The Most Significant Events, Essay Example

The second half of the twentieth century in a global sense can be viewed as the era of superpowers struggling for the influence on the world political, economic and social arena. The Second World War appeared as a watershed, the end of which inaugurated the two major winning forces — the USA and the USSR — to compete for international recognition in the so-called “cold war” which, despite its name, often shaped into military conflicts in problematic territories, the armed resolution of which was viewed as a way of increasing the prestige of the conflict “settler” as an omnipotent world state. The objective of the present paper is viewed in tracing the major events that contributed to the process of development and end of cold war, as well as those that provoked the United States to introduce military power in zones on conflict. In conclusion, a hypothesis is put forward as to the possible ways the United States may develop its political course within the following decades.

1950s: The Fight Over the Spheres of Influence

The triumph of two superpowers in the Second World War was at the same time constructive and deleterious. Communism was spreading around the world at an alarming speed, and America could not tolerate or afford losing its positions on the world arena. The undeclared “cold war” thus engrossed all the capacities of the United States: the rival was too dangerous, and all the forces of the US booming economy were directed at defeating and suppressing the rise of the USSR. As a consequence of post-World War II territory distribution, the Soviet Union and the United States acquired their own spheres of influence on the map of the world, and neither of the empires would wish to lose any of those. However, they were eager to seize their rival’s share with the view of inculcating their own ideology and principles in the captured territories. So it happened on June 25, 1950, when the in the post-war Korea, split into a communist north and a democratic south, North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel in a surprise attack on South Korea.

The Soviet Union, being assured that America would not be able to defend South Korea with its only 500 troops in the south, “prepared to back North Korea with tanks, airplanes, and money in an attempt to take over the entire peninsula” (Danzer et al. 2009, p. 611). However, the US reaction did not take long to appear: even though the government had been doubting over whether to adopt the costly NSC-68 defense financing plan, immediate action was taken and military troops were introduced onto the territory, involving into a three-year military warfare, which turned out to have a key influence on US policy further on.

If previously the USSR was considered to constitute a threat mainly in the European domain, the Korean crisis triggered a more global thinking among the American political leaders. The Asian region was recognized as one of the main strategic territories, and a new look was taken upon the communistic threat. President Truman acknowledged that “the attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war” (as cited in Kaufman 1999, p. 69). Military assistance was viewed as the most efficient and the only possible way to fight back the Red threat, and therefore the Korean conflict opened doors for the future military actions in the notorious Vietnam war as well as made people believe that warfare was the way to resist any menace thereafter.

1960s: The Bomb That Never Exploded

In view of the immensely growing Soviet army, one of the key success factors in the possible military action against it was seen in the “atomic shield”, a nuclear strategy that would allow deterring any attack of the enemy by launching a devastating atomic counterattack. The legend surrounding the atomic bomb, the secrecy of the military facts on the volume of the US nuclear potential led to the onset of a whole culture of the atomic war, with the threat of “apocalypse” impending in people’s minds and reflecting in a series of Hollywood movies produced in the early 1950s (Davidson et al. 2005). The Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 marked the moment when the whole world was close as ever to the threat of nuclear destruction.

President Kennedy’s harsh anti-communistic attitude and anti-soviet policy did not prove to be successful in Cuba, which gradually gained support and military aid from the USSR. When confronted by the fact that Soviet nuclear missiles were ready to attack the strategic American points, Kennedy replied by a naval “quarantine” for the Soviet armed forces. For several days the world was frozen at the terrifying possibility for a nuclear war. However, the country leaders proved to be wise enough to ensure a peaceful outcome — partially due to the stronger US nuclear potential. The latter fact intensified the arms race in the successive decades, as the USSR plunged into a massive ICBM’s construction thus overcoming the American strategic superiority. Further on, a Limited Test Ban Treaty was adopted further on, and the necessity for new ways to ease political tensions was recognized. The Cuban missile crisis set a precedent for future politicians demanding an exceptionally peaceful resolution in a situation when one small misstep could lead to total destruction.

1970s: “The No-Win War” Is Over

The United States experience in Korea led the country leaders to a false conclusion that military intervention was the right way to solve any conflict infringing on the state interests. Introducing a large military force in Vietnam and leading a search-and-destroy warfare there seemed at first the way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of the US wider strategy of containment. However, by the 1970s the frustration was obvious, as American society suffered a tragic effects of the war. The whole baby-boom generation of the 1950s, as they became of age, were called for armed services, and there was hardly an American who would not relate to Vietnam war in any way: either by fighting in Vietnam or protesting at home, supporting the government or demonstrating against it.

Physical and psychological hardships of the search-and-destroy missions led to irreversible changes in soldiers’ conscience, making it impossible for them to return back to normal life without cruelty and aggression. The number of antiwar demonstrations participants peaked up to three thousand, in a desperate pacifistic cry to stop the slaughter. Social division increased, resulting in emergence of the “hawks”, as the war supporters, and the “doves” — the ones who protested to it. Inflation soared and US domestic economy was in trouble. Seeing the catastrophic situation, President Nixon set the settlement of the Vietnam drama as his first priority, and 1973 witnessed the Paris Peace Accord.

Analyzing the results of the war, the official history of the US Army noted that “tactics have often seemed to exist apart from larger issues, strategies, and objectives. Yet in Vietnam the Army experienced tactical success and strategic failure… The… Vietnam War(‘s)… legacy may be the lesson that unique historical, political, cultural, and social factors always impinge on the military… Success rests not only on military progress but on correctly analyzing the nature of the particular conflict, understanding the enemy’s strategy, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of allies. A new humility and a new sophistication may form the best parts of a complex heritage left to the Army by the long, bitter war in Vietnam.” (Demma 1989)

Thus in modern times Americans became more aware of the positive and negative effects of using U.S. troops in foreign countries. Distrust to the national leaders arose, triggered by the Johnson and Nixon administration concealing facts and providing misleading information to the broad public. Moreover, presidential powers in military operations were much limited by the War Powers Act adopted by the Congress in November 1973. In terms of foreign policy, the United States now demonstrate a tendency to pause and consider possible risks to their own interests before deciding whether to intervene in the affairs of other nations.

1980s: The Global Thawing

Despite the intense hostility of the United States towards the Soviet Union in the early 1980s, the reforms initiated by a young and progressive-thinking leader Mikhail Gorbachev in mid-1980s brought about a radical change in the American-Soviet relations. In view of weakened Soviet economy, Gorbachev had to make contact with the American government, and in 1987 facilitated the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force treaty which eliminated two classes of weapons systems in Europe and allowed each nation to make on-site inspections of the other’s military installations (Danzer et al 2009). This agreement considerably reduced and eased the cold war tensions.

One of the attractive reforms for the world community was glasnost, i.e. openness, which increased freedom of the press and the transparency of state institutions. Glasnost also enabled increased contact between Soviet citizens and the western world, particularly with the United States, contributing to the accelerating détente between the two nations. Subsequently, on December 3, 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan’s successor, George Bush, declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit and thus terminated the strained atmosphere that had been defining the international political climate for over four decades.

The benefits of the Cold War end for both countries and the world community cannot be overestimated. The United States at that time remained the only superpower on the international arena. By 1989 the US held military alliances with 50 countries, and had 1.5 million troops posted abroad in 117 countries. A global commitment to huge, permanent peacetime military-industrial complexes and large-scale military funding of science was institutionalized. New political and economic bonds were developing, which duly contributed to advance of the US economy. However, the legacy of Cold War conflict, could not be easily erased, as many of the economic and social tensions that were exploited to fuel Cold War competition in parts of the Third World remained acute. The breakdown of state control in a number of areas formerly ruled by Communist governments produced new civil and ethnic conflicts, particularly in the former Yugoslavia.

1990s: The Balkan Wars

Despite the initial view of the civil war in Yugoslavia as a purely European conflict, the United States found it difficult to ignore when the death toll of the citizens rose up to a quarter of a million (Davidson et al. 2005). However fresh the wounds of Vietnam war might have been, President Clinton spoke in support of NATO bombing the Serbian military forces, and facilitated American troops joining the peacemakers corpse in 1995-1999.

The perception of war in America was stipulated by several key factors: American public opinion, directed at bloodless military victories; a post-Cold War period of unprecedented prosperity and peace; and an unusually intensive dissension among the political elite of the country. Whereas the polls showed the majority of US citizens supporting the humanitarian impulses of the war, and the Senate quickly endorsed the military actions, the House of Representatives refrained from any definite comment on the situation.

Still, with the problem concentrated more in the European sphere of influence, Europe appeared quite incapable of solving it independently. Most war operations were conducted by US forces, as unlike the European states, the United States possessed the necessary military infrastructure for setting a decisive bombing campaign. Due to such performance, the ultimate consequence of Balkan conflict for America was highlighting the latter’s military preparedness and the unilateral nature of America’s decision to intervene. Such standards of US international behaviour did not take long to expose again in the subsequent international events.

Conclusion: The Way Ahead

With its experience in nuclear sphere and in prolonged military intervention, the United States possesses a dangerous potential as an ambitious superpower. A wise management of the available assets is vital for maintaining a healthy political environment on the international arena. Judging on the nuclear initiative recently proposed by President Obama at the United Nations Security Council meeting, there appears a possibility of viewing the United States as an initiator of reviewing the international policy on nuclear weapons and a facilitator of a safer world society which is ready to cooperate and compromise for the sake of the greater good.

References

Danzer, G. A., De Alva, J. J. K., Krieger, L. S., Wilson, L. E., Woloch, N. (2009). The Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st century. CA: McDougal Littell.

Davidson, J. W., Gienapp, W. I., Heyrman, C. L., Lytle, M. H., Stoff, M. B. (2005). Nation of nations: A concise narrative of the American Republic (4th ed.). New York, NY:The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Demma, V. H. (1989). The US army in Vietnam. In American Military History. Washington, D. C.: Center of Military History, United States Army. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall /military/vietnam/short.history/chap_28.txt

Kaufman, B. I. (1999). The Korean conflict. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.