liberal arts capstone 2013 tesc

A Change of Policy 1

Running head: A CHANGE OF POLICY

A Change of Policy:

An Investigation into How American Foreign Policy Has Changed in the Past Two

Centuries

Student: Joseph Alexander Barnes

Mentor: Dr. David Weischadle

Thomas Edison State College, NJ

Course Title: Liberal Arts Capstone, LIB495 OL010

Date: 12/13/12


Abstract

This paper is a research into American foreign policy, in particular military interventions,

and how its objectives and strategies have changed from those of a small republic to

those of a global power. The research focuses on American policy during two periods: an

early period from 1788 to 1816 and a later period from 1947 to 2012. Three military

interventions were studied in the first period: the Quasi-War, the Barbary War, and the

War of 1812. For the later period, the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan

were analyzed. The analysis for each conflict includes a look into the fiscal management

involved with wartime spending, loss of human life, causes, and outcomes. The analyses

help demonstrate the contrasts between the two periods. Several graphs and tables are

used in this paper to better demonstrate the outcomes of decision-making in the

government. The sources for the data include literature, letters, articles, public

documents, and statistical spreadsheets.


Table of Contents

Contents Page

List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………….. 4

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………….. 5

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………..... 8

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology…………………………….. 12

Chapter 4: Results of the Study…………………………………………….. 16

Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion……………………………………….. 25

References…………………………………………………………………... 66


List of Tables and Figures

Contents Page

Graph 1 – Total Revenue and Expenditure from 1796 to 1820 17

Graph 2 – Public Debt in the Period of 1796 to 1820 18

Graph 3 – Defense Spending during the Years of 1940 to 2010 19

Graph 4 – National Defense Spending as a Percentage of Total Spending 20

during Major Conflicts

Graph 5 – Total Federal Debt during the Years of 1940 to 2010 21

Graph 6 – Shares in Total Military Expenditures and World Population in 2011 22

Table 1 – U.S. Casualties during Major Conflicts in the Periods of 1796 23

to 1820 and of 1940 to 2012

Figure 1 – The Presence of the U.S. Military in Countries across the World 24


Chapter 1: Introduction

Changes in American foreign policy over the past two centuries are the topic of

this paper. The fact that differences exist between the policies of today and those of two

hundred years ago is undeniable, what is uncertain, however, is how contrasted and

significant these differences are. This dissertation then, in order to understand these

differences, runs a case study into the important policy decisions regarding military

intervention during the early administrations, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and

compares them with the decisions of military use taken in the past sixty years. The

contrasts provided by the comparisons will then illuminate the discrepancy in foreign

policy between the two periods.

Background of the Topic

One of the key responsibilities of the U.S. federal government is the creation and

management of foreign policy. Foreign policy determines a country’s standing within the

international community and its disposition towards other nations as well as their

dispositions towards it. These dispositions and relationships between countries,

depending on what they are, will either help ensure the survival of a nation or undermine

it. Given the importance of this topic, numerous works of literature, which seek to

understand the history and status of a nation, address it thoroughly. The literature cited by

this paper includes the works by Benjamin B. Carson, Larry Schweikart and Michael

Allen, Robert Leckie, and Stanley Karnow (Carson, 1987a, 1987b; Karnow, 1997;

Leckie, 1962; Schweikart & Allen, 2007).

Problem Statement


As already stated above, the fact that changes have taken place in American

decision-making is indisputable, the question that remains is to what degree these

changes have been and how intrinsic they are. The principle question is this:

How does American foreign policy over the past 60 years compare to the policy

during the early administrations over 200 years ago?

- What were America’s first policies regarding foreign intervention?

- How were these policies regarded by their contemporaries?

- What are the current American foreign policies and how do they fair?

- How are they different from the earlier ones?

Professional Significance of my Work

As a responsible citizen of a country, it is one’s duty to inform himself of the

proper responsibilities of the government, its proper management, and its suitable

outlooks and goals, in order that he or she may prudently vote for people who will

guarantee the upholding of a government that will justly rule his or her nation. One of the

key factors in the success of any government is the success in its foreign policy in

meeting the nation’s needs. Given foreign policy’s importance, one can read this research

paper in order that he may understand better the significance of our current foreign

policies, especially regarding military interventions in the Middle-East and elsewhere.

Also, given a better understanding of our ancestors’ policies compared to our own, one

could argue more skillfully in favor or disfavor of a change of policy.

Overview of Methodology

This work will consist of a case study, principally using qualitative data supported

by quantitative data. The focus of the research falls on conflicts with foreign powers, in


specific, the Quasi-War, the First Barbary War, the War of 1812, the Korean War, the

War in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, and the various modern-day operations such as

the Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The inquiries looked into various

aspects regarding these conflicts, including causes, financial gains or costs, casualties,

expectations, and outcomes. Information was gathered from literature as well as from

statistical spreadsheets provided by the government and international organizations.

Historical documents analyzed include speech transcripts, official documents, and

personal letters. When necessary, the quantitative data was summed up in tables or

graphs in order to better illustrate the trends or patterns across a certain time period.

Delimitations

The focus is on the major international conflicts involving America; other minor

interventions or conflicts, such as in South America or elsewhere, due to lack of space,

will be mostly overlooked. Other aspects of foreign policy besides military intervention,

such as trade, will also not be addressed. Domestic issues will only be briefly studied and

only when they play a key role in America’s foreign policy decisions.

Summary

This dissertation follows a case study into American foreign policy, comparing

how it stands today with how it stood over two-hundred years ago, with regard to military

intervention. This paper cites various works of literature which address the topic of

foreign policy and also it gathers raw, quantitative data from viable sources in order to

help construct clear pictures for the conclusions. The significance of this work is that it

will help responsible citizens understand better the history of early American foreign


policy as well as the changes that have taken place, in order that they will be better

informed to make the right decisions concerning present and future policies.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Prior to World War II, American foreign policy operated within a limited sphere

of influence; neighboring countries did not consider America as a key player in the world

of international politics. Although the World War I briefly interrupted her neutrality, after

the peace settlement she quickly disarmed and returned to her main craft of trading and

doing business. Overall she considered herself a neutral power, unwilling to interfere in

major conflicts. This all changed when America entered WWII. Within a few years she

became one of the strongest nations on earth, threatened only by Soviet Russia. While

WWII was a catalyst in spurring U.S. foreign policy to extend its sphere of influence

across the globe, the Cold War that followed between the U.S. and Soviet Russia

continually provided the fuel and impetus for expanding American influence and control.

Eventually the Russian superpower fell, however, leaving only America standing as the

last great power. But she did not dismantle her military nor did she choose to place

herself as an equal to the other nations. U.S. foreign policy has changed considerably,

driving the nation away from her earlier beginnings as a neutral power and causing her to

take on the role of an empire and to bear all the responsibilities and dangers that

accompany it.

Intervention in the Middle East

In the first decade of the 21st century, the U.S. government’s foreign policy

culminated in two major military interventions, costing thousands of American lives,


trillions of taxpayer dollars, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in New York City, the

United States of America entered into a major conflict in Afghanistan and later Iraq. The

war in Afghanistan opened with an invasion by the U.S. and a coalition of her allies in

October, 2001. The U.S. and NATO occupation in Afghanistan still remains in place.

Over 2,100 American soldiers have been killed there, with over 17,500 wounded

(Chesser, 2012). The war in Iraq commenced with the U.S. invasion in March, 2003. U.S.

armed forces occupied the country for over 8 years, with the occupation ending in

December, 2011 when the last U.S. troops left the country. During the conflict nearly

4,500 soldiers lost their lives and nearly 32,000 others were seriously wounded (Casualty

status, 2012). According to the ‘Cost of War’ project in Brown University (Baum, 2011),

the total cost to taxpayers for these two wars combined has amounted to between 3.2 and

4 trillion dollars; civilian deaths in both wars are around 137,000 or more. With over

6,600 American lives lost, together with nearly 50,000 wounded and expenses reaching

$4 trillion, these foreign policy decisions have placed a heavy burden on the American

society and economy, one not to be easily remedied in the short term.

Similarities with the Old Empires

In addition to the two major interventions in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy

has directed the extension of the U.S. military in proportions equivalent to the former

British Empire. 2010 estimates for defense spending, including veterans’ benefits, are

near $800 billion, with increases predicted in the immediate future (US, OMB, 2010).

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2011), U.S. defense

spending alone represented 41% of all the military spending in world, while the


American population covers less than 5% of the world population (PRB, 2012). Even the

British Empire, at its peak in 1913 before WWI, had an aggregate real military

expenditure at less than 600 million pounds, an amount which has a purchasing power of

less than $64 billion today, a very small fraction of our current military spending

(Eloranta, 2010). The number of U.S. bases abroad has been officially reported at 662,

located within 38 foreign countries (US, DOD, 2010). Although the bases vary from

small and negligible outposts to massive and vital wartime command centers, and U.S.

personnel in some of the countries are in small numbers, the fact remains that the

American armed forces have extended across a vast area with enough strength to engage

in military interventions at a moment’s notice. America’s high defense spending and

sphere of influence over an enormous area have attained proportions which resemble and

even exceed the large empires of the past.

An Empire by Default

Given that the U.S. military is controlling events over a vast extension of territory,

it can then be asserted that U.S. foreign policy has placed the country in a status of

empire. A dictionary definition for the word control is “power or authority to guide or

manage” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989, p. 285). In the same

dictionary, the term empire can be defined as “something held to resemble a political

empire; esp : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control”

(WNNCD, 1989, p. 408). The U.S. armed forces occupied Iraq for eight years and still

occupy Afghanistan. They have also installed numerous bases elsewhere, placing

American influence and ability to control over an “extensive territory”. U.S. foreign

policy, through the presence of the military, has directed the management and guided the


course of events in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle

East, such as Libya. Moreover, the current administration continues to threaten the use of

military intervention to take control of affairs in other countries, such as Syria and Iran.

President Obama, in his speech to the UN general assembly (2012), stated “we again

declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end…” and that “the United

States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” These

actions and statements speak out of a “power and authority to guide or manage” the

affairs within these foreign countries. Although explicitly U.S. foreign policy will deny

any relation with imperial design of controlling the future of other nations, implicitly it

has led the American nation in becoming an empire by default.

Future Risks

U.S. entanglement in the Middle East is leading to further endangerment of

American lives, abroad and at home. If America enters into a war with Iran, the cost in

American lives and in U.S. dollars could be much more exacting than what was lost in

Afghanistan and Iraq (Cunnings, M. & Cunnings, E., 2012). Iran’s size is larger than that

of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The country has observed our actions in the two wars

and has studied our strengths and faults and furthermore, it boasts technologies and

advantages not held by our usual adversaries. All this warns us that at best a conflict with

Iran will mean losses equivalent to those sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Summary

America’s foreign policy decisions in the last decade have exacted a heavy cost

from the American economy and led to the loss of thousands of American lives. Her

current intentions are to stay on a path of entanglement in the affairs of the Middle East,


with the possibility of another war with Syria or Iran or both. U.S. foreign policy

persistently relies on the use of military intervention and on the upholding of an

enormous defense budget and vast armed forces, a burden which falls entirely on the

American taxpayers. Facts and experience can thus indicate that the direction of

American foreign policy runs parallel to that of an empire and away from that of the

neutral republic that had once been the United States of America.

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology

This paper’s research perspective is primarily qualitative, with some quantitative data

used in order to reinforce the conclusions. The research type for this project is a case

study, with a historical sub-type. The case study is used to generate a new theory

regarding American foreign policy, to understand how this policy, in relation to foreign

conflicts over the last six decades, stands in comparison to the policy adopted during the

earliest years of nation’s existence. The sub-questions provided are:





The investigations in this case study include observations of past and current events.

Documents were retrieved from print and online sources and were carefully analyzed to

provide accurate records. Material derived from literature, both contemporary as well as

historical, provided narrative and access to the opinions of important figures, while

historical records, such as letters, and quantitative data, gathered from statistical


spreadsheets, provided raw empirical facts that substantiated the claims cited or made

here. The observation guidelines require that all documents used in providing quantitative

data must be derived from valid sources, such as from government departments and other

sources that are trustworthy for providing valid and accurate data.

Methodology for Each Sub-Question

What Were America’s First Policies Regarding Foreign Intervention?

The first policies are regarded as those implemented during America’s early

period, while she was under the management of men who were responsible for the initial

construction, adoption, and implementation of the United States Constitution of 1787.

This period covers inclusively the presidencies of George Washington, John Adams,

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Three events which involved military actions

taken against foreign belligerents were investigated: the Quasi-War, the First Barbary

War, and the War of 1812. The focus was on the civilian management on the highest

echelon in the government administration. The study involved historical narrative

provided by literature, and primary sources such as letters and statistical data. The

literature consisted of books, articles, and lectures available on print and online. Primary

sources, such as letters, treaties, and speech transcripts, are available on online archives,

including the Avalon Project organized by the Yale University. Necessary government

statistics for that early period were gathered from the bicentennial report on government

statistics by the Bureau of the Census, available on PDF form (US, BOC, 1976).

How Were These Policies Regarded by Their Contemporaries?

In order to further understand the disposition of the early American government, the

researcher studied the writings of significant players who managed the government.


These key persons included the four presidents of this time. The historical documents

analyzed included George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality and some letters

between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (Jefferson, 1905; Washington, 1793).

What Are the Current American Foreign Policies and How Do They Fair?

The answer to the third sub-question was divided into two parts. The first part focuses

on American foreign interventions during the Cold War (between the years of 1947 and

1991), in particular the Korean War of 1950-53 and the Conflict in Vietnam of 1964-73.

The second part investigated foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union in

1991. This period includes the Gulf War and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For each

intervention, the focus of research lay on the causes and justifications as well as the style

in civilian management. The outcomes for each episode were studied, in particular the

costs, by analyzing the statistics of military spending, deficit spending and public debt.

Also studied were published government statements available on the internet, in order to

understand the explicit doctrines of American foreign policy during each period.

Literature and quantitative data, available online, were used in order to understand the

implicit patterns during these periods.

How Are They Different from the Earlier Ones?

The fourth sub-question is answered by comparing the answers to the previous three

questions. The answers to the first and second questions provided the criteria by which

the early government defined competent foreign policy as well as the criteria which

defined unsuccessful policy. These answers in turn provided an understanding of the

government’s attitudes toward war, its dispositions towards belligerents and allies, its

justifications for intervention in foreign affairs, and what it regarded as necessary for


effective administration. The answers to the third question supplied an overview of the

recent and current policy and dispositions in the government. Therefore, the first two

questions provide the original data available for comparison while the third question

provides the new material with which to be compared.

Summary

The research perspective is primarily qualitative. The research type is a case study

using a historical and current setting. The research context involves major military

conflicts during two periods in American history: the period between the years 1788 and

1816 and that between 1947 and 2012. The principle tools include literature, in print and

online, published government reports, historical documents, such as letters and speech

manuscripts, and statistical spreadsheets from the government and other trustworthy

organizations. The principle method is narrative text accompanied by charts and graphs

that are drawn using quantitative data gathered from government spreadsheets. The

research is chronological, beginning with the first period, then the second, and ending

with a comparison of both.

Chapter 4: Results of the Study

As already mentioned, this research paper has focused on the differences between the

foreign policy of the early U.S. government and the policies of the recent and current

administrations. The major question is this: how does American foreign policy in the past

60 years compare to that of the early government 200 years ago? The sub-questions are

as follow:






Quantitative data has been collected from various sources. The data has been

summarized in the following graphs and tables. Each of these figures is preceded by a

brief introduction and followed with a list of its source(s). The figures are grouped

according to the sub-question(s) to which they are directly related.


What Were America’s First Policies Regarding Foreign Intervention? / How Were They Regarded by Their Contemporaries?

Total Revenue and Expenditure from 1796 to 1820 – Graph 1

During the period of 1796 to 1820, the U.S. government strived to maintain a

balanced budget, with revenues exceeding expenditures for the majority of the time,

providing a surplus. Total receipts (revenue) peaked at $47,678,000 in 1816; total outlays

(expenditures) peaked at $34,721,000 in 1814. During this period, the major portion of

the outlays was designated for the military, veterans’ benefits and for payment of the

interest from public debt. Generally the army received more finances than the navy,

except for the period of Jefferson’s two terms as president, wherein the navy was the

principle recipient of government military spending.

Total Receipts and Outlays for the Years between 1796 and 1820

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

17

96

17

98

18

00

18

02

18

04

18

06

18

08

18

10

18

12

18

14

18

16

18

18

18

20

Years

(in

th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Total Receipts Total Outlays

Source: Series Y 335-338: Summary of Federal Government Finances---

Administrative Budget: 1789 to 1939 (US, BOC, 1976, pp. 1104).


Public Debt in the Period of 1796 to 1820 – Graph 2 During the period of 1796 to 1820, the consecutive administrations paid attention

to reducing public debt or at least to limiting it. The debt had been incurred from the costs

of the war with Great Britain in 1775 to 1783. The substantial rise in public debt marks

the period of the second war with Great Britain, known as the War of 1812. During this

whole period the public debt reached a minimum of $45,210,000 in 1811. The highest

peak was at $127,335,000 in 1815.

Total Public Debt for the Years between 1796 and 1820

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

1796

1798

1800

1802

1804

1806

1808

1810

1812

1814

1816

1818

1820

Years

(in

th

ou

san

ds)

Total Public Debt

Source: Series Y 335-338: Summary of Federal Government Finances---

Administrative Budget: 1789 to 1939 (US, BOC, 1976, pp. 1104).


What Are the Current American Foreign Policies and How Do They Fair?

Defense Spending during the Years of 1940 to 2010 – Graph 3

For the first year of this period, the government defense outlay was at $2.3 billion.

The total defense outlay for 2010, at the end of this period, was at $802 billion. The totals

for defense spending include outlays for national defense as well as benefits and services

for veterans for the reason that both expenditures are directly linked to foreign and

military policies.

Government Defense Spending: 1940 to 2010

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Years

(in

mil

lio

ns)

National Defense Veterans Benefits and Services

Source: Table 3.1 – Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940 to 2016 (US,

OMB, 2010, pp. 47 – 55)


National Defense Spending as a Percentage of Total Spending during Major Conflicts – Graph 4

Each column marks national defense spending as a percentage of total spending

for a given year. Each column is one year ahead of that column that is immediately left of

it. The columns colored in cyan represent the years from 1940 to 1945; America was not

at war in 1940, but defense spending had been on the rise before America’s official

entrance into WWII in 1941. The highest column reaches 89.5% in the year 1945; the

lowest column marks 17.3% in the year 2001.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

01020

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percentages

National Defense Spending as Percentage of Total Spending

Percentages from 2001 to 2010 Percentages during the War in Vietnam

Percentages during the Korean War Percentages during WWII

Source: Table 3.1 – Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940 to 2016 (US, OMB, 2010, pp 47 – 55)


Total Federal Debt during the Years of 1940 to 2010 – Graph 5

The lowest gross federal debt during this period was $50.7 billion in 1940; the

gross federal debt for the last year of this period was $13.5 trillion.

Gross Federal Debt 1940 to 2010

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

19

40

19

47

19

54

19

61

19

68

19

75

19

82

19

89

19

96

20

03

20

10

Years

(in

mill

ion

s)

Gross Federal Debt

Source: Table 7.1 – Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940 – 2016 (US, OMB,

2010, pp. 139-140).


How Are They Different from the Earlier Ones?

Shares in Total Military Expenditures and World Population in 2011 – Graph 6

The chief contributor to total military expenditures in the world is the United

States, with a share of 41%; U.S. population is the 3rd largest in the world, with a share of

4.4%

1 – United States of America 5 – France 2 – China 6 – India 3 – Russia 7 – Japan 4 – United Kingdom 8 – Other

41

4.48.2

19.1

4.12 3.6

0.93.6

0.93.4

17.9

2.81.8

33.3

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentages

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Shares in Total Military Contributions Compared to Shares in Total World Population in 2011

Shares in Total Military Contributions Shares in Total World Population

Source: Table 4.2 – The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2011 (SIPRI, 2011) and from 2012 World Population Data Sheet (PRB, 2012).


U.S. Casualties during Major Conflicts in the periods of 1796 to 1820 and of 1940 to 2012 – Table 1

The table below lists the estimates for total deaths and wounded during major conflicts. War casualties are defined as the total of dead, wounded, and missing. The estimates for missing are not provided here, however, they are usually small and negligible. The period from 1796 to 1820 had two other international conflicts besides the War of 1812, however, they were not regarded as wars or major conflicts by most historians; the conflicts were decided by the navy and estimated casualties were very light and negligible. Conflicts Total Deaths Wounded Total Casualties For period 1796 to 1820: War of 1812 (1812-14) 2,260 4,505 6,765 For period 1940 to 2012: World War II (1941-45) 405,399 670,846 1,076,245

Korean War (1950-53) 36,574 103,284 139,858

Vietnam Conflict (1964-73) 58,220 153,303* 211,523

Persian Gulf War (1990-91) 383 467 850

Operation Enduring 2,106 17,519 19,625 Freedom (Began 2001 and still continues) Operation Iraqi Freedom 4,422 31,925 36,347 (2003-12) Source: data for the War of 1812 to the Persian Gulf War were gathered from the CRS Report for Congress RL32492 (Leland & Oboroceanu, 2010); for Operation Enduring Freedom from CRS Report to Congress R41084 (Chesser, 2012); for Operation Iraq Freedom from the Department of Defense (Casualty status, 2012) *The wounded counted here include only those who were hospitalized due to wounds received on the battlefield.


The Presence of the U.S. Military in Countries across the World – Figure 1

Areas shaded in light blue represent the countries in which the U.S. armed forces have

bases located. These bases house active elements of the U.S. armed forces. The number of bases

and their sizes vary for each country, with some having only three small sites with a single

American naval unit, such as Australia, while others have various bases with various units from

the army, navy and air force, such as South Korea.

Source: the data used to create this figure was gathered from the United States Department of Defense (US, DOD, 2010, pp. 79-95).


Summary

Quantitative data gathered for this paper has been summarized here in various

figures and tables. The data has been collected from reports issued by the government of

the United States as well as from reports by international organizations (e.g. SIPRI and

the Population Reference Bureau). In the following chapters, the data will be subject to

interpretations and discussions and coupled with qualitative information in order to

provide answers to the listed sub-questions.

Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion

The following dissertation focuses on the foreign policy of the government of the

United States with regard to international conflicts. In the past twenty years, the U.S.

government has involved itself in various military expeditions against foreign countries,

including Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Somalia, and Libya. Congress made no declaration

of war for any of these missions and two of them resulted in an occupation that lasted

years. The occupation of Afghanistan, which began in fall of 2001, still holds today,

having cost more than 2,100 American lives along with over 17,500 wounded (Chesser,

2012). The occupation of Iraq lasted from 2003 to 2011 and had a much heavier toll on

life, with over 4,500 dead and 32,000 wounded (Casualty status, 2012). The summed cost

for both expeditions ranges between 3 and 4 trillion dollars, while the incessant warfare

within the two countries has claimed the lives of over 137,000 civilians (Baum, 2011).

Currently the U.S. government spends nearly $800 billion on military expenses, claiming

41% of total military spending in the world (SIPRI, 2011). The U.S. upholds a military

establishment that supersedes in firepower and manpower the British and German


Empires at their peaks before 1914 and which extends across the world with over 600

bases in 38 countries (US, DOD, 2010). These facts and more present an image of an

empire that runs contrary to the principles and intentions of our founding fathers. In order

to help demonstrate this, the following research contrasts the foreign policy of the

government during its first years with that of the recent and current administrations.

Statement of Problem

The major question is this: how does American foreign policy during the past 60

years contrast with that of over 200 years ago?





Review of Methodology

The case study chiefly relied on gathering data, both qualitative and quantitative,

from viable sources on print, available at hand or on the internet. The quantitative data

has been collected from statistical tables provided by the government and international

organizations and made available on the internet. Qualitative information was gathered

from literature as well as from historical documents, both public (e.g. treaties and speech

manuscripts) and personal (e.g. letters and interviews).

Summary of Results

o What were America’s first policies regarding foreign intervention? / How

were they regarded by our ancestors?


Decisions to enter into foreign conflicts were largely influenced by the

American economy and the government fiscal policy. The Jeffersonian

Republicans, who were in power in the years between 1800 and 1820, focused on

keeping a budget surplus in order to reduce the public debt. Rather than raise

taxes however, they instead reduced spending as best as possible, cutting the

military to its bare minimum. Deficit spending was generally avoided accept for a

brief time during the War of 1812. This deficit however was quickly closed up

and a large surplus followed to restore public debt to its earlier amounts.

o What are America’s current policies and how do they fair?

The U.S. Government over the past six decades has been steadily increasing

its defense spending, with current spending at nearly eight times that during

WWII. Military expenditures have been sustained with deficit spending,

contributing to a rising public debt that is approaching $14 trillion. While defense

spending has been increasing, military expenditures as a portion of total

expenditures have been decreasing over the decades. Military spending is

contributing to an ever-growing burden on the U.S. economy while at the same

time it is becoming less impactful on government decision-making.

o How are they different from the earlier ones?

The United States has become the world’s strongest power in terms of military

strength and spending. She currently represents 41% of total military expenditures

in the world, nearly twice as much as the next six leading military spenders,

including China and Russia, combined. Meanwhile the U.S. population is about

one-eight the size of the populations of the same six countries combined. The


American military has bases in countries across the world, each with active units

from the U.S. armed forces. Over 101,000 Americans have died on foreign soil in

five major conflicts following WWII. These conflicts have been styled as wars by

the majority of Americans, although no declaration of war has ever been

requested by the President and issued by Congress since WWII.

Relationship of Research to the Field

Research into historical documents gave insight into the minds of key players in

the field of foreign affairs, providing explanations for their actions. These documents

included letters between Jefferson and John Adams (Jefferson, 1905), and the transcript

of an interview by Matt Lauer with Secretary of State Albright on NBC-TV, released by

the Department of State (Albright, 1998). Other documents provided an overview of

administration policy regarding certain conflicts, describing the objectives as well as the

principles behind these conflicts. These sources included speeches and proclamations

made by presidents (Bush, 2001; Bush, 2002; Washington, 1793) and acts and resolutions

passed by Congress. In addition to historical documents, printed literature provided the

narrative which described events related to the above documents, giving them context

and background (Carson, 1987; Leckie, 1962; Schweikart & Allen, 2007; Stephen, 1999).

A wealthy amount of quantitative data directly related to foreign policy was collected

primarily from the government (Leland & Oboroceanu, 2010; US, BOC, 1976; US,

OMB, 2010), but also from international organizations (PRB, 2012; SIPRI, 2011). This

data enriched the research into the field of foreign policy by delineating the results of

government actions with regard to budget management, financial stability, and cost of

human life.


Conclusions

The Three Key Concerns of the Early Administrations

Washington and the Proclamation of Neutrality

By the end of 18th century, America was a small federal republic whose concerns

were limited to a few key principles, namely the upholding of American neutrality and of

a strong overseas commerce. President Washington was the first who made this clear in

his Proclamation of Neutrality (Washington, 1793). In this executive mandate, the

president asserted that America would remain neutral in the face of the general war that

was engulfing Europe at the time and warned against Americans aiding any of the

belligerents. France had been soliciting the Americans for aid in her war against Britain

and her allies. At this time, there was strong sympathy towards France in the U.S.,

understandably since she was America’s ally and had been the strongest help during the

War for Independence. Meanwhile Britain had been adding fresh pain to old wounds by

intercepting American shipping with the French Indies, seizing more than 200 ships and

selling some as prizes (Carson, 1987a). But Washington and most of his administration

understood well that war was impractical, too costly, and, most importantly, not

necessary. Britain was America’s principle trading partner, attacking her would mean

fighting one of the strongest powers of the time while simultaneously cutting off the

primary source of commercial revenue (Schweikart & Allen, 2007). And although the

U.S. was allied to France, the treaty of Alliance between the two countries did not compel

either to fight the enemies of the other, following the peace made with Britain in 1783

(Treaty of Alliance, 1778). Even though Britain did not respect America’s freedom of the


seas, war with her was not an option. Instead, the administration agreed to the Jay Treaty,

which ended the British interceptions by diminishing American trade with the French.

Washington and the Federalists forwent their principle of defending American honor for

the sake of defending what to them was more important, peace in realm and security of

feature wealth.

The Quasi-War

Washington’s administration set the standard for future American policy

regarding foreign belligerents, and John Adams, who succeeded him as president, would

continue to follow this policy, rebuffing provocations to enter into general war and

improving the means by which America could secure her neutrality. France regarded the

Jay Treaty as a breach of her alliance with the U.S.; for her, closer association with

Britain was provocation enough for action against America. The French responded by

intercepting American ships and seizing their cargo, as the British had been doing before.

In the years of 1796 to 1797, the U.S. government reported that the French had seized

more than 300 American vessels (Carson, 1987a). The earlier sympathy towards the

French was now overwhelmed by a fresh outcry against the violations of America’s

freedom of seas. Pro-British and anti-French sentiment was particular strong in Adams’

cabinet. However, Adams first recourse was to a peaceful solution. The French,

nevertheless, were more arrogant and disrespectful towards the Americans than the

British; they were unwilling to compromise and wanted the Americans to pay an

enormous bribe before they would accept negotiations. It was at this point then, when

peaceful measures were exhausted, that Adams increased the armed forces and convinced

Congress to establish a Department of the Navy in 1798. In the years of 1798 to 1800,


during what has come to be called the Quasi-War, America’s young navy proved itself

more than capable of defeating the French at sea, humbling France and bringing her back

to the bargaining table without recourse to bribes. There had been no declaration of war

by either side, and all the action was on the high seas. The conflict was resolved with a

trade agreement known as the Convention of 1800, wherein the French recognized

America’s neutrality and freedom of the seas (Carson, 1987a). President Adams abided

by the principles set forth by Washington, but he went further than that. He oversaw the

creation of a navy, not as a tool to interfere with European quarrels, but as a means of

protecting American neutrality and commerce. He put a small yet stinging bite to the

American bark, making sure that others knew to think twice before venturing too closely.

The following administration of Jefferson would add more teeth and strength to the dog’s

maul, improving further the means to uphold Washington’s original principles.

The First Barbary War

Following Adams, Jefferson would also uphold the standards of neutrality and a

secure overseas commerce, but he added a third element, that of a frugal fiscal policy

focused on minimizing the budget and eliminating the public debt. He cut the government

budget while at the same time fighting a war. During his early administration, relations

with France and England were going relatively well; however, a new threat to American

commerce arose in the Mediterranean. Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, known as the

Barbary States, were North African principalities which largely subsisted on plundering

European merchant vessels and coastal towns. The European powers, too distracted with

their own squabbles, paid tribute to these states in order that they leave their shipping

alone. America was no exception. Before the Constitution of 1787 and after, the U.S.


government paid tribute to keep their merchants safe from harm. Even Adams, writing to

Jefferson in 1786 while he was ambassador at large, believed that if paying tribute was

less costly than waging war and maintaining an armed force, then it was better to swallow

one’s pride and accept the more practical option. Jefferson, however, disagreed; he was in

a favor of a strong navy. He argued that a navy would not only protect America’s honor

and pride, but it was in fact cheaper than paying tribute (Jefferson, 1905). When Jefferson

became President, he had the opportunity to follow through with what he had said earlier.

In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli declared war against the U.S., after Jefferson failed to

deliver the regular tribute on time. Let it be noted that Jefferson had dispatched a fleet to

deliver gifts and assurances to the pasha that the tribute would come, but when the fleet

failed to arrive on time and the pasha went to war, Jefferson, rather than seek a truce,

chose to fight instead in order to force the pasha to his own terms. Congress did not

declare war, but it authorized Jefferson through a series of resolutions to take action

against the Barbary States (Schweikart & Allen, 2007). The conflict lasted from 1801 to

1805, and it concluded with the subjugation of Tripoli. The U.S. navy successfully

maintained a solid blockade against Tripoli, with a fleet compromised of several warships

ranging from large frigates to small gunboats. A successful land expedition, consisting of

a few hundred Arab and Greek mercenaries led by William Eaton, who was a U.S.

ambassador, and a small band of U.S. marines, marched from Egypt across the desert for

five-hundred miles towards Derna, a neighbor city of Tripoli. The small force captured

Derna after a brief yet intense battle; the conquest of Derna opened the way for a land

attack against Tripoli from the east and marked American’s first foreign military

expedition as a successful one. The pasha, feeling unable to resist the Americans any


longer, was forced to sign a treaty in the summer of 1805, in which he agreed not to

attack American shipping and to accept no more tribute from the U.S.. What is

particularly interesting of this conflict was that Jefferson was able to fit out a navy

capable of overpowering the Barbary States while at the same time maintaining a budget

surplus and thus reducing public debt. He minimized defense spending and yet gave out

just enough to win a war. It can be seen on graphs 1 and 2, on pages 17 and 18, how the

revenue stays above expenses and the public debt drops. The debt dropped continually,

and by 1811, nearly 50% had been paid off. Jefferson was able to protect American

overseas commerce and to defeat a belligerent while at the same time reduce public debt

substantially. His administration was the pinnacle demonstration of a unique and

successful combination of firm resolve, willingness to fight, and frugality.

War of 1812: Declared War in the Early 19th Century

Although the U.S. government had successfully defended American interests

while lowering public debt, it had done so while facing a weak opponent. When a more

formidable opponent encroached on American rights, without heed to compromise, the

U.S. government then, and only then, resorted to the only recourse available: war. By

1806 the fighting in Europe again began to intrude upon American neutrality, as the

British resumed their interception of American shipping towards France and her domains.

British antagonism, however, went beyond interception and seizure of cargo, but included

impressments of American sailors, who were branded as deserters from the royal navy,

and encouragement of the Indians on the Northwestern Territory to attack American

settlers (Schweikart & Allen, 2007). Jefferson was unable to compromise with the British

through peaceful means and Madison was just as unsuccessful. The British were


determined to maintain their supposed rights of searching vessels and forcefully seizing

goods and sailors. Despite these nuisances and violations of their rights, the Americans

were generally opposed to war, especially in New England, where there had always been

a strong bond with Great Britain. The shift towards war came when new representatives

were elected to Congress; these men, mainly from the western and southern regions of

the country, were in favor of going to war in order to stop the British infringements on

American rights. These “War Hawks”, as later historians would call them, successfully

dominated in Congress, and provided Madison with the support necessary for declaring

war. On June 1, 1812, Madison petitioned Congress for a declaration of war, which it

gave the same month. The war lasted for two years, and concluded with the Treaty of

Ghent in 1814. Overall, the conflict ended in a stalemate. During the war the U.S. army

had invaded Canada three times, with each invasion being unsuccessful; the British in

turn invaded the U.S. twice, once at Maryland and again at Louisiana, and in both

instances the British were thwarted, with especially disastrous results at the Battle of New

Orleans. The concluding peace restored the status quo ante bellum: conquered territory

was restored, prisoners exchanged, and American freedom of the seas and right of

neutrality were not addressed (Carson, 1987a). However, since the war in Europe had

ended, the British did not resume their interception of American ships. This conflict had

been the largest America had faced since its earlier war against Britain. Graphs 1 and 2

will show how, unlike with the Barbary War, spending went into a deficit and the public

debt rose substantially. Total casualties were little less than 7,000 (Leland & Oboroceanu,

2010). Given then, that there were no clear gains made by this war while at the same time


there were considerable losses, debates have risen as to why there had been a war in the

first place, what had been the reason for it.

Although there are many different opinions, one popular viewpoint places the

blame of the war at the feet of the War Hawks. According to this viewpoint, the war was

part of a scheme by the War Hawks, who consisted of westerners and southerners, to

provide an opportunity to conquer more territory from the British and Spanish, in

particular Canada and Florida, which they coveted. In addition to other facts, such as

various invasions of Canada and the aggressive rhetoric by the War Hawks, these

historians point to the fact that the strongest opposition to the war came from New

England, the same region which suffered the most from the British aggressive maritime

policies. If the reason for the war had been for protecting American overseas commerce

against British infractions, then why was New England, the principle region involved the

most in overseas commerce, the main opponent to the war? Thus it seems that the War

Hawks forced the New Englanders and the rest of America to fight a war, for the sake of

their own regional interests rather than those of America as a whole. It is very true that

New England was strongly opposed to the war; in fact, in 1814, the opposition was so

strong that representatives from the region held a secret convention in Hartford,

Connecticut, where they proposed such ideas as secession from the Union and making a

separate peace with Great Britain (Schweikart & Allen, 2007). But the following truths

must be noted as well. First, regardless of the motives of the War Hawks, the official

reasons for war were valid and honest: the British were violating America’s liberty of the

seas and neutrality and providing aid to Indians who attacked Americas. If today a

foreign country intercepted our trading vessels, confiscated some of their cargo and


carried away some their crew, or incited terrorists to attack our civilians, would our

government refrain from military action? Second, New England was dependent on its

trade with Britain; war with Britain hurt the New Englanders the most. Although it may

have been in the regional interests of the War Hawks to encourage war, it was likewise in

the regional interests of the New Englanders to avoid war, even if it meant hurting

national interests. Third, the War Hawks were Jeffersonian Republicans and those

opposed to war were Federalists, thus their fierce opposition to one another was not just

over the war, but was deeply involved in political factionalism. Fourth and last, although

the land campaigns principally targeted Canada, it must be remember that there were no

other targets available; Canada was the only British province within reach of the U.S.

army. It would not have made sense if the U.S. did not invade Canada, considering the

objective of the war was to attack and defeat the British and force them to terms.

Regardless, however, of the true reasons of the war, the official causes given in

the declaration of war were real ones that needed to be addressed. Great Britain, in spite

of her justifications, was mistreating the United States and it was within her right to fight

back. Furthermore, despite New England’s opposition, the war was a popular war, in the

sense that it was Congress, and not the President, that pushed for war. It was a declaration

of war, passed by the majority of Congress, which initiated the fight and it was a peace

treaty ratified by Congress that ended it. Moreover, the objectives were clear and concise:

Madison listed the grievances against the U.S. as the forceful seizure of American sailors,

violation of neutrals at sea, blockade of U.S. ports, Britain’s resolve not to desist in her

provocative actions, and her aid and encouragement to the Indians to fight Americans.

This list makes it clear that America was in the right with regard to her justifications of


war. It can at least be said then, that the War of 1812 was a clear cut war between two

powers, each fighting for the protection of its own interests. Following the end of the

conflict, both powers again became amicable towards one another; they ratified

commercial treaties between each other and deferred further disputes to committees

(Carson, 1987a; Schweikart & Allen, 2007).

Aftermath

Following the end of the War of 1812, the government resumed its normal course

as before, abiding by the three principles of defense of American rights, neutrality, and

frugality. Graphs 1 and 2 demonstrate how after the end of the war, the deficit was

quickly closed and a high surplus was provided to address the debt, which again

decreased over the years. The decline in public debt would continue until 1836, when it

reached a mere $38,000 (US, BOC, 1976). Although the Treaty of Ghent did not address

the issue of American freedom of the seas or right of neutrality, the British nevertheless

refrained from reemploying their declared rights of interception and seizure of goods and

sailors. When, in 1815, the Dey of Algiers, in violation of a treaty of 1795 that provided

him tribute, resumed to raid American shipping, the U.S. government promptly

responded by declaring war and sending a naval fleet to deal with him. Instead of a

protracted conflict of four years like the First Barbary War, this second action against the

Barbary States was over in weeks. A peace treaty was signed in June, 1815, in which the

Algerians desisted from attacking American ships and paid indemnities for damages done

(Stephens, 1999). Thus, by 1815, the U.S. government had grown strong enough to cast

away the practice of paying tribute; its navy was formidable enough to defend against

both the French and British navies and to easily subdue petty powers that preyed against


weaker nations. America’s neutrality and defense of her overseas commerce and interests

were now firmly protected.

In conclusion, the U.S. government had in its first decades demonstrated a general

tendency to follow the three principles championed by its founding fathers: neutrality,

defense of American rights and commerce, and frugality. There was a healthy balance

between these three rules. Occasionally one would predominate for a while when needed,

but it would soon restore itself to a balance with the other two. Always the objective and

purpose of each was to benefit and preserve the other two; it was a synergistic

relationship, with one serving and improving the others. The following sections will

discuss the course of events regarding foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century

over 100 years after the events discussed so far.

The Second Half of the 20th century and the Undeclared War against the

Communist Powers

The first half of the 20th century had witnessed a United States that still loosely

followed the three policies discussed above: neutrality, preoccupation with commerce

and trade, and minimal defense spending. Prior to WWII, America did break from its

neutrality to fight wars wherein she had been provoked by enemy attacks against her

citizens. These noticeably included the Spanish-American War of 1898, wherein the

Spanish were accused of sinking the U.S. warship Maine, and WWI, wherein the

Germans had attacked and sunk civilian ships, several of which had Americans on board

who died from the attacks. In each of these wars, the enemy was thus seen as an

aggressor and a threat to American lives, allowing Congress to declare a justifiable war.

Furthermore, following the conflicts’ conclusions, the U.S. government would return to


business as normal: the army would be reduced again, the country’s status as a neutral

restored, and the deficit abandoned. At first glance, WWII had been no different:

America was attacked and thousands of Americans killed, leaving Congress no choice

but to declare war, a legitimate war. The Axis powers that included the governments of

Germany, Italy, Japan, and their lesser allies were our declared enemies. For nearly four

years we fought them and finally forced them to surrender unconditionally. But the

conclusion of the war by 1945 was not the same as with the other conflicts; while before

an end to a war brought peace, the end of WWII however was not followed by peace but

by a renewed conflict.

The lack of a general peace following WWII was due to the nature of the alliance

that had defeated the Axis powers. The war had begun with the aggressions by Nazi

Germany and Soviet Russia. The Germans and Russians partitioned Poland between

themselves in 1939 and then while the Germans conquered France, Denmark, the Low

Countries, and Norway, the Russians incorporated Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, and

invaded Finland. The aggressors however quickly turned on each other and by the

summer of 1941, Germany was invading Russia. Rather than let the two evils destroy one

another however, Britain and the U.S. instead regarded Russia as a victim, a friend in

need. Communist Russia’s earlier aggressions against her own people and her neighbors

were quickly forgotten, and she was made an ally to be defended at all costs. Together

Britain, the U.S. and Soviet Russia composed an alliance that was to overwhelm and

defeat Nazi Germany. Stalin of course had no intention of simply liberating Europe; as

before he wanted to dominate and so he did his best to undermine the effort by Britain

and the U.S. to reach Eastern Europe before the fall of Nazi Germany. At the conference


at Teheran in 1943, Stalin got what he wanted. Stalin insisted that his allies open a third

front against Germany by invading France, and President Roosevelt, eager to placate the

Russians, likewise urged that France be invaded. He disregarded all other plans,

including an invasion of the Balkans considered by Churchill (Carson, 1987b). Eastern

Europe was left open to Russian “liberation”. Therefore, following the end of WWII, the

British and the Americans faced a new enemy, or rather the same enemy without its

sheep’s clothing, in control of half of Europe. The fall of Eastern Europe to Communism

was already felt by 1946, when Churchill, in his famed speech at Fulton, Missouri, said

that “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended

across the Continent” (Churchill, 1946). Soviet dominance extended across Poland,

Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, and Rumania by 1946 and Czechoslovakia by 1948. Conflict

between the U.S. and Soviet Russia had begun as early as 1947, when the U.S., acting

outside of the UN, provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey in order to

prevent these countries from falling under Communist control (Carson, 1987b). While

Communism was spreading in Europe, it was making even better headway in Asia, where

by 1949, China had fallen to Communism. Thus by 1949, within four short years after the

end of WWII, Eastern Europe and China, which the Americans had defended against

fascist totalitarianism, had fallen under Communist totalitarianism. Only afterwards did

the U.S. realize that at the beginning of WWII, the western world was facing two

enemies, but only one had been seen for the threat that it was while the other was made a

friend. Now freed from the containment by Fascist Germany and Imperial Japan,

Communist Russia and China filled their places as the new antagonists of western

civilization and democracy.


The Changes in the U.S. Government during the Cold War: End to Neutrality and the

Undeclared Wars

The conflict between the Communist powers and the U.S. generated in America a

fundamental break from her earlier policies and a shift towards new and heretofore un-

American ones: permanent alliances and preoccupation with events in foreign countries

and the use of undeclared and limited wars.

New Obligations and Responsibilities

The first break regarded permanent alliances and entanglement with the affairs of

Europe and elsewhere. The U.S., along with 50 other nations, oversaw the creation of the

United Nations Organization in June, 1945. At first, this pact was not necessarily an

alliance, but rather a commitment to avoid war and to settle international disputes through

peaceful discourse and negotiations. Overtime however, the obligations imposed by the

UN became more numerous and far-reaching and by 1950, UN resolutions were passed

calling for its member states to go to war in Korea. These resolutions could not at the

time, however, be forced upon uncommitted members; those countries who answered the

call to fight in Korea were friends of the U.S., and served more as auxiliaries with the

U.S. armed forces rather than as equally formidable forces carrying an equal load. The

conflict in Korea was very much an American fight with UN backing versus the other

way around. The UN then was at best a loose association between numerous countries,

many of which were belligerents towards each other, such as the U.S. and Soviet Russia.

The U.S. did however form a more legitimate alliance with its ratification of the North

Atlantic Treaty in 1949. The NATO alliance, between the U.S. and several other

countries including Britain and France, marked a more profound breach of America’s


neutrality; the U.S. now was obliged to help in the defense of any of the treaty’s members

and thus her neutrality was undermined by her commitment towards her allies, whether or

not that commitment was linked with America’s interests and safety. Forming the UN

and especially NATO, signified that America was abandoning her principle of neutrality

and replacing it with a disposition to fight for other countries for interests not directly

linked to her own. The U.S. was declaring that Europe, Asia, and regions elsewhere in the

world had to be defended by American armed forces. For the U.S., neutrality was thus

impossible since these very same regions were at the time in constant threat of invasions

and conflict; in order to defend them successfully, the U.S. had to be disposed to fight at

a moment’s notice. In other words, the U.S. no longer was in control of picking a fight,

this was now left to circumstances and events far out of her control. Fighting and winning

inevitable wars now became the dominant topic in Washington D.C.; America could not

think again of staying out of a fight, all she did now was think of how she could win in

the conflicts that were to come. The first of these inevitable clashes came in the

undeclared war in Korea from 1950 to 1953, which was followed by a second undeclared

war in Vietnam from 1964 to 1973.

The Undeclared Wars in Korea and Vietnam

Towards the end of WWII, Korea was still occupied by the Japanese army. Russia

and America both had agreed to enter Korea to accept the surrender of the Japanese

troops there, with the Russians occupying northern Korea above 38th parallel and the

Americans southern Korea below that parallel. The Soviet Russians, however, were intent

on establishing a Communist regime in Korea, with the Communist Korean Kim Il Sung

at the head. The Americans on the other hand proclaimed Syngman Rhee, a descendant of


the Yi dynasty that had ruled Korea before the Japanese conquest in 1910, as the lawful

head of government. Thus the territory the Russians occupied came under control of Kim

Il’s government while the land under American occupation was governed by Rhee’s

government. The 38th parallel, from being a line marking off where the American and

Russian armies should meet, changed into a boundary between two nations: the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea, under Kim Il Sung, and the

Republic of Korea, or South Korea, under Syngman Rhee. Both sides claimed that the

other was illegitimate, declaring that the whole of Korea was under their respective

governments. In the following years, North Korea’s army, backed by Russia, became

more disciplined and better equipped with tanks and weapons. The Americans backed the

South Koreans with financial aid but not with the kind of military training and supplies

that the Russians gave to North Korea. On June 25, 1950, after both the Russians and the

Americans had left, the inevitable clash erupted with the invasion of South Korea by the

North Koreans. The aggressor, with his superior army, pushed the defenders aside and

made headway in a rapid conquest of South Korea. At this crucial moment, the United

States entered the fight, building a successful line of defense and driving the enemy back,

across the 38th parallel and into his own country. The U.S. armed forces were so

successful that they nearly conquered all of North Korea by October, 1950, but at that

moment China entered the struggle with a massive invasion across the Yalu River into

North Korea. The Americans and South Koreans were driven back again into defensive

positions in South Korea. By the spring of 1951, however, the U.S. renewed her offensive

into North Korea, driving the Communists back and taking some territory. But rather than

press the attack and take the whole of North Korea, the American armies stopped and


built a defensive line. Thus from 1951 to when the armistice was signed in 1953, both

forces generally remained static across the new battlefront that lay a short distance above

the 38th parallel; this front now marks the present boundary between the modern countries

of North and South Korea. The conflict in Korea was the first major bloody clash

between the U.S. and the Communist powers; followed by a pause lasting little more than

a decade the conflict flared again, with the fighting renewed on a new battlefield in

Vietnam. The fighting in Vietnam that involved Americans lasted 9 years and was both

different and yet similar to the war in Korea. As in Korea, Vietnam was split, with the

Communists, backed by the Chinese and the Russians, holding the northern half and the

non-Communists, backed by the Americans, holding the southern end. North Vietnam,

with a superior government and army, threatened to overwhelm the south, but was only

prevented from doing so by American intervention starting in 1964. A main difference

was that there was no battlefront. The North Vietnamese, rather than invade outright

South Vietnam, instead supported the southern Communist rebels known as the Vietcong.

South Vietnam was thus engulfed in a guerilla war between the government and the

rebels, armed and supplied by the North Vietnamese. Eventually, however, the Vietcong

had sustained appalling casualties and their ranks, thinned and depleted, were replenished

by North Vietnamese and by the end, after the Americans had left in 1973, the North

Vietnamese invaded and overwhelmed South Vietnam in 1975. The conquest of South

Vietnam marked the second major difference between Korea and Vietnam; while in

Korea, America was able at least to prevent a Communist takeover, in Vietnam it was a

complete defeat with the Communists taking all of Vietnam.

The Differences between the Undeclared Wars of One Period and Those of Another


Now undeclared wars were not something new for the 20th century. In 1754, war

essentially broke out in North America, with the British and their American subjects on

one side and the French and their Indian allies on the other. For two years the fighting

went on before Britain and France formerly declared war on each other in 1756. As

mentioned already above, from 1798 to 1800 America fought an undeclared war against

France, and again, from 1801 to 1805, against the Barbary States. However, the conflicts

that broke out following WWII were far different from those mentioned above for

various reasons.

Scale of fighting. The first regarded the difference in the scale of fighting. The

Quasi-War and the First Barbary War were almost exclusively limited to the sea. The

Quasi-War involved various small-scale engagements between warships that crossed

each others paths; there were no large fleets assembled and sent out on complicated

maneuvers to hunt down and destroy enemy ships. The war against the Barbary States

escalated slightly, as it did involve the assembling of a fleet large enough to protect

American commerce on the Mediterranean, to blockade Tripoli, and to intimidate the

other Barbary States from causing too much trouble. But the fighting was still on a very

small-scale: the Barbary corsairs had no chance against the American frigates on the open

sea and so the heaviest fighting took place at the blockade against Tripoli, where the

Americans had attempted several times to capture the harbor city by force. The land

expedition that captured Derna consisted principally of mercenaries led by fewer than ten

Americans. The fighting involved in Korea and Vietnam, on the other hand, presented a

huge contrast. A total of 5,720,000 Americans served in the U.S. armed forces during the

Korean War (Leland & Oboroceanu, 2010). The UN resolutions passed against North


Korea and China brought the aid of another 15 countries which sent a combined total of

about 160,000 combat troops to Korea (The 60th anniversary of the Korean War

commemoration committee, 2010). The Republic of Korea itself supplied over a million

combat troops during the war. In addition to the army and marines, the U.S. deployed its

Far East naval and air forces as well as the U.S. 7th fleet; America’s allies also provided

naval vessels, including aircraft carriers from Britain and Australia (The 60th anniversary

of the Korean War commemoration committee, 2010). The Chinese and the North

Koreans each fielded armies of more than million men, and the Russians also provided

air supported in the form of their famous Mig jetfighters (Leckie, 1962). In Vietnam,

although there was no UN participation, the Americans fielded an even larger army,

bringing the fight to an even larger scale than in Korea. Over 8,700,000 U.S. personal

served during the Vietnam conflict, with U.S. troop strength in Vietnam reaching its peak

of 540,000 soldiers in 1968 (Leland & Oboroceanu, 2010; Karnow, 1997) The South

Vietnamese likewise fielded large armies and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong

deployed millions of soldiers during the conflict as well. During World War I, about a

total 4,735,000 Americans served in the armed forces, fewer than in Korea and only

slightly more than half the total in Vietnam. For the exception of nuclear warheads, both

sides in Korea employed the latest and most destructive weapons of war, ranging from

tanks, heavy artillery, rocket launchers, fighters, heavy bombers, aircraft carriers, and

battleships. The tactics included massive offenses involving hundreds of thousands of

troops and even amphibious assaults that paralleled those launched against the Japanese

in the Pacific theater during WWII. In Vietnam, although there was no battlefront as there

had been in Korea, this nevertheless did not prevent large scale warfare. Again the


Americans employed all her available weaponry from all branches of the armed forces;

besides the traditional tanks and bombers, the latest weaponry was also used, including

napalm and helicopters. The massiveness of the war effort in Vietnam can be attested by

the fact that by 1973 the “United States had dropped on North Vietnam, an area the size

of Texas, triple the bomb tonnage dropped on Europe, Asia, and Africa during World

War II” (Karnow, 1997, pp. 431). Therefore, while the struggles against France and the

Barbary States involved small-scale fighting, with no more than a few thousands

combatants on either side, America’s intervention in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam

reached the levels of full-scale warfare, surpassing by far even her involvement in World

War I.

Costs of war. The second difference between the conflicts before WWII and those

which followed lies in the cost. The small-scale fighting that accompanied the undeclared

wars against France and the Barbary States were matched by equally small costs. In fact,

as had been mentioned above and as can be seen in graphs 1 and 2 on pages 17 and 18,

Jefferson had minimized the defense budget to such an extreme that he was able to

maintain a surplus and reduce the public debt by nearly 50%. Although the researcher

was unable to find any casualty lists regarding these two confrontations, it can

nevertheless be inferred that the casualties were very light considering the limited

fighting that had taken place. For instance, during the War of 1812, which had witnessed

a much more vigorous war effort, including numerous land campaigns and naval

engagements, the U.S. armed forces suffered a total of only 6,765 casualties (Leland &

Oboroceanu, 2010). The costs of Korea and Vietnam on the other hand were very heavy.

Table 1 on page 23, lists the casualties, the totals of dead and wounded for each conflict.


The total of casualties for both wars was around 351,400, with the total of dead near

100,000. As can be seen on graph 3 on page 19, government defense spending during the

Korean War reached over $50 billion and during the Vietnam Conflict it reached nearly

$100 billion, roughly the same as when during WWII. Furthermore, these high costs were

sustained by a deficit spending, contributing to a rising public debt. Therefore, while the

costs of war during the conflicts two-hundred years ago were negligible, the costs that

resulted from Korea and Vietnam were grievous ones, surpassing all of America’s

previous declared wars for the exception of the Civil War and WWI & II.

Causes that led to war. The third difference to be mentioned regards the causes

and the goals of the conflicts. The quarrels with France and the Barbary States resulted

from direct aggressions against American lives and property. France was intercepting

American shipping and seizing cargo as part of her war effort against Britain and the

Barbary corsairs were essentially pirates, attacking and plundering ships and holding their

crews for ransom or enslaving them. When the U.S. government fought against these

aggressors, it was acting on that ancient right upheld by all other governments, that of

protecting the lives and property of their citizens. Given her justified actions, America’s

aims and goals were clear: simply to do what it takes to force the aggressors to stop

attacking Americans. The struggles in Korea and Vietnam however were not only

unrelated to the protection of American lives and interests, but they were frankly unclear

and imprecise. Now the principle motives indicated for American intervention at Korea

and Vietnam were the same, that of containment or the objective of halting the expansion

of Communism. However, the fact remains that the government failed to prove that the

aggressors’ actions were a direct, or even indirect, threat to American lives or property.


With Korea, according to others’ interpretations, American intervention was required in

order to secure the line of defense against Communism in the Far East. Secretary of State

Acheson, however, in a speech delivered in January, 1950, excluded both Korea and

Formosa (Taiwan) as necessary for the defense line in the Far East, going as far as to say

that to guarantee the defense of these regions was “hardly sensible or necessary within

the realm of practical relationship” (as cited in Leckie, 1962, pp. 37). This seemed a

reasonable assessment, considering that the conquest of South Korea or Formosa

wouldn’t have given a considerable gain to either North Korea or China. Neither of these

regions provided crucial ground or resources that would have tipped the balance in favor

of the Communist powers, giving them a better chance of conquering the whole of the

Far East. The general consensus in the U.S. government was that Japan was the crucial

ground to hold, and in 1950 or in the years that followed, none of the Communist powers

had sufficient naval or air power to defeat America’s navy and air force in order to reach

Japan, regardless of whether or not Korea stood or fell. It just could not be reasonably

shown that Korea or Formosa was important enough to defend at all costs. The

intervention in Vietnam was even more loosely linked to American interests than that of

Korea. American intervention in Vietnam was principally based on the domino theory,

which claimed that if Vietnam fell to Communism, then all of Indochina would also fall,

one country at a time like a line of domino bricks. Now there may have been some merit

to this argument, as Laos and Cambodia fell to Communism after South Vietnam did in

1975. However, two considerations have been overlooked. For one, the rise of

Communism always followed a collapse of the previous leadership due to internal rather

than external forces. South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were all plagued by inefficient


and corrupt governments and each had to deal with rebels from their own respective

countries. Corruption, powers struggles, coups and rebellions were the factors that

nourished a Communist victory, and all these factors were fully present in those

Indochina countries that fell to Communism. In Thailand, the spread of Communism

stopped because it, on the other hand, was not destabilized by these ailments. Thus the

domino theory was incorrect, in that the countries fell not because of some external force

pushing against it, but because of internal ones that caused an implosion; in clearer

words, the falling of dominoes ending at that piece which could stand on its own strength,

bolstered by the fact that it lacked those destabilizing elements present in the other

pieces. The second consideration regards the fact that several countries falling to

Communism did not present a deep threat to American lives and liberty. While in Europe

there was a Communist hegemony led by Soviet Russia, in Asia the picture was quite

different. There were numerous cultural and ethnical differences that precluded any kind

of coherent unity between the Communist countries. This can be more easily

demonstrated by the following facts. In 1975, while South Vietnam was being overrun by

the northern Communists, Cambodia also fell to the Khmer Rouge, the Cambodian

Communist faction led by Pol Pot. Under Pol Pot’s leadership, the Khmer Rouge

attempted to establish some Marxist agricultural utopia, killing an estimated 2 million

Cambodians in the process. The destabilization in Cambodia, coupled with armed forays

by the Cambodians into Vietnam, prompted the Vietnamese to invade Cambodia in 1978.

The Chinese had sided with the Khmer Rouge and responded to the Vietnamese

aggression by invading Vietnam the following year in 1979; they were repulsed however,

but they still continued to support the Khmer Rouge guerilla fighters who resisted the


Vietnamese occupation. Soviet Russia, on the other hand, supported Vietnam, and it was

principally through her aid and backing that the Vietnamese were able to maintain an

occupation in Cambodia until 1989. This is only one example of how at times the

Communists could be at each other throats, undermining any cooperated effort to expand

Communism, such as by invading Thailand or Indonesia, and certainly frustrating any

real threat towards America.

Conflicts’ outcomes. A fourth and final contrast between the two periods of

conflicts was in the results. As had already been mentioned, both Adams’ and Jefferson’s

administrations were successful in attaining their goals of defending American shipping

from French and later Barbary aggressions. With Korea and Vietnam however, the

outcomes ranged from partially victorious to completely disastrous. In Korea, the U.S.

and her allies failed to defeat the original aggressor, namely North Korea. Instead, the

North Korean government remained intact, with its armies and fortifications still existing,

and today it continues to present a constant danger to South Korea, threatening to

reinvade that country as it did in 1950. However, there was still at least some partial

victory in that South Korea was successfully defended and saved from conquest for the

time being. Unfortunately the same could not be said of Vietnam. After nine years of

hard effort and fighting, the Americans left and two years later, in 1975, South Vietnam

was overwhelmed by the North Vietnamese invasion. All of Vietnam was then lost,

meaning that on the grand scale of things U.S. intervention achieved nothing except give

the Chinese and the Russians a reason to supply and arm the North Vietnamese. Let it be

noted however, that on the military side of things, the U.S. was in no terms defeated.

During the Korean War, the U.S. defense department estimated the Chinese casualties at


around 900,000 and those of the North Koreans at 520,000, thus total enemy casualties

were at 1,420,000, which is considerably more than the 140,000 suffered by the

Americans (Leckie, 1962; Leland & Oboroceanu, 2010). Vietnam also witnessed a very

disparate kill ratio. American casualties were a little over 210,000, of which 58,000 died,

while the Vietcong and North Vietnamese suffered appalling losses during their fight

against the French and then the Americans, with some estimates placing the death toll at

nearly a million, with hundreds of thousands more wounded. These kill ratios are only

one testimony showing that America stood undefeated on the battlefield. The true cause

of defeat was not in the superiority of the enemy, but rather in the strategy employed by

the U.S. leadership, the strategy of limited warfare. By 1951, the U.S. army was in the

position to drive back the Chinese and the North Koreans further from where it had stop

and even perhaps occupy all of North Korea. But Truman disallowed any further

advance; he was afraid of drawing the Russians in and turning the conflict into a general

war. North Korea was by this time essentially defeated and her only hope was in further

aid from China or Russia. The U.S. military wanted to bomb Manchuria, the Chinese

province which harbored the airports and bases that supplied the North Koreans, but

Truman would have none of it; he disallowed the U.S. air force from attacking north of

Yalu River, thus permitting the flow of weapons and supplies into North Korea. Thus by

1953 North Korea was heavily fortified and any future hope of a rapid victory was gone.

It was the same in Vietnam. For fear of drawing in China or Russia, Presidents Johnson

and Nixon refused to invade North Vietnam, which in turn provided the Vietcong with a

life-line of supplies and reinforcements. The concept of limited war proved to be absurd.

Has there ever been a victory where the enemy was permitted to have bases to which he


could retreat and replenish his supplies and ranks in order to strike out again? The life-

line of any war effort is logistics; poor logistics spells doom for any army, no matter how

strong, and conversely, strong and secure logistics can keep a small force on its feet no

matter how many blows it receives. The Americans could not have defeated the North

Koreans unless they were willing to fight and drive the Chinese back into Manchuria and

destroy their bases there. The Vietcong could never have been defeated unless North

Vietnam was occupied and its forces dispersed. If fighting China and North Vietnam, and

perhaps Russia, were unacceptable consequences, then the U.S. should have never

entered into war in the first place. If one is unable to do what it takes to win, than the only

other option is some insecure peace or outright defeat, both of which should be

unacceptable outcomes for any government foreign policy.

Summary

Thus in conclusion, following WWII the U.S. government abandoned its

neutrality and allowed itself to be entangled in foreign wars that were not related to

American interests. Furthermore, the means by which America addressed these conflicts

were inefficient to attain victory. Rather than declare war and make the proper efforts to

subdue the enemy or avoid war altogether, she instead resorted to making undeclared

war, limiting the efforts to be taken against the enemy and thus at best preventing any

clear victory and at worst ensuring only defeat.

America and Global Security

The end of the Cold War by 1989 marked an end to a period in American history.

With the end of Communism in Europe and Russia and with the diminished aggression

on the part of China, America no longer faced a threat of global war. It seemed that the


time had arrived for America to restore her neutrality and reduce her armies and defense

spending. But neither neutrality nor disarmament followed. Instead America emerged

herself in new conflicts that required her to stay heavily armed, with troops stationed

across the world and on the ready to intervene in foreign conflicts.

New Cause and New Enemies

America’s new cause came in the form of global security, of defending

democracy and human rights across the world. The American leadership came to see

itself as the leadership, not only of one nation, but of the world, with new responsibilities

extending beyond the simple protecting and upholding of American interests. Former

Secretary of State Albright, in an interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show, said

that “if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable

nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see

the danger here to all of us” (Albright, 1998). On October 7, 2002, President Bush, in a

speech he delivered in Cincinnati on the government’s resolve to interfere in Iraq, on the

grounds that it allegedly held weapons of mass destruction, said that “we will meet the

responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our

resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And

by our actions, we will secure peace and lead the world to a better place” (Bush, 2002).

These quotes from the most important of the government’s leaders are indicators of the

new path the country had taken. They mark another large step further away from

America’s original policies. The earlier presidents were dedicated to protecting the

republic by remaining neutral and by choosing war only as a last resort and as a means of

protecting America’s neutrality and rights. As already mentioned, the Cold War changed


this, as America became involved with alliances and engrossed itself in foreign disputes,

allowing herself to fall into costly and avoidable wars. However, the whole purpose for it,

as the government had asserted, was to defend America from a real and tangible enemy,

that is, from Soviet Russia and her Communist satellites, which powers did not shy away

from threatening nuclear war against the U.S. and which had the means and will to carry

through with their threats. It was still believed that once the threat was gone and a general

peace restored, America would go back to her old status as a neutral. But following the

end to the Cold War, there was no stepping back and reconsidering one’s position. Rather

than face a single enemy, it made a new lists of enemies, one extending beyond

America’s capability of addressing.

Given that her new mission is defending vulnerable countries from entities

proscribed by the U.S. as aggressors against democracy and human rights, potential

targets for American military intervention have expanded significantly. In just the past

two decades, American forces entered various countries including Somalia, Iraq,

Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Libya. Besides its past expeditions, the American

government continually threatens military intervention against countries which do not

comply with its demands. The current administration under President Obama has not

refrained from threatening intervention in Syria, on the grounds that Bashar al-Assad, the

head of the government, is a ruthless dictator supposedly causing the death of thousands

of his people. Threats have also extended towards Iran, on the grounds that the country is

attempting to arm itself with nuclear weapons, and thus potentially threatening its

neighbors with aggression. In addition to acting against sovereign countries, the U.S. has

proscribed various groups defined as terrorist organizations, in part of its so-called war on


terror. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks by the Al-Qaida, President Bush delivered a

speech in Congress on September 20, in which he declared that “Our war on terror begins

with Al Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of

global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated” (Bush, 2001). This statement

declared a very broad and diverse group of organizations as enemies of America, not

necessarily for any actions that they may have committed against American citizens or

property, but because of their methods. Now many of these organizations have indeed

attacked and killed Americans, the Al Qaida being the most prominent of these.

However, by declaring a war on terror, America goes beyond simple retaliation and takes

on the task of eliminating a method of fighting that has been among humans since the

dawn of civilization. The Assyrian civilization and empire, which was at its peak by the

mid-7th century B.C., is remembered the most for its acts and methods of terrorism, of

how the Assyrian armies destroyed whole cities, brutally killed their inhabitants,

mutilated captives, and committed other atrocities. Assyrian kings took pride in their

brutality and methods of terrorism used against their opponents; the fear and terror of the

Assyrian armies were used as a means of expanding the empire and discouraging

insurrections. Of course the use of terrorism did not start with the Assyrians nor did it end

with them. For the millennia that followed that ancient civilization, other civilizations

have used terrorism as a tool in gaining and keeping power. Even in 20th century, in

countries that were considered civilized and socially evolved, such as Germany and

Russia, where barbarism had supposedly been vanquished, the use of terrorism would

reemerged and lead to the killing of millions of people, without consideration for sex,

age, or condition. Terror can be used even without realizing it. When the U.S.


government threatens its enemies with a nuclear warhead, is it not threatening to rain

terror down upon its enemies? Does it not hope that its enemies would be so terrified of

the consequences of a nuclear strike on their homeland, that they then would be too afraid

to attack America? How then can we now declare war on something that is as part of

humanity as violence itself? Is it reasonable to exhaust oneself in fighting the symptom

rather than the cause? Terror is the manifestation of anger, of hate, or even of

desperation; it is a tool by which people attack their enemies and overpower them, a tool

used by everyone. A war on terror, fought with physical weapons and military strategy, is

as impractical, unreal and self-defeating as a war on espionage, or a war on intimidation,

or a war on violence.

Where the New Struggle Has Led America

The Persian Gulf War. As mentioned already, the new cause of global security

has led America into a series of military interventions. The first of these was in Iraq in

what was called the Persian Gulf War. Iraq, fresh from its war with Iran, invaded Kuwait

in the fall of 1990. The UN promptly condemned Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, as

an aggressor and gave him an ultimatum, demanding that he leave Kuwait by January 15,

1991, or else force would be used against him. Iraq refused to comply; her armies were

attacked in Kuwait and driven away from the country. The forces brought up against Iraq

consisted of coalition of several countries, but like in Korea, it was the U.S. which took

the lead. President Bush had been a strong advocate in condemning Iraq and in

organizing a strong force with which to attack her. America brought the most to bear

against the enemy, and thus again, like Korea, the other UN allies served more as

auxiliaries while the U.S. led the main charge. The Persian Gulf War, however, was a


minor action. The conflict began in January and ended in April of that same year. The

Iraqi armies and air force were thoroughly dispersed and eliminated as potential threats.

The success in this enterprise was best felt by the fact that the American casualties were

very light, with a total of 850, of which only 383 died (Leland & Oboroceanu, 2010).

This first action, which had been fought in the name of restoring international peace and

insuring global security, had then been rather successful, with light casualties and a small

duration. In the following years there would be at least two more military interventions,

one in Somalia and another in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These however, were on a smaller

scale than in Kuwait and Iraq, and, due to insufficient information, will not be addressed

here.

The conflict in Afghanistan and the second war in Iraq. America’s resolve

towards global security intensified following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These attacks

directly led to the intervention in Afghanistan and indirectly to the second conflict in

Iraq. The Al-Qaida was the terrorist group which was responsible for the attacks in New

York, and their principle bases were in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Taliban regime that

governed Afghanistan aided and supported these terrorists. By attacking and killing

American citizens, the Al-Qaida essentially declared war on the U.S., and the U.S. in turn

had the right to respond with like force against the Al-Qaida and their allies, the Taliban.

The U.S. government gave an ultimatum, demanding that the Taliban, among other

things, close down the terrorist camps and surrender their leaders to the U.S., or else they

would “share in their [Al Qaida’s] fate” (Bush, 2001). The Taliban failed to comply, and

in October, 2001, the U.S. and NATO invaded Afghanistan. The action against the Al-

Qaida and the Taliban was thus a justified one, in the sense that it was founded on that


ancient right of self-defense, were the aggressor fired the first shot and thus made himself

a target for retaliation. But following the initial invasion and defeat and dispersion of the

Taliban and Al-Qaida, the U.S. government did not pull back, as it had previously done

in Iraq, and instead it established an occupation of Afghanistan and still occupies it to this

day. Although sufficient information regarding the initial causes for occupation could not

be gathered, it can, however, be shown that the U.S. occupation was ultimately linked to

the establishment of a new government and system of law in that country. Thus, what

started as a strike back operation, converted into a nation-building enterprise. The second

war in Iraq had a different beginning but the same end. With Iraq, the U.S. government

believed that Saddam Hussein, who still controlled the government in Iraq, was harboring

weapons of mass-destruction. The justification behind American intervention was along

the same lines as those behind the Persian Gulf War in 1991: to stop the aggression of

Saddam Hussein, who, now allegedly armed with deadly weapons, was posed to cause

even more trouble than before. Thus, in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq and quickly defeated

and deposed Hussein. But as in Afghanistan, what began as a swift stroke that quickly

defeated an opponent, turned into a protracted occupation lasting years, with a focus

changed towards the creation of a new government and new laws in a foreign country.

The occupation lasted until the end of 2011, when the last American troops left the

country. In conclusion, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government

expanded her endeavors for global security, launching Operations Enduring Freedom and

Iraqi Freedom, which operations went beyond retaliation for those attacks against

Americans, but instead involved the establishing, by military force, of new governments

and leaderships in the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.


Intervention elsewhere. Military intervention for the sake of global security and of

installing new governments in other countries has not ended with Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2011, President Obama provided limited air support to the rebels in Libya, who had

risen against Muammar Gaddafi and his regime. American intervention thus directly

contributed to the downfall of Gaddafi and his government in Libya, providing the means

for a new leadership to take control of the country. As mentioned already, the U.S.

administration has threatened military force against the Syrian government under Bashar

al-Assad; the same administration has also threatened military action against Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, for his alleged attempts of developing nuclear warheads.

Undoubtedly then, military intervention, with the purpose of removing a government that

does not cooperate with American interference in its own affairs, is a current policy that

may involve more wars in the Middle-East in the months or years to come.

Consequences

The broadness of America’s objectives has led her to take on more and more

global responsibilities that are taking an increasingly heavy toll on the American public.

The interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost already more than $3 trillion and the

occupation of Afghanistan is still in place and will continue to cost billions of dollars

(Baum, 2011). Causalities for both operations have reached nearly 56,000, of which

6,528 are dead (Casualty status, 2012; Chesser, 2012). Graph 3 depicts how defense

spending has been on the steady rise, reaching as far as $800 billion by 2010, over eight

times the military budget during WWII. The dangers in high defense spending are evident

in the increasingly high gross federal debt demonstrated in graph 5, where the debt has

nearly reached $14 trillion by 2010. This enormous debt is projected to rise even higher,


with estimations reaching above $20 trillion (US, OMB, 2010). Graph 6 provides a case

in favor of describing American defense spending as excessive. That figure demonstrates

how the current American military budget contributes the most to the total military

spending in the world, with a share of 41%. Meanwhile America’s population is only

about 4.4% that of the world. China and Russia, which are typically seen as aggressive

nations, have military budgets that cover about 8% and 4% of the world’s total

respectively. Meanwhile China’s population covers nearly 20% of the world’s

population, a size five times that of America’s. According to the Department of Defense

(2010), America has 662 bases in over 38 foreign countries, covering an area that extends

across the globe, as can be seen on figure 1 on page 24. High military spending and rising

debt, along with various bases across the world, are just a few of the consequences

involved with the responsibilities that accompany the prodigious feats of global security

and nation-building.

Centralization of Power

An important facet regarding America and global security is the detachment of

Congress from foreign issues, which have come to fall under the exclusive control of the

president and military. As with the conflicts during the Cold War, none of the military

interventions that followed were preceded by a declaration of war by Congress.

Although, at least with the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan Congress passed

resolutions that granted powers to the president to take military action, nevertheless, it

was the executive branch that determined the goals of the operation, the reasonable costs,

and what and when the end should be. Another way to look at it is given by graph 4. This

figure shows how military spending as a percentage of total spending has decreased over


the past century, from a peak of 89.5% during WWII to a minimum of 17.3% in 2001;

even during the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the percentage of military spending

barely went above 20%. Now, this does not imply that military spending has decreased,

as already seen in graph 3, military spending has increased since WWII by over 800%,

but what this does imply is that the government is spending so much more on other

expenses, that the military share of spending has decreased. What really matters about

graph 4, however, is that Congress, when dealing with the budget at least, will tend to

become less concerned with foreign affairs and more concerned with those other

domestic policies that contribute more to the government spending. By reducing the

significance of military and foreign affairs as shares of total government responsibilities,

more leeway is left to the executive branch and the military to manage things on their

own without bothering Congress.

Questions Regarding the Justifications behind Intervention

America’s propensity for military intervention in foreign conflicts has led to many

questions that need to be address. What gives the right for America to act as a global

police force? Why is she so exceptional from everyone else? Yes, Bashar al-Assad, the

president of Syria, may be implicit in the deaths thousands of his people, but is he not

fighting a civil war, is he not fighting against rebels who threaten his government? U.S.

President Lincoln also fought a civil war and he ordered his armies to attack and kill

American rebels who threatened his government; his war, however, did not cost mere

thousands of American lives, but hundreds of thousands of lives. Lincoln employed every

available weapon and every possible strategy, including blockades, sieges, and the

decimation of the infrastructure of a whole society, which included the burning of cities


and crops. Given that Lincoln did all this, how then can we judge al-Assad, who has done

much less, any differently? We principally blame the American rebels for the civil war

that ravished our country; we declare that Lincoln had no other choice but to stand firm

and fight. Are the Syrian rebels faultless, have they no blame in the war that is ravishing

their country? We declare that countries like Iran cannot have nuclear weapons because

of the threat that they may use those weapons, killing tens of thousands of people. In all

the history of nuclear technology, however, only one nation has used those weapons

against another: America. She deployed two atomic bombs against Japan, on the cities of

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children. Here too

we can rationalize our use of nuclear weapons, saying that there was no other choice in

the war against Japan, that intimidation and fear were the only means of forcing Japan

into an unconditional surrender. How is it then that America, which has killed tens of

thousands with nuclear bombs, has the exceptional right to dictate whether or not another

nation is fit to harness nuclear weapons? These questions and more must be addressed in

order to give credence to America’s actions and alleged duty as a global police force. As

it stands now, since we can rationalize our civil war and our use of nuclear weapons on

our own terms, so too can Bashar al-Assad rationalize his civil war and Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad rationalize his arming himself with nuclear weapons, each on his own

terms. To state that these leaders are on the wrong will make us appear as hypocrites

given our own history. For many then, the only difference between our actions and theirs

is the body count, and unfortunately, on that regard, America stands with an uglier image.

Conclusions


This dissertation began with a look into the U.S. administrations during the

government’s early years. With that glimpse, it was shown how the U.S. government

tended to abide by the three principles of neutrality, protection of American freedom and

commerce, and frugal fiscal policy. There had been undeclared wars under Adams and

Jefferson, but in each of these the scale of fighting was very small, the causes were

directly linked to protecting American lives and property, the costs, in lives and money,

were minimal, and the outcomes were victory and peace. In the 20th century things

changed, and after WWII, America abandoned those three principles she had carried up

to that point. She entered into various alliances and engrossed herself with foreign

conflicts. Her military interventions led to two undeclared wars that resembled the great

World Wars in terms of fighting and costs. Furthermore, the U.S. government was unable

to explicitly demonstrate that these conflicts were linked to the protection of American

lives and fortunes. The outcomes to these undeclared wars were neither victory nor true

peace. Following the end of the Cold War, the American government entered into the

endeavor of establishing global security and world peace by means of military force.

These new Herculean ventures have caused the American leadership to launch various

military interventions, two of which evolved into prolonged occupations, and continue to

lead it towards conflict with other foreign nations. Military spending continues to rise and

the public debt grows even higher. America has extended her military across the globe,

occupying hundreds of bases in almost forty different nations; she has placed herself as a

global police force, with the given right of intervening in fights unrelated to her original

prerogative of defending the lives and properties of her citizens. Given the fact that the

modern U.S. administrations are determined to abolish global terrorism and conflicts


within and between nations, which problems are a part of humanity as are hatred and

violence, it seems then that we face perpetual warfare, a constant need for a large military

complex engaging multiple enemies on multiple fronts. Finally, there are questions

regarding America’s justifications for her recent uses and threats of military intervention

against other countries, especially regarding the question of why America is so

exceptional from these countries that she has the right to act as a police force. On all

regards then, the differences between the old and new administrations, concerning

foreign policy, have placed the two on different ends of a spectrum. The old lies near one

end, where the country is small, neutral, reluctant towards war, and confines her foreign

policies to the limits of a frugal fiscal policy. Near the other end lies the new, where the

country is large, tied into many alliances, has a sphere of influence across the globe, is

prone towards war or the use of military force, and gives her foreign policies a large and

expensive budget with no regard to the dangers involved in high spending and a

flagrantly excessive debt. The vastness of the gap between these two eras testifies to how

much things have changed over the centuries. Given the government’s present course of

action, things will continue to change, widening the gap and removing any remaining

vestiges of what the country had been.


References

Albright, M. K. (1998, February 19). Interview on NBC-TV “The Today Show” with Matt Lauer. Columbus, Ohio, as released by the Office of the Spokesman. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1998/980219a.html

The 60th anniversary of the Korean War commemoration committee. Retrieved November

9, 2012, from http://eng.koreanwar60.go.kr/20/2002000000.asp#n2 Baum, D. (2011, June 29). Estimated cost of post-9/11 wars: 225,000 lives, up to $4

trillion. Retrieved October 9, 2012 from the Brown University Web site: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts

Bush, G. W. (2001, September 20). Address before a joint session of the Congress on the

United States response to the terrorist attacks of September 11: Public papers of the Presidents of the United States. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64731&st=&st1

Bush, G. W. (2002, October 7). Address to the nation on Iraq from Cincinnati, Ohio: The

public papers of the Presidents of the United States. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=73139&st=&st1

Carson, C. B. (1987a). A basic history of the United States: The beginning of the

republic 1775-1825. United States: Western Goals, Inc. Carson, C. B. (1987b). A basic history of the United States: The welfare state 1929-1985.

United States: Western Goals, Inc Casualty status (2012, October 12). Retrieved October 15, 2012, from

http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf Chesser, S.G. (2012, September 6). Afghanistan casualties: Military forces and civilians.

(Rep. No. R41084). Washington D.C.; Congressional Research Service Churchill, W. (1946) The sinews of peace. The Churchill Centre and Museum at the

Churchill War Rooms, London. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/biography/in-opposition/qiron-curtainq-fulton-missouri-1946/120-the-sinews-of-peace

The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2011 (2011). Stockholm

http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1998/980219a.html

http://eng.koreanwar60.go.kr/20/2002000000.asp#n2

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64731&st=&st1

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=73139&st=&st1

http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/biography/in-opposition/qiron-curtainq-fulton-missouri-1946/120-the-sinews-of-peace

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/biography/in-opposition/qiron-curtainq-fulton-missouri-1946/120-the-sinews-of-peace


International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15/the-15-countries-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view

Cummings, M. & Cummings, E. (2012, August 31). The costs of war with Iran: An intelligence preparation of the battlefield. Small Wars Journal. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-costs-of-war-with-iran-an-intelligence-preparation-of-the-battlefield

Eloranta, J. (2010, September 16). Military spending patterns in history. EH.Net

Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 11, 2012, from http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military

Jefferson, T. (1905). Letter to John Adams. In A. A. Libscomb, A. E. Bergh & R. H.

Johnston (Eds.), The writings of Thomas Jefferson (Vol. 5). Washington D.C.; Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States.

Karnow, S. (1997). Vietnam: a history. U.S.A.: Penguin Books Leckie, R. (1962). Conflict: history of the Korean War, 1950-53. N.Y.: Putnam

Leland, A. & Oboroceanu, M-J (2010). American war and military operations casualties: Lists and statistics. (Rep. No. RL32492). Washington D.C.; Congressional Research Service

President Obama’s speech to the UN general assembly – full transcript (2012, September

25). The Guardian. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/obama-un-general-assembly-transcript

Schweikart L., & Allen M. (2007). A patriot’s history of the United States: From

Columbus’s great discovery to the war on terror. United States of America: Sentinel

Stephens, A. H. (1999). A compendium of the history of the United States from the

earliest settlements to 1872. Bridgewater, VA: American Foundation Publications Treaty of Alliance (1778). Library of Congress. Retrieved October 25,

2012, from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=19

United States. Bureau of the census (1976). U.S. census bureau bicentennial edition:

historical statistics of United States, colonial times to 1970. Washington D.C.: United States of America

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15/the-15-countries-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15/the-15-countries-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-costs-of-war-with-iran-an-intelligence-preparation-of-the-battlefield

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-costs-of-war-with-iran-an-intelligence-preparation-of-the-battlefield

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/obama-un-general-assembly-transcript

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/obama-un-general-assembly-transcript

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=19

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=19


United States. Department of Defense (2010). Base structure report fiscal year 2010 baseline: a summary of DoD’s real property inventory. Washington: Office of the Deputy under Secretary of Defense.

United States. Office of the management and budget (2010). Budget of the U.S.

government, historical tables, fiscal year 2012. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Washington, G. (1793). The proclamation of neutrality. The Avalon Project. Retrieved on

December 4, 2012, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/neutra93.asp Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary (1989). Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.:

Merriam-Webster Inc. 2012 world population data sheet (2012). Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved

November 16, 2012, from http://www.prb.org/pdf12/2012-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/neutra93.asp

http://www.prb.org/pdf12/2012-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf

http://www.prb.org/pdf12/2012-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf