The documentary, Fog of War, allows some insight into the choices and decisions that were faced by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. I believe McNamara’s worldview has and continues to persist that America has a duty to act on behalf of the world community and that stability between and within nations is paramount to national security. It is this worldview that was the basis for his strategy throughout the Cold War. Previous administrations had committed the US to assisting Vietnam, but during Kennedy’s years Vietnam fell into further conflict after the coup in 1963. McNamara’s advice to withdraw military personnel prior the coup was no longer an option as instability in Vietnam posed a threat to national security.
However, the fact that in source B, when he says that the death of American soldiers is unacceptable, also fits with the economic and military adviser aid as he was not willing to use military force to uphold their independence even though in source A, he is very devout to protect their independence at all costs, which may have included military force. In addition, another main difference in the two sources is that source B states that Kennedy would have been willing to abandon Eisenhower’s Domino Theory and also his continuing aid to South Vietnam. Whereas source A shows that Kennedy was planning to continue his commitment and not let the Domino Theory occur. The similarities between the sources include the main idea of the Domino Theory as it suggests that their main reason for an increasing commitment to the country is the fear that the theory will come true and cause the widespread of Communism. This is shown in source A as he focuses directly on peace and maintaining independence instead of any other interests.
However, Johnson believed that it was important to end the conflict in Vietnam. According to him, if such disputes were allowed to continue, the whole world would not be peaceful. This reveals that his desire to end the Vietnam conflict was aimed at ensuring global peace. His critics state that during this time the United States experienced domestic problems, which would have been the priority for the president. The crime rate in the United States soured during the Vietnam War with numerous street protests.
Third, he kept us out of new ones. It is important to think through what your objectives are before you act and, in particular, how the application of American military power, whether alone or with others, would achieve those goals or make them worse. So far, in Syria and Iran, Obama has made the right call by not pursuing military half measures that might not work, could make the situation worse or create a slippery slope to greater
He says Americans just wish they would go home. Although I believe there is some validity to this statement, I also think that it is a sweeping generalization. This may be the point of view of some Americans, however not all. This idea circles back to the concept of learning from Wars rather than dwelling on them. I find it to be in America and Vietnam’s best interest to remember the war whether it be positive or negative, learn from it, and move forward.
It is not acceptable to go beyond legal, moral, and/or ethical boundaries when the nation is at a risky time of war, but only on certain conditions. Some issues discussing this are the neutralism of U.S., the Executive Order #9066 declared by FDR, and the decision to drop the bomb. These issues greatly impacted America’s standing in the world and history immensely. It was recorded into history for the mistakes that we did and the damage we caused. The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused.
It is imperative to understand the factors which influenced President Nixon’s strategies and decision making during the Vietnam War. Nixon operated in a political context in which the policy-making establishment and the public were pessimistic towards a favourable outcome in Vietnam. Kimball (1998), argues that Nixon’s strategies were born out of restraint, rather than authoritative freedom. Nixon was walking a political tightrope to maintain the status quo between the ‘hawk’ advocates and the ‘dove’ pacifists. “Nixon realised there was both an influential right-wing alliance in favour of the war and a heterogeneous liberal, pacifist, and leftist coalition in opposition…He looked at American national
Anti-American feeling in Pakistan is intense, while American officials are no longer able to button up over what they see as Pakistani double-dealing. Admiral Mullen was right to say that in supporting groups such as the Haqqanis “the government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistani Army, continues to jeopardize Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected and prosperous nation with genuine regional and international influence”. But on the other hand, he knows that there can be no successful (or even partially successful) conclusion to the mission in Afghanistan unless Pakistan can be somehow persuaded to see its strategic interests differently. Admiral Mullen says that America must “reframe” its relationship with Pakistan, but resist the temptation to “disengage” from it. That is easier said than done.
Stalin’s view is supported by Admiral D Leahy, who in his memoirs writes ‘we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’ This quote holds a substantial amount of weight to my argument due to Admiral D Leahy’s position as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, it would be expected for a man of such status to hold a view in support of America’s actions. Nevertheless, it is apparent that while Leahy may have condoned the dropping of the bomb to shorten the war, he would make no attempt to justify his country’s and his President’s actions. The moral implications were made apparent on the British mission to Hiroshima. Not only did the bombs claim the lives of over 200,000 civilians, the
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