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 event, and examines why the United States got involved in the Vietnam War using the theories of Realism and Individual Leaders international relations theories. The actuality of the research is stipulated by the reason that widespread interest in problems of local conflicts and their influence on international relations has given rise to the role of international relations in recent years. The Vietnam War embraced the features of ethnic and religious oppositions, civil war, and conflict for the spheres of influence, is very demonstrative. The scientific newness of the study is based on the fact that there is a certain gap in the study of the prerequisites and prehistory of the U.S. and their participation in Vietnam within the frameworks of the three main international relations theories. It is distinctly noticeable by the example of the period 1954-1955s. The vast majority of existing scientific studies is dedicated to the more recent or subsequent events in Indochina.
The paper examines the issue through the significant quantity of new literary sources, such as the documents of the Department of State, Security Council, acts and reports of government, journal articles and speeches. Despite the interest to the Vietnam War, it is very difficult to reduce the facts to a common denominator. The vector of conflict study is shifted to hostility with participation of the U.S. army, while the direct study of the causes is usually relegated to the background. The present study strives to embrace the entire spectrum of the issues within a context of the Realism and Individual Leaders international relations theories. Previously, the subject of the study was of no significant interest.
The Essay on Us Intervention In Vietnam War
It is said that the intervention of the United States can be explained using hegemonic war theory. They were to intervene so that their military would not be seen as incapable of fighting in this war, and to maintain their prestige as a super power. The involvement of the United States in this war was not only seen as a way to stop a war that was escalating but also to gain power and respect. The ...
To a certain extent it can be explained by the limited access to the available sources. The International Relations Theories It is very difficult to give concise interpretation of the causes that forced the United States to get involved in the Vietnam War. However, some political scientists explain the reasons with the help of the main international relations theories (Realism, Individual Leaders theories).
In order to answer the question, it is necessary to get to the roots of the main international relations theories. Realism and Individual Leader Theories Realism is often called the pessimist of the International Relations theories. According to the main postulates of this theory, the world view should be examined through the prism of reality of the international politics (Mearsheimer 1995).
The states and governments are the main actors of the given theory.
Realism rests upon the negative conception of human nature (Mingst & Snyder 2004).
The world politics is, consequently, a consistent struggle for power between the states, where the states pursue their national interests. This power is a necessary prerequisite for the states protection of freedom of action and state sovereignty. The war, or military force is the only tool able to gain the objectives pursued by the state, while the diplomacy is not of the primary importance (Jervis 1999).
A perfect illustration of the theory of realism is the participation of the U.S. in Vietnam War, where the U.S. government was threatened by Vietnams belonging to the Communists.
Logically, the U.S. government asserted their absolute right on the part of the Homeland to protect itself (Mingst & Snyder 2004) by taking part in the Vietnamese conflict and handling the war against Vietnam. The U.S. government wanted to enjoy support on part of the other world countries along with the local citizens. The U.S. policy could be referred to as realpolitik (Mingst & Snyder 2004) and raison detat. It is also important to admit that according to the theory of realism, national interests and power dominate over the moral considerations (similar to the U.S.
The Term Paper on International Workplace Relations
Any institution or organization is defined by the kind of labour and workplace relations it has. Workplace relations which describe how the management addresses its employees and their interests may cause an organization to succeed or fail as they determine whether the organization will be able to meet its goals and vision. This is because the human resource of an organization is one of its ...
and the reasons why the United States got involved in the Vietnam War).
Yet, it is necessary to admit that the realism theory cannot be treated as the only forcible argument. The United States foreign policy was based on a number of philosophic and political theories. As has been mentioned above, realism international relations theory along with its ideological constructions can explain the driving motives that forced the United States got involved in Vietnam War. The very term realism embraces a rich variety of theories and concepts concerning international relations. However, all of them reduce to the assumption that the main motive force for any government (this assumption is also valid for the United States) is eternal struggle for military and economic power and security.
Although classical realists consider that both ideas and ethics have insignificant impact on further development of international relations (Mingst & Snyder 2004), the realism international relations theory within the frameworks of the United States foreign policy and its involvement in Vietnam War can be perfectly applied as the synonym to the policy of power. From this it follows that the main duty of the United States government was to protect the interests of its citizens, and, therefore, the United States foreign policy (in all respects) had to be based on this principle. Although the theory of political realism appeared as late as during World War II, and has gained recognition as late as after the war was ended, the origins of the theory spring from the ancient philosophers and public leaders such as Niccole Machiavelli, Thomas Gobs, Otto Bismarck, and Charles Clausewitz. The theory of realism that can explain the motives of the U.S. participation in Vietnam War is based on different principles and assumptions. The most important postulates are as follows. First of all, the international system is anarchical (Mingst & Snyder 2004).
The Term Paper on What Are the Key Differences Between Realism and Neo-Realism? Does This Make Neo-Realism a “Better” Theory of International Relations?
WHAT ARE THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REALISM AND NEO-REALISM? DOES THIS MAKE NEO-REALISM A “BETTER” THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? ‘The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept,’ this famous quote from the Melian dialogue constitutes the iron law of realism, which arguably has dominated international arena for approximately 2,500 years.[1] But it ...
Secondly, sovereign states are the main actors on the international scene. Thirdly, the governments are rational actors that behave in accordance with their national interests. It is therefore very likely that the reasons that may explain why the United States got involved in Vietnam War are well within the permissible limits of the realism international relations and individual leaders theories. Next, these theories usually underestimate (or even not take into account) the potential impact of the international organizations, third world countries (or unrecognized and undeveloped countries), public structures, and focus their attention on other (sometimes really more important) issues. The very theory of realism that perfectly explain the United States driving motives may fall under two categories, – active (persistent or aggressive) realism and defensive realism (Mingst & Snyder 2004).
First of all, the active realism implies the assumption that the governments make it their first business to be concerned with their security (as it was with the United States and Vietnams red threat).
In response to this, what is termed the security dilemma occurred. According to it, the absolute security is unattainable in principle, because every government being concerned with its security issues automatically destabilizes the international situation and forces the other countries to accumulate their defensive power and their defense armory, and, in its turn, destabilize the international situation. This issue has no effective solutions, however, the governments are able (or at least, make all efforts) to control it (as it was with the United States).
The Essay on Government Intervention Theory Time Economic
Government Intervention: A Time and A Place The twentieth century has been the age for the most varied experiments in political policies that the world has ever seen. Governments are continually trying to improve and create the best system of regulation for their citizens. Two of the best examples of this occurred in the United States. Keynesian economics and Reaganomics were both introduced in a ...
Vietnam War within the context of the international relations theories Realism international relations theory had great impact on different political scientists throughout the world. The postulates of this concept became widely cited in the wide circles of people and mass media (Hermann, Margaret G. and Hagan, Joe D. Spring 1998).
The enthusiasm concerning this theory can make an impression of the universal value of the given theory along with its almighty validity in all kinds of international events and historical epochs (Morgenthau 1985).
At the same time, it seems that the theory of democratic peace hardly could explain the causes that made the United States to get involved in the Vietnam War. International relations are difficult to explain from scientific point of view (Jervis 1999).
International relations have no significant scientific foundation they can rest upon (for example, in contrast to economics).
At the same time, there is a doctrine hereinafter referred to as geopolitical realism that can claim for scientific status (Mingst & Snyder 2004).
Similar to the theory of the absolute competition, the concept of geopolitical realism has roots stretching back into XIX century, when the scientists expected that the science is able to offer deterministic explanations and predictions. According to the geopolitical doctrine of realism, the behavior of the governments to a great extent can be explained and determined by their geographical, political and economic situation. Henry Kissinger, the modern apostle of geopolitics, asserts that the roots of geopolitical realism can be distinctly seen in the viewpoints of Richelieu, who claimed that the governments have no principles, except interests (Mingst & Snyder 2004).
This doctrine, to a certain degree, is similar to the laissez-faire doctrine, especially within the context of the fact that both of them interpret egoistic interest in the capacity of the only reality. This reality alone is able to explain or predict the behavior of a subject of study.
The Term Paper on International Relations Chobani International Expansion
Figure 1: Chobani Weekly Shipments and Employees ————————————————- Source: Chobani, Inc. To meet growing demand, Chobani opened a $450 million, 1-million-square-foot production facility in Twin Falls, Idaho in December 2012. The plant is now the largest yogurt factory in the world, capable of producing ...
At the same time, both doctrines have much in common due to the vulgar element of the Darwinism, according to which the survival of the fittest is one of the natural laws (Franke 2001).
The common denominator of these doctrines can be reduced to the principles of egoism. In relation to geopolitics this principles implies national interests that should not obligatory coincide with the interests of the population of the given country. The matter at issue is that the government should represent and defend the interests of the citizens; yet, this idea falls beyond the boundaries of this doctrine. Geopolitical realism, especially within the frameworks of the U.S. participation in Vietnam War, may be examined as the attempt to shift the laissez-faire doctrine to the international relations. The only difference is that the participants of these relations are governments, but not the individuals or economic units (Mingst & Snyder 2004).
The given approach is virtually able to yield relatively unexpected results. Yet, geopolitical realism was unable to cope with the resistance to the U.S. army and U.S. authorities during the course of Vietnam War. True enough, this international relations theory was also unable to stop the collapse of some governments, such as the former USSR and Yugoslavia. It is very important to admit that government is a government but not the pawn.
Economic theories also suffer from similar shortcomings. Geopolitics is based on the concept of government, while the economic theory rests upon the separate individual homo economicus. Neither of ….
