Giovanna Moncada Paterno Castello
How would the classical realists characterize the similarities and differences between American intervention in Vietnam and Iraq?
The purpose of this essay is to explain the differences between the Vietnam and Iraq war characterized by the classical realists. The essay will start with a brief explanation of the neo-conservative thinking to consequently explain the opposite classical realist theories. Following, it will introduce a brief explanation of Vietnam and Iraq wars. It will then go on, according to the classic realism and using reliable data, describing what are the similarities and differences between the USA intervention in Vietnam and Iraq.
Finally it will conclude with a brief summary of the argument found about the similarities and differences viewed by the classical realists between the Vietnam and Iraq Wars. Furthermore it will make a critical conclusion about the classical realist theories applied to the contemporary world.
‘Neo-conservatives correctly believe that the United States has a remarkably powerful military. They believe that there has never been a state on earth that has as much relative military power as the United States has today. And very importantly, they believe that America can use its power to reshape the world to suit its interests. In short, they believe in big-stick diplomacy, which is why the Bush doctrine privileges military power over diplomacy’ (John J Mearsheimer, 2005, p1).
The Research paper on United States Involvement In The Vietnam War part 1
United States Involvement in the Vietnam War The knowledge about a certain cultural reality is the only one of the viewpoints among the other viewpoints available (Unknown author) Introduction The research paper examines the causes and prerequisites explaining why did the United States get involved in the Vietnam War The study explains how well the main international relations theories explain the ...
In fact, Bush (the President of the US from 2001 to 2009) and the neo-conservatives strongly believed that the power of their country was over the others, and thought that, acting unilaterally (John J Mearsheimer, 2005), intervening in the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts and initiating a war would made the rest of the world fear the US and consequently become its allies.
Conversely, classical realists were against the neo-conservatives thoughts and believed that it could engender hubris. As Dunne et all (2007, p60) state, hubris will ‘encourage actors to see themselves outside of and above their community, and this in turn blinds them to the need for self-restraint’, meaning that, because of hubris, nations will miscalculate their power and thus embrace dangerous actions. In fact, according to the note classical realist Machiavelli (1532) the justice, and thus the wealth of a country, depends on external influence and internal restraint. ‘Self-restraint that prompts behavioral in accord with the acknowledged principles of justice both earns and sustains the hegemonia (higemonia) that makes efficient influence possible’ (Dunne et all, 2007, p66).
Moreover, ‘realists do not believe that we live in a bandwagoning world. On the contrary, realists tend to believe that we live in a balancing world, in which, when one state puts its fist in another state’s face, the target usually does not throw its hands in the air and surrender. Instead, it looks for ways to defend itself; it balances against the threatening state’ (John J Mearsheimer,2005).
The theory the power of balance explains that when a state is too powerful another will overwhelm it; this will bring the world powers to a status quo. ‘The equilibrium must aim at preventing any element from gaining ascendancy over the others’ (Morghenthau, 1960, p 163).
In this case, the classical realist thinking will be examined according to the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.
Both wars were thought by the neo-conservatives to be easy wars against two barbarian countries that would not be able to fight against the powerful and astonishing USA (Lacy, 2011).
Yet, those wars came out to be more difficult than the Americans thought which supports classical realism.
The Term Paper on Why Did The United States Go To War With Iraq?
In the recent war with Iraq Americans wants to really know why did the United States go to war with Iraq? There are several conclusions that people have come to. Some of the main reasons that the United States went to war with Iraq was because of the belief that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists in Iraq and that he had in his possession weapons of mass destruction whether they were nuclear ...
The Vietnam War started in 1950 as a dispute between the anti-Communist South (supported by the USA) and the Communist North (supported by the Soviet Union).
The consequence of the South Vietnam disagreement to hold the unification elections in 1956 was the start of the Communist guerrilla attacks against South Vietnam (Mintz, S., 2007).
For some people, the background real cause of the war was that ‘Americans were very nervous about the Domino Theory coming true where the communists will take over the world and they wanted to fight and abolish communism’ (Raphel, J. 2005).
According to this thought, the fear given by the communist expansion persuaded them to intervene in the Vietnam conflict.
The Vietnam War ended in 1975 by the surrendering of South Vietnam to the North and becoming a communist state. The Vietnam War was defined the longest war in the history of USA and the most unpopular, where 58,000 Americans died. The loss of the war was a huge disappointment for the Americans, who started wondering if their power was as strong as they thought (Mintz, S., 2007).
In the 2003, the involvement of USA in Iraq started an illegitimate war mainly caused by the Iraq possessions of weapons of mass destruction never found by the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) (Sameera K., 2011).
But not only, the Bush administration also stated that Saddam Hussein was an Al Qaeda ally (even if there were never found any meaningful evidences), relating him to the 9/11 terrorist attack (Bowman, Robert M., 2007).
Although, for some people the real reason of the USA invasion of Iraq is its abundance of oil, in fact, as the article ‘Is oil or big business an undisclosed motive for the war on Iraq?’ says, ‘The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush’s election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry’ (Anonymous, 2011).
In 2011 President Obama has announced the end of Iraq war, making the American troops return to their homes by the end of the year: ‘The war in Iraq has meant the death of more than 4,400 U.S. troops and come at a cost of more than $700 billion’ (Montopoli, Brian, 2011).
The Term Paper on Arguments For War In Iraq pros
Arguments for War in Iraq (Pros) Military activity of the United States in Iraq, supported by armed forces of the UK and Spain, was initiated in March 2003, after a number of sanctions and political doctrines from the side of President G.W. Bush. In April 2003 united forces took over Baghdad and appointed a civil administrator Paul Bremer to control Iraq, as former ruler of the country Saddam ...
The Iraq war, being second defeat after Vietnam, has opened the eyes of many American citizens, which now do not believe that the USA has the leading power in the international relations.
Many theorists believe in the similarity of the Iraq War to the Vietnam War. In fact, many think that Iraq conflict could represent a second Vietnam War (Freeman, 2004).
The classical realists discuss some of the similar aspects between the two wars.
Both Vietnam and Iraq wars were initiated by the USA without a real or meaningful purpose that incited them to intervene. The classical realists highlight the importance of lack of self-restraint. In both wars ‘actions takes preference over reflection, the explicit meaning over the explicit interpretation, and only in so far the latter is borne out by the former do reflection and interpretation help rather than hinder understanding’ (Morgenthau, 1960, p11).
The resolution of Iraq and Vietnam Wars portrays the relevance of the classical realist thought; where people that act by passions and hopes, not by reason and careful calculation, are incapable to formulate interests in an intelligent and coherent manner (Dunne et all, 2007).
Thucydides declares that interest goes beyond ethical principles and the community’s want (Thucydes, 1996).
In fact, as also the contemporary realists think, ‘the concept of interest is defined in terms of power’ (Morgenthau, 1960, p5).
Meaning that the USA actions were influenced by their hubris and their assuredness of being in control of the world. Kenneth Waltz affirms, ‘the political clout of nations correlates closely with their economic power and their military might’ (Kenneth Waltz, 1979, p163).
In both Iraq and Vietnam cases, interest did not drive the country to justice and consequently to wealth and security. Alternately, it made the USA fail and erode its influence over the world because it violated the ends and means of the moral policy (Dunne et all, 2007).
As we can see above, another similarity is found: hubris. In both wars, hubris was one of the most relevant causes that drove the USA to initiate conflict. What led USA to hubris was the power and success given by the allies and the wider international community. The USA believed that their military power and allies would be favourable factors that will drive their country win the wars. What they did not take into account was what Thucydides and the classical realists saw: ‘Military power and alliances are double-edged swords; they are as likely to provoke as to prevent conflict’ (Dunne et all, 2007, p62).
The Term Paper on Just War Kuwait Iraq And Usa
Just War On August 2 nd, 1990 the first Iraqi tanks crossed into Kuwait, as part of an invasion that marked the start of a six-month conflict between the United States and Iraq. These tanks were ordered to invade Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, the ruthless dictator of Iraq. The Iraqi troops looted Kuwaiti businesses and brutalized Kuwaiti civilians. Saudi Arabia began to fear that they may be invaded ...
The catastrophic result of both wars made the American government experience the main classical realist thought: ‘great powers are their own worst enemies’ (Dunne et all,2007, p74).
Furthermore, in both wars, the classical realists (as also the contemporary realists) would agree that a powerful sense of nationalism was present in the invaded population. They thought that, in the domestic politics, governments should ‘defend their borders, enforce laws and protect citizens make domestic politics more peaceful and qualitatively different from international relations’ (Dunne et all, 1960, p61).
‘Nationalism glorifies the state, and there are all sorts of people out there fighting for a state of their own. The Palestinians are just one example of that. So the state is here to stay for the long term’ (Mearsheimer, 2002).
In fact, a national idealism will always defeat the ideal of democracy imposed by another country. Normally, no-nation is likely to welcome an invasion; it will always defend its own government (even if it is an unfair totalitarian government).
As Morgenthau states in 1960, nationalism ‘sought to free the nation from alien domination and give it in a state of its own’. Classical realists thought that there was not much distinction between domestic politics and anarchical international relations: ‘they see the cohesiveness of community and shared norms as central in maintenance of order and restraint in international relations as in domestic politics’ (Richard Ned Lebow, 2007).
Meaning that all countries will politically defend their governments and will support them equally in the international arena, consequently converting it into an anarchical status. This explains why the USA government aim, to spread democracy in both Iraq and Vietnam (and, consequently with the domino theory, to the rest of the Middle East), failed. The USA intervention seen as a liberation was interpreted by the invaded population as a threaten occupation.
Finally, another similarity could be found by the classical realist theory explained before: the power of balance. In both cases it is demonstrated the ‘ability of the human being to destroy though war what has being built with a lot of effort’ (Dunne et all, 2007, p73) and that, by impeding the USA overwhelm the rest of the countries, a balance of the world has been achieved. This also relates to the classical realist theory of ‘change and modernization’. Modernisation is seen as an automatic reconstruction of the world characterised by a ‘combination of old and new to accommodate changes while limiting their destructive potential’ (Richard Ned Lebow, 2007).
The Essay on United States War Iraq Hussein
Potence and Act "The gods fill with gifts to those men who want really to lose" There is not a thing more incongruous than pretending to understand History, since History is usually full of chaos, lies, and bloody tragedies. To analyze the reasons for going to a war is always a dirty task. In this essay, I will analyze Mr Bush's reasons to start a war against Iraq. I will also compare the Vietnam ...
Even if we could say that the USA has made the same mistake twice, first attacking Vietnam and then Iraq, we could not define the two wars as equal. In fact, much dissimilarity is found. The essay will examine what I think would the classical realists characterize the differences between the Vietnam and Iraq war.
The disappointing end of the Vietnam War made the Americans realise that their country was not as powerful as they thought. The government within the media, not only persuaded the Americans that fighting against the Vietnamese was an easy task that would empower their country, but also encouraged the fact that when a person would reach the age of 18 will be going to war (Lacy, M. 2011).
The premature recruitment for war proves the rightness of the classical realism, which would not believe on the neo-conservative thought that saw a potent American military. In fact, what the USA government did, by recruiting young soldiers, portrayed that maybe the military force was not competent to fight as they had to recourse to the ‘non professional…young, usually from lower social groups and frequently from America’s minority groups’ (Trueman, C. 2011) citizens. Therefore, the failed end of the war and the coming out of a weak US military gave reason to the classical realists that from the beginning of the war forewarned the mistake (based on interest) of the neo-conservatives. In the other hand, Iraq was instead a war fought with soldiers especially trained to combat. In this way the USA was well equipped to combat more efficiently: the USA would not achieve the success, but at least the war would not be as dramatic as Vietnam.
The Essay on Erdrich’s “The Red Convertible”: America After The War In Vietnam
“The Red Convertible” by Louise Erdrich is a story about two young brothers named Henry Junior and Lyman Lamartine that have a strong relationship until Henry junior is drafted and sent away to the war in Vietnam. “The Red Convertible” shows that returning veterans face troubles, such as problems with family relationships; war changes Henry’s his personality and causes him to have PTSD. The war ...
The mass media was also very different between both Vietnam and Iraq wars. Vietnam was the first war documented by the new mass media tool: television. Images of the war where shown in the American TV without any census: fights, shooting and deaths were shown unscrupulously. Alternatively, in Iraq the use of television had been active for more years, which made the government policy control this powerful manipulating tool by banding the most violent scenes and distorting information (Lacy, 2011).
We can see the difference in the purpose of the media in influencing the community and the social thoughts. Of course, the media has the strongest power to influence people according to the interests of who has the power. The classical realism thinks that a war should reflect what the community expect. ‘What is required for mastery of international politics is not the rationality of the engineer but the wisdom and moral strengths of the statesman’ (Morgenthau, 1958 pag.56).
Meaning that what will bring victory, happiness and stability to the state will be a governor that acts with coherence and justice, but mainly taking into account the community want. In the case of Iraq, the community need was not considered; not only because the government acts parallel to the citizens thought, but also because it manipulated most of the population ideas by only transmitting the appropriate information through the media.
Looking at the differences and similarities of Vietnam and Iraq wars and their development, it can be understood, that classical realism has revealed a crude self-interest view of the relationships between the countries, where no one helps because of a sense of humanity but for something in return. As we can see, the theories first developed by Thucydides, in the 470 B.C. referred to the Greek world, are still applicable in the nowadays-international relations. Furthermore, all the post realist thinkers have taken into account the classical realism principles and then developed a divergent theory, thus we can say that classical realism is the basis of all the born afterwards realist thoughts.
To conclude, the essay has discussed the principals of the classical realists in relation to the two more significant wars initiated by the USA in the last few decades: Vietnam and Iraq. It has identified the similarities and differences of both wars using the Classical realists’ theories: domestic and international politics, balance of power, interest and justice, change and modernization and the classical realist’s reflection on community. Furthermore, it has given a critical overview of the application of classical realism nowadays.
Neo-conservative Americans could listen to the ancient theories dictated by Thucydides instead of keep believing on their power over the world. Thus, they should understand that in the rest of the countries there are different ethnics and cultures, divergent to the American culture, that should be respected.
References
Anonymous. (2011).
IS OIL OR BIG BUSINESS AN UNDISCLOSED MOTIVE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ? Available: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp. Last accessed 1 Dec 2011
Bowman, Robert M. (2007).
Why War With Iraq?. Available: . Last accessed 1 Dec 2011.
Dunne, Milja, Kurki and Smith (2007).
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp59-75.
Freeman, Robert. (2004).
Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse. Available: . Last accessed 2 Dec 2011.
Lacy, M. (2011).
Lecture week 2 and 3: Tragedy of International Politics: Realism and Violence; Contemporary Realism and the War on Terror, International Relations and Security course (PPR.221), Lancaster University.
Machiavelli, Niccolò.(1532) The Prince, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp22-90
Mearsheimer John J. (2005).
Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism. Available: http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp. Last accessed 30 Nov 2011.
Mearsheimer. (2002).
The Post-Cold War. Available: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Mearsheimer/mearsheimer-con3.html. Last accessed 1 Dec 2011
Mintz, S. (2007).
Learn About the Vietnam War. Available: . Last accessed 1 Dec 2011.
Montopoli, Brian. (2011).
Obama announces end of Iraq war, troops to return home by year end. Available: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123800-503544/obama-announces-end-of-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/. Last accessed 1 Dec 2011.
Morgenthau, Hans (1960).
Politics among Nations. 3rd ed. New York: Knopf. 4-180.
Morgenthau, Hans (1960).
The Purpose of American Politics. New York: Knopf and Random House. pp11-100.
Raphel, J. (2005).
What Caused The Vietnam War ?. Available: http://www.historyking.com/World-War/vietnam-war/What-Caused-The-Vietnam-War.html. Last accessed 5 Dec 2011.
Sameera K. (2011).
The Iraq War: Causes and Effects. Available: http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/all/article/48766/The-Iraq-War-Causes-and-Effects/. Last accessed 1 Dec 2011.
Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, London: McGraw-Hill, New York: Random House; Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. p163.
Thucydides (1996).
The Landmark Thucydides: A Compprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. Edited by Robert B.Srassler. New York: Free Press.
Trueman, C. (2011).
Vietnam. Available: . Last accessed 2 dic 2011.
