Who says we're arguing? We're just brainstorming? Flexing our brain muscles a bit. It's good for the grey cells :P

The matter hasn't been resolved yet and the West is claiming victory? I don't think so. Sanctions only worsen the matter

One important aspect of war is to get hold of resources of the other nation. So economic prosperity is a national interest. Asean have achieved this.

Bullying and threatening could also be used by a country to avert direct fighting and having its way. Also covert operations and assassinations as the United States did routinely in South America. Not clearly a victory but it had its way for a while.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

In February this was the case

Off course Zia threatened india and that averted war. Using military deterrence is also a way to win without fighting

I consider this purposeless as this topic is unlikely to be repeated in 2015 at least

Things countries do for tactical advantage without resorting to direct military fighting: Bullying, threatening, assassinations of key government figures, supporting rebellions and coups, diplomacy, forming military blocs and alliances to beef up military might, proxy wars, economic sanctions, media warfare, use of soft power etc.

I think we have ripped GREAT Nations of any ethical or moral character!

Yes. Let's say the paper checker is reading these threads. Let him have some ideas :P

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

If we judge by morality no nation can fulfil this criteria.

True that

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Good discussion guys..Keep it up...
I would like to add one thing that essay topics in CSS are made in a way that it is very difficult to refute them.But if one has done so meticulously, there is a fair chance that it will yield very good marks...So best of luck..

Hajra,I am unable to understand your view point completely as it is a little ambiguous. Can you elucidate it further so that we can have a proper understanding..?

It is not about the approach. No approach can be right, and no approach can be wrong.
What matters is if you are fulfilling the pre-requisites of producing an essay. Your Essay must be coherent, relevant and organised.

Coherence implies every line must flow into the other, and together, the essay gives an impression of a stream which slithers along.

Relevancy is the most important yet often ignored aspect. At all times, you must be writing what you are supposed to write. If you are giving examples, round them up by stating how they are relevant to the theme in hand. Most people fail to produce an Essay which is relevant in it's entirety and hence end up failing the paper.

Organisation is what makes the essay stand out. Every paragraph must have a single idea, and it should be in the first few lines. (or the last few). If you want to introduce more than one idea, break it down into separate paragraphs with each paragraph carrying a central theme. Do not clutter the paragraph with more than two ideas, as that makes the reader feel as if a sundry of views are cascading down from all directions. That looks pretty horrible, and significantly lowers down the chances of one passing the essay.

Finally. The Introduction must always be the shortest possible summary of the essay, while the conclusion must focus on the Recommendations.


You don't have to produce stats and figures. It does not matter what approach you take. All you need to do is to be Coherent, Relevant and Organised. It is not a paper of Current Affairs and the examiner is not interested in your Knowledge. All he is interested in is your English and English skills.This is the single most important point which most people fail to understand.

I , by the way, went against the topic. I feel i might have digressed from the right path somewhere in the middle (relevancy), and don't have high hopes this time around.

Interesting observation. See, that is my Achilles' Heel as an aspiring CSP, I tend to think more in theoretical terms rather than pointing out practical evidence and historical data to support my argument. However, if you really were to take a strong defence on the case (not in the exams of course, but right now for the argument's sake) you could point out how the recent surge of the ISIS has proven the US "victory" in Iraq in 2003 to have been a total waste of time, effort and lives since they could not win the Iraqi people over. Military victories stand little chance against resurgences if the people have not been won over, heart and mind. Or how about Germany after WWI? The only reason they got that treatment according to the treaty of Versailles was because they were on the losing side and instead of being inclusive, the Allied States shunned them causing the whole Nazi Movement to have a fighting chance. I mean, that might not have become as popular had the German people not been so aggrieved. Since the causes for the Second World War could be traced back to the "victories" of the First, could it really be considered a true victory? I read this paper some time back called "The Obsolescence of Major War" which offered brilliant arguments for this case. I can't remember who wrote it, though. .

In retrospect, this could have been a good essay to attempt. Oh well!