We are more likely to consult other world powers to justify our reasons for going to war. A just war today, for civilized countries, have to have approval from the United Nations. An argument about the guidelines that St. Thomas Aquinas had suggested is now it is considered too subjective. "What constitutes a just cause is in the eyes of the beholder, as are the probability of success and any estimate of likely costs and benefits." (Haass, 2009) If war is the only answer to save lives, yes it is justifiable not matter the time or the place.
Furthermore, militarization in the area is not meant as an act of aggression but merely effective enforcement, as sovereign countries have the right to protect their land; the military manifestation and coast guard is present for policing purpose, they have a similar role to the RCMP on mainland. Ullman goes on to argue that this prizefight for resources will pose further problems not only for the United States but also the international community (Ullman, 1983, 141). This struggle for resources will be tested even further as our population continues to grow rapidly. Ullman predicts that all these factors will take a turn for the worse in a terrible chain of events (Ullman, 1983, 141-142). Overpopulation will quickly take over government agendas as they struggle to allocate resources; this will be the dawning of revolutions.
To an extent the policy of peaceful coexistence did occur; there were occasions when the west allowed the Soviets to do something they knew was wrong and didn’t agree with it. However the west didn’t want to seem weak in the face of Communism, this meant that they had to have a firm approach to Europe and not back down. The thaw in relations was partially due to peaceful coexistence; however there were other factors such as the economy and the civil rights movement in the US. The people of America could see a huge portion of the country’s money going toward the military and nuclear weapons while the country had ghettos and massive unemployment rates. This growing unrest meant that the country needed to find cheaper more effective ways to fight the communists; one option that was available to the US was the new idea of peaceful coexistence.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
The U.S. would bolster its allies' defense and provide those aspects that the allies could not provide themselves, especially nuclear deterrence. The result would be to reduce the cost to the United States of its alliances, especially in terms of relatively scarce American military manpower. Motivated local troops would also be likely to understand the details of conflicts better than intervening American forces, and their knowledge of the history, the local dialects, and the local terrain might offer important intelligence and military advantages”(Gholz, 2009). The Nixon Doctrine's Cold War context is long gone, but some of the detailed circumstances confronting the United States make the comparison between 1969 and 2009 seem uncomfortably apt. And a number of experts and pundits have drawn analogies between the long, politically controversial counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Nixon-era struggle in
The idea of “containment” and not letting the Soviet Union gain influence and control of the region was perhaps the biggest and only factor for the United States assistance in South Vietnam. In its quest for world supremacy, the US felt it had to do anything in its power to ensure that they would remain on top, even if it meant fighting the Soviets in proxy wars like that of Korea and Vietnam. From a strategic and political view, the war was an absolutely necessary and even though many feel the US had lost, they were better off than had they just remained passive and allowed Communism to spread. More than anything, the Vietnam War was a message to the rest of the world that the US could, and more importantly would, engage in conflict in attempt to ensure that democracy remain the prevalent political and economical ideology existent across the
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the war on terror as it has been presented, the United States has not been able to pursue one particular defense policy. The policy of defending the world against terror is very sweeping and commits the United States in many areas of the world. At one point, focus was on Iraq, as a haven for terrorists who were supposedly promulgating the war from Baghdad. This allowed obliviousness to fomenting in Afghanistan, which now might be where our focus is on at this time. The reality is that both defense and foreign policy have had to be malleable and somewhat pliable because the justification for the war ended up constricting the hopes of definite and static foreign policy.
‘A strong alliance was the most important reason for a country to succeed in war’. To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945? When considering alliances it is important to note that whilst strong alliances can lead directly to success and mostly weak alliances are counter-productive, having a weak or strong alliance doesn’t equate firmly to success for either side. It would be fair to say however that not having an alliance has more of an impact than having one does as, especially in limited war, success can be achieved by the side who manages to isolate their enemy from having alliances with other countries, or simply weakening their current alliances; Austria and Hungary both became weaker as they drifted away from each other in World War One. Ultimately however it must be said that throughout the period alliances change in their importance, but they generally become more decisive during longer conflicts, as alliances are helpful to sustain numbers of men, supplies going to them, and increasing the scale of your side of the war.
In the essay “The Ecstasy of War”, Barbara Ehrenreich (1997) states the transformation from ordinary people to warriors instead of aggressive instinct can persuade men to prevail in war. Generally, the wars are risky means which designed to secure the people’s interests. Sometimes, the aggressive impulses can make a great contribution to the actual battle. But the war-like calmness, as well as the unwavering aiming and fire ability, is the key to take advantages in modern warfare. Actually, fighting is only a simple component of war and it cannot control the whole war.
The most noticeable change in U.S. foreign policy is its focus on preventive action, not just preemptive action. U. S. foreign policy is aimed at ensuring democracy prevails over terrorism, not just the United States over terrorism, even though the U. S. is flying the ‘freedom’ flag and leading the way as is evident with the war in Iraq. Thus the policies have embraced the need for cooperation between democracies as the problem of terrorism is global, and the Unites States know that the democracies of the world need to combat it together. But in order for democracy to prevail, U. S. foreign policy has had to change policies which were not strategies against communism, but policies which may have in fact created the current world climate. U. S. foreign policy after 9-11 is trying to achieve greater understanding by creating democracies which different cultures can interact