America: War and Diplomacy - Book Report/Review Example

America: War and Diplomacy Introduction Political science uses many theories in explaining events and matters related to politics. These theories are based their facts on observations and can be used in describing political matters, explaining them, and predicting their manifestation in the future. Based on these explanations, a political theory can be defined as an observable relationship between political matters which focus and organize observations in attempting to define, explain, and be able to foretell political behaviours and events. It is however important to note that similar to all other theories, not everyone accepts the definitions of political theories as they have questions which cannot be clearly answered or some explanations that may create controversies. To further elaborate on the application of political theories, this study text will discuss America’s way of war as is elaborated in Howard Fineman’s book, The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Inspire and Define Our Country. The fourth chapter highlights 13 arguments concerning America of which this discussion text will elaborate on the eleventh argument which discusses on America’s wars and diplomacy. In the book, the relationship between war and diplomacy arises from whether America as a firm, solid state could live in isolation, away from warring or conflicting states in the rest of the world. Fineman answers this query stating that it would undiplomatic to stand aside when some fractions of the world are intruding others, causing havoc and depleting their peace. The statement reads, “... We were created by global forces: colonialism, immigration, seaborne trade, and the planet-wide rivalry... not separation” (Fineman 197). Relating America’s concern over the world’s affairs to diplomacy can be constructed by perceiving of America’s mediating in warring or salvaging suffering nations to the definition of diplomacy which is the act of conducting mediation during unrests. These unrests might result in contexts such as economics, human rights, trade, and most importantly war. In a wider context, America realized that being diplomatic was essential in that it would not only save the world but itself as well because it realized that if the world was not changed, America would perish. As such, evaluations led to the conclusion that the most suitable means of being diplomatic was using military intervention in the event peaceful negotiations failed. “The American Argument over foreign policy isn’t about whether we should engage the world. It is about why and how we should use government power (military, diplomatic, informational) to protect our way of life and even our conscience (198). It is from this conclusion that a political theory emerges; that in acting diplomatically, America’s use of military force (war) has a pattern to it. That is to say that in its “engagement” with the world, there is procedure applied until the diplomacy, which in this case refers to war, is reached. The following section defines and explains this observation, and how the prediction of the U.S.’s came into existence. In most, or rather in all the cases, America goes into wars and takes the side of the ‘offended’ or the side defending morality and mostly emerges victorious. A closer look into the wars that America participates in shows major strategies in which it uses crushing military and technological power to tactically suppress and weaken its opponents before delivering the final blows being mostly strategic successes, enforcement, and normalization. America applies two main forms of strategy: national and military. A national strategy is the development of a nation by the use of its politics, economy and psychology plus its armed forces in peace and war in securing national objectives. Military strategy is the application of a nation’s armed forces in securing its national policy objectives by use of threat of force, or force (Prybyla 24). These two define its way of strategizing war. Before taking any sides, America is in most cases neutral, but is usually very keen on the proceedings of conflicts, weighing heavily the consequences. That it is a superpower means it associates with all the states in the world is therefore bound to feel the effect of any conflict in addition to the unwritten rule of its duty to protect the world. After it takes note of the possible outcomes of any conflicts on it, America devises protective means of cushioning in case the worst happens; in which case it may offer support for any of its allies that is active in the conflict. In the case where one of its allies is weighing heavily under suppression leading to interfering with their relations, it takes to one side; mostly the weak and innocent one. Establishing a side means America has joined a war. The very first tactic, it will use is crushing military power with technological additions. Troops, tankers, war drones, submarine, missiles, and all forms of artillery come on the site leading to mass casualties, destruction, reduction, or retreat by the rivals. With its advance in military ability, its presence in any war influences the outcome greatly. Retaliation by the enemy is a normal occurrence in any war, in which case America goes the extra mile of combating before it occurs. This it does by incorporation of secret societies, mechanisms, or agents in the bases of the rivals. Spies camouflage in the enemies’ bases and gather information that they send to the United States, a practice that enables America to gather information about impending retaliatory actions and use it against the enemy, usually suppressing, or minimizing damage. Mass assault is America’s way of delivering final blows to its enemy. This greatly weakens the opponent and is usually the climax and end of any battle. Though inhumane in many cases, it resorts to last though action when crisis termination is overdue. It is so far America’s most effective tool of advocacy, though its use is very rare. America, after concluding war or eliminating an enemy, goes back to the drawing board and focuses on the causes the conflict or war. It goes on to revive the now one-sided negotiations, having inflicted fear or punishment on the rivals that usually ends in its favour. Looking back from the days of loud wars to the present era of more silent ones, there is a clear indication of repetition in the patterns of America’s way of combat. Evolution only occurs in the complexity of the force it uses. The following paragraphs will support the fact that America’s way of war exists from long ago, using the same strategy repeatedly down history to the modern day as a strategy of maintaining world calm threatened by minor parties pursuing selfish autonomies while disrupting the cohesion, thus sustain its existence, which overly supports Kissinger’s (22) concepts of America’s diplomacy strategies. America in World War I and II Italy, Germany, and Austria-Hungary took to the battle against and Russia, France and Britain in the First World War, a war that was most likely to award victory to the German side which appeared stronger. America was neutral in this war, for it was trading with all the states involved in this war. However, the sinking of the Lusitania carrying supplies from New York on its way to Britain saw America join the war after several debates on the economic effects it was bound to cause, sending its expeditionary troop forces of hundreds of thousands with sophisticated artillery (Fitzgerald 67). They were capable of casting missiles to long ranges and fire several hundred rounds of ammunition in a minute. Aviators went on spy missions mostly over the trenches and holes (dugouts) areas of German territory, learning about the intent to use poisonous gas, telling their allies to use gas masks, minimizing the casualties. The worst crisis of the human era, World War II rose because of Japan’s aim to dominate China, resulting in the two major opposing military alliances in which America fought on the Allies’ side. At the end of the war, casualties exceeding millions gave birth to formation of conflict resolution bodies such as the United Nations. It looks after worldly affairs, ensuring that there is no repetition of Japan’s case of invading and dominating China anywhere. America in the Korean conflict When news of communist North Korea’s invasion of democratic South Korea over a border conflict got to President Truman of America, his response was immediate, resulting in agreement that the United Nations intervene by sending troops into Korea. Of the total troops who went into Korea to back up the South, eighty-eight percent were American. The Japanese were in support of the North and their role was enormous, leading America into focusing on it, where American warplane dropped bombs into Korea causing destruction, extreme casualties leading to its fall. This saw the North weakening and finally the two sides agreed to the plan by the United Nations of establishing a boundary between them. America in the Cold war This war’s inspiration came from conflict between the major powers with nuclear ability in search of global authority and influence. Western powers and the Soviet Union took two sides when inferior states were in conflict, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars, expressing threats of using nuclear weaponry on the other. The use of American aviation spying mechanisms revealed the construction of Russia’s missile launch pads in Cuba that could hurl missile heads to the heart of America, let alone the rest of the globe. America’s countering of this saw it go into production of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, furthering their effect through research and frequent tests (Fitzgerald 83-84). America’s bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent fear through the powers of the Soviet Union, in what America says the aim was to speed up the end of the war that would have cost many more lives than it did. This led to Japan’s surrender, bringing to an end the brutal era. America and the modern War on terror These are modern and less dramatic wars. Terrorism is a masquerade of a body in search of global control and exercise of power; and a threat to the world requiring intervention. Just like all other wars that the globe expects the superpower, America, to undertake and calm, this is America’s most recent headache. As a response to global bombings and inhumane acts by terror groups responsible for the 9/11 bombings on New York and Washington, the new millennium has seen America dive into the war against terror. Millions of the American service men fight day and night with most losing their lives in this affair, in many wings anti-terrorism ranging from intelligence, military, surveillance, and technology. Minear (109) reveals that so far, the most dominant operations against terrorist bases in the recent past remain the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, believed to be notorious for harbouring terror diehards. America’s milestones in their operations list amongst others the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, both of whom are fallen terrorist heads. Intelligence, surveillance, technology, and intense military interventions lead operations to criminals’ doorsteps therefore successful combats. Numerous attempts of attacks end up in neutralization before they happen all over the world, thanks to innovative American intelligence. Conclusion The above discussion text fits the definition of a theory as was earlier discussed. In its elaboration of the American political theory of war and diplomacy, it satisfies the three qualities that make it a theory in that it states (defines) it, explains itself, and provides a pattern that is likely to be repeated over again, thus predicts the future of America’s way of achieving diplomacy. The theory defines a set perspective that in countering the threat of the world being depleted by some malicious ideologies, America chose to apply military force to minimize the threat and protect the inferior status. In explaining itself, the theory gives supportive evidence in that America uses a strategy which goes in the order of initiating peaceful negotiations wherein their failure prompts the United States to threaten to use military force, and if these fail, it actualizes the threat. It further reveals that the U.S. does not go into war blindly, but uses evaluation methods to determine between the innocent or threatened party and then moves in to support it. This is evident as is seen in the pattern emerging from the several dominant wars and conflicts that it has helped to calm. Fineman’s conclusions pertaining America in its war strategy and achievement of diplomacy are indeed justified. Works Cited Fineman, Howard. The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Inspire and Define Our Country. Random House LLC, 2008. Print. Fitzgerald, Brian. The Korean War: Americas Forgotten War. Minneapolis, Minn: Compass Point Books, 2006. Print. Kissinger, Henry. Does America Need a Foreign Policy?: Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. Simon and Schuster, 2002. Print. Minear, Larry. Through Veterans Eyes: The Iraq and Afghanistan Experience. Washington, D.C: Potomac Books, 2010. Print. Prybyla, Jan S. The American Way of Peace: An Interpretation. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2005. Print. Read More