Maine, press, Dewey, Cuba, Philippines, Manila, Puerto Rico, Guam, San, Juan, Hill Japan, Philippines, Pacific, military, shelter, landing, coaling, colliers, small, formidable, Atlantic, Dewey, never Strategic Logics for Third-World Military Interventions
_______ _____________: Favored by realists, areas don't matter if there aren't powerful states - those that can hurt the US - in them, cost of intervention is high.
Bottom Line: Stay out, buck-pass to someone else.
______ _________________: Favored by neoconservatives, perimeter defense strategy - defend everywhere, based on domino theory (if you lose, you lose everywhere), credibility at risk, strategic value of bases in the Third World (like Strait of Malaca)
___________: Favored by neoconservatives, says we can use domino theory to our advantage, knock over one regime
Rosenberg, "The Origins of Overkill" Main Plot Points
August 11, 1960 - Defense Secretary Gates proposes ______ be given authority to develop target list (NSTL) and SIOP, says _______ ________ forced need for unified approach
Pres. Eisenhower approves initial preparation of NSTL and SIOP under SAC command with ______ review, creates Joint Strategic Planning Staff (JSTPS)
November 1960 - JSTPS generates recommendations, Navy criticizes SIOP saying does not outline ________ force necessary to achieve ________ goals etc., is not tailored to retaliation or preemption, Eisenhower determines it is overkill.
Eisenhower's defense program reflects these priorities:
1. Offensive striking power
2. Tactical nuclear weapons
3. Defense against nuclear attack - looking to develop early warning radar systems
He favors massive retaliation, favors targeting Soviet cities, emphasizes rapid response, supports making ICBM response more flexible, keeps idea of preemptive war open.
How We Got Into Vietnam (Three Explanations)
___________: Contained in Mearsheimer's favorite book, "The Best and The Brightest," Americans can do anything, solve almost any problem, Johnson's key advisors led him into the war (McNamara et al.) based on hubris, but they knew it was going to be a disaster, but they did it anyway... why? It just doesn't work; this is unconvincing.
________ Politics: Two arguments. First, the idealist story. The one we used to hear all the time during the war. We are defending the good guys against communism. We are a noble country. Problem is, they said it publicly, but if you listen to what was happening behind closed doors, that wasn't what they really believed. We become the bad guys in Vietnam: destroying villages to save them, napalm.
_________ Rationale: People who believed in the domino theory. Withering away of the state. USSR would benefit from it. Would end up as a global hegemon. Need to maintain American credibility. Perverse logic: The more deeply we get involved, the more important it is not to lose.
Ground War in Vietnam
Basic strategy was one of __________
We wanted to afflict massive punishment on the adversary
There was a breaking point, and if we could inflict enough punishment we could break the adversary
This was not a "winning hearts and minds" strategy
We end up alienating a lot of South Vietnamese civilians as a result
We lose the moral high ground very quickly
We had big army units: battalions and brigades
"_______ and __________" missions
We were looking to find the enemy and pound them to death
In the Iron Triangle northwest of Saigon, we ran three big "search and destroy" missions between 1966 and 1967
We ended up killing large numbers of North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and Americans
______ ______ zones: anything that moved in that area was fair game, including peasants whose homes were there, obviously very controversial... because that's a war crime
Operation ______ _______: Used Agent Orange to spray large areas on South Vietnam to prevent forests from growing, dropped 100 million pounds, caused serious medical issues, particularly birth defects
______ Plows: designed to bulldoze down forest so that the adversary couldn't hide
So, we never lost a battle, but we sure lost the war. We inflicted massive punishment on the enemy.
Why no balancing against the US?
Ken Waltz says that states should not want hegemony because other states will balance against you and topple you. Why has no one balanced against the US? Is the US just too powerful?
1. You could put together a coalition to balance out the US, but there is no evidence that this is happening at all
2. Ken Waltz and Chris Lane: balancing is coming, it's just slow. However, there has actually been no evidence of balancing
3. Pape: there has been ______ balancing, all about diplomacy and not cooperation. An example of this is when France would not go into Iraq with us/refused to cooperate. However, Mearsheimer does not consider this balancing as, in the example, France did not see the US as a threat to heir interests. Even if you do count this as balancing, it does not happen nearly enough
4. No balancing against the Us because it is a _______ hegemon, US is truly exceptional, noble, and the "city on the hill", the "indispensable nation" (Madeleine Albright). This is not true, many other people think that the US has ulterior motives. One could argue that the US is a benign hegemon in that it does not threaten other great powers.
Mearsheimer: no balancing against the US because:
1. the US is not an aggressive state
2. the US self-destructs every couple of years, and, therefore, never becomes a global hegemon (large world, too much water, nationalism)
Unilateralism, Multilateralism, Institutions, Coalition, Willing, Multilateralism, Institutions, Coalition, Willing, Unilateralism, Unilateralism, Coalition, Willing, Multilateralism, Institutions