Force is all-conquering but its victories are short-lived.

Outline:
I- The US’ attack on Afghanistan.
II- The Hitler’s advance towards Poland.
II-IS’ brutalities.
IV- Zia’s harsh policies.
V- Conclusion

The Essay
Force proves to be instrumental in achieving something
remarkable, but only for a short span of time. Force, if used with full
intent, produces an immediate and strong impact. In fact, this is
one of the characteristics of force. This immediate impact of force
disappears with time. In a broader sense, it cannot be used to
achieve long-term goals. It can help attack a country, but cannot be
enough to completely outpower it. It can be instrumental in quelling
the rebellion, but cannot establish permanent peace in a country.
This fact is evident from some events occurred in the history of the
world and from others which are occurring in recent times. The
succeeding discussion validates the fact that force is all-
conquering, but its victories are short-lived.

Force is enough to attack a country, but it cannot completely control

it. The US, after the gruesome incidents of 9/11, decided to invade
Afghanistan in a quest not only to overthrow Taliban’s regime but
also to completely control the country to further its economic
interests which eventually comes if the US utilizes the untapped
potential of Central Asian States. Initially, the US succeeded by
toppling the government of the Taliban and installing a new
government of its loyal, the northern alliance, in Afghanistan. That
success did not last long, because the Taliban, even after their
initial defeat, are still conducting attacks on Afghan and NATO
forces with impunity. Furthermore, the US, even after 17 years of
long-war, is not able to further its economic interests which it
envisioned before the attack. It is pertinent to mention here that the
US is now interested more in finding a peaceful solution to the
conflict. The recent rounds of talks with the Taliban officials are
evidence of this fact. Therefore, from this example, it is evident that
force despite being all-conquering is only useful to achieve short-
term benefits.
The use of force can be instrumental in increasing the size of a
country for the time being but in the long run, it can be the other
way around. Adolphe Hitler in 1939, attacked Poland in a quest to
capture some of its areas to enlarge Germany’s territory. Hitler, at
first, succeeded in gaining some territory of Poland but this incident
sparked the ashes of deadly conflict in Europe. With this, the
deadliest war of human history started off in the form of World War
II. Germany and her allies had to suffer a heavy blow in the form of
humiliating defeat. At the end of the war, Germany was
disintegrated into two parts. The purpose of the Hitler invasion of
Poland was to increase her geographical size, but the result of
applying a force which first gave her an edge was not enough to
even secure her own sovereignty. Hence, the force despite all its
might was not enough to give Hitler what he wanted.

Force can be useful in spreading an ideology for a shorter span of

time, but that ideology cannot prolong permanently. IS whose
Arabic acronym is Daesh spread its ideology quickly because of its
coercive tactics in the year 2014. It succeeded initially in capturing
areas of Syria and Iraq because of high handed tactics. To promote
its own version of Shariah, it used coercive tactics and killed
thousands if not millions of people. After capturing some areas of
Iraq and Syria it established its writ coercively under the banner of
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. IS has full access to the oil reserves
of these areas. However, despite all the support it had and its
coercive designs, it failed to maintain its control in these areas. It
soon ceding territory to the Syrian and foreign forces conducting
operations against IS. In 2018, IS was finally defeated. The
victories of IS which were attained with sheer force last not even
for a span of four years. This example validates the fact that force
is all-conquering but its victories are short-lived.

Through force, a ruler can impose his policies but cannot be able
to effect a permanent change. General Zia ul Haq, during his
dictatorial regime, took many harsh steps in the garb of Islamization
of Pakistan. He tried to impose these policies-which he called as
the spirit of Islam-forcefully. He imposed many restrictions on the
entertainment industry and ordered to offer prayers in government
offices. During his regime, it all happened but after that thing
changed. He succeeded in coercing people to fulfill these
obligations but failed to embed the spirit of Islam in the lives of
individuals which was the target. Therefore, the force was not
enough to implement these policies permanently.

In the aforementioned paragraphs, several examples are

discussed. Some examples are taken from the past while others
are taken from recent times. These are analyzed to draw a
conclusion. In light of all these examples, one can conclude that
force is all-conquering but its victories are short-lived.

Force is all-conquering but its victories are short-lived.

Outline:
I- The US’ attack on Afghanistan.
II- The Hitler’s advance towards Poland.
II-IS’ brutalities.
IV- Zia’s harsh policies.
V- Conclusion

The Essay
Force proves to be instrumental in achieving something
remarkable, but only for a short span of time. Force, if used with full
intent, produces an immediate and strong impact. In fact, this is
one of the characteristics of force. This immediate impact of force
disappears with time. In a broader sense, it cannot be used to
achieve long-term goals. It can help attack a country, but cannot be
enough to completely outpower it. It can be instrumental in quelling
the rebellion, but cannot establish permanent peace in a country.
This fact is evident from some events occurred in the history of the
world and from others which are occurring in recent times. The
succeeding discussion validates the fact that force is all-
conquering, but its victories are short-lived.
Force is enough to attack a country, but it cannot completely control
it. The US, after the gruesome incidents of 9/11, decided to invade
Afghanistan in a quest not only to overthrow Taliban’s regime but
also to completely control the country to further its economic
interests which eventually comes if the US utilizes the untapped
potential of Central Asian States. Initially, the US succeeded by
toppling the government of the Taliban and installing a new
government of its loyal, the northern alliance, in Afghanistan. That
success did not last long, because the Taliban, even after their
initial defeat, are still conducting attacks on Afghan and NATO
forces with impunity. Furthermore, the US, even after 17 years of
long-war, is not able to further its economic interests which it
envisioned before the attack. It is pertinent to mention here that the
US is now interested more in finding a peaceful solution to the
conflict. The recent rounds of talks with the Taliban officials are
evidence of this fact. Therefore, from this example, it is evident that
force despite being all-conquering is only useful to achieve short-
term benefits.
The use of force can be instrumental in increasing the size of a
country for the time being but in the long run, it can be the other
way around. Adolphe Hitler in 1939, attacked Poland in a quest to
capture some of its areas to enlarge Germany’s territory. Hitler, at
first, succeeded in gaining some territory of Poland but this incident
sparked the ashes of deadly conflict in Europe. With this, the
deadliest war of human history started off in the form of World War
II. Germany and her allies had to suffer a heavy blow in the form of
humiliating defeat. At the end of the war, Germany was
disintegrated into two parts. The purpose of the Hitler invasion of
Poland was to increase her geographical size, but the result of
applying a force which first gave her an edge was not enough to
even secure her own sovereignty. Hence, the force despite all its
might was not enough to give Hitler what he wanted.
Force can be useful in spreading an ideology for a shorter span of
time, but that ideology cannot prolong permanently. IS whose
Arabic acronym is Daesh spread its ideology quickly because of its
coercive tactics in the year 2014. It succeeded initially in capturing
areas of Syria and Iraq because of high handed tactics. To promote
its own version of Shariah, it used coercive tactics and killed
thousands if not millions of people. After capturing some areas of
Iraq and Syria it established its writ coercively under the banner of
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. IS has full access to the oil reserves
of these areas. However, despite all the support it had and its
coercive designs, it failed to maintain its control in these areas. It
soon ceding territory to the Syrian and foreign forces conducting
operations against IS. In 2018, IS was finally defeated. The
victories of IS which were attained with sheer force last not even
for a span of four years. This example validates the fact that force
is all-conquering but its victories are short-lived.

Through force, a ruler can impose his policies but cannot be able
to effect a permanent change. General Zia ul Haq, during his
dictatorial regime, took many harsh steps in the garb of Islamization
of Pakistan. He tried to impose these policies-which he called as
the spirit of Islam-forcefully. He imposed many restrictions on the
entertainment industry and ordered to offer prayers in government
offices. During his regime, it all happened but after that thing
changed. He succeeded in coercing people to fulfill these
obligations but failed to embed the spirit of Islam in the lives of
individuals which was the target. Therefore, the force was not
enough to implement these policies permanently.
In the aforementioned paragraphs, several examples are
discussed. Some examples are taken from the past while others
are taken from recent times. These are analyzed to draw a
conclusion. In light of all these examples, one can conclude that
force is all-conquering but its victories are short-lived.
Formatted: Left