues and economic productivity.4 And the belligerents flirted with the nadir of humanity, using chemical weapons and employing teenaged boys on the battlefield.
This listing of the devastation and carnage of the Iran-Iraq War suffices in decrying the fact that it ever transpired. Indeed, the war is a precise example of the kind of destruction that has impelled traditional research into contemporary warfare. The traditional science of war may be broadly summarized as the study of war with the view, in the spirit of Immanuel Kant, to engineering a permanent or perpetual peace. It is poignantly inherent in Herodotus’s lament at the outset of The Histories: “In peace, sons bury their fathers, but in war fathers bury their sons.” The traditional approach, moreover, rests upon well-elaborated scientific foundations generally consistent with the positivist temper of North American social science: i.e., traditional war science seeks to establish objective theories of warfare that will ultimately help to guide the world in peaceful directions. When one considers the sheer number of researchers that have explicitly or implicitly employed the traditional framework in their studies on war, the ... | 
