America 's Paradoxical Love Hate Relationship With War

Since the formation of the United States, war has been a constant factor within the political sphere. From these wars the U.S obtained power, land, and status unseen and unparalleled by any civilization in humankind. One of the earliest wars that allowed the United States to grow into the global power it is today was the Mexican-American war. This war not only shaped American politics for decades, but also fueled the sectional crisis that culminated into the infamous Civil War. Being the new country’s first armed conflict fought mainly on foreign soil, the war itself had several diplomatic implications that haunted politics for years to come. However, the war itself was fought for several political, social, and economic reasons and can be attributed with shaping the essence of American culture forever.

Over the course of history, the strategic environment has changed rapidly and is now more complex than ever before – it is currently characterized by unpredictability and disorder, and may yet manifest itself in the collapse of nuclear armed nations, destabilizing conflict in geo-politically vital regions, and humanitarian crises. A world of disparate actors – not all nation states – now exists. Unpredictable events will continue to cause strategic surprise. The widespread effects of past conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam and the Iraq war are still being felt and have created significant strategic repercussions. The failures of these conflicts are the result of our military and political leaders’ failure to quickly adapt to wartime conditions. This occurs because of a general refusal to commit to a military culture of learning that encourages serious debate, critical assessments of our military operations, and challenges to our doctrine in the face of emerging change. Additionally, leaders have struggled with the critical responsibility of forecasting and providing for a ready force, one that is well-resourced and prepared to conduct future operations. It is the responsibility of our military and political leaders to send our military to war with a ready force, and a strategy that will ultimately result in victory. But understanding war and warriors is critical if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy.

War is a problem that seems inevitable. America was founded thanks to a war, yet many Americans such as Michael Herr and William James do not support it. They both wrote essays to show the negative effects of war and to shine a new light on the subject. The essay, “Illumination Rounds” by Michael Herr, was published in The New American Review #7 in 1969. Herr speaks of his experiences in Vietnam and shares the abundant coping methods the soldiers use to deal with PTSD. He asserts that war is not worth all of the negative effects.

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war

If it weren’t for the War of 1812, the U.S.’s military may have never improved as it did at the end of the war, and it would not have become as systematized. Americans started acknowledging the true sensation of nationalism after the war. The War of 1812 gave the U.S. military control, a powerful economy, which had less dependence, and the self-assurance to expand its

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

In the 1940’s a series of propaganda films titled Why We Fight were produced for the purpose of defining the enemies of World War 2 to justify the necessity of America’s involvement in war. Hitler needed to be defeated, Nazism had to be destroyed, and tyranny had to be stopped for the sake of the American way of life by any means necessary. How could society argue against America’s role in the world war when freedom was being threatened? As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to everywhere.” No questions asked, Americans mobilized in the name of liberty and freedom. However the 2005 documentary film Why We Fight directed by Eugene Jarecki is not a sequel or war propaganda. The film informs the audience and questions America 's military industrial complex that has since dictated policy since the victory of World War 2. With the help of narration, soundbites, and credible speakers Jarecki shines light on the pernicious impact of the armed industry on our government, army, and citizens.

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

The ways in which the United States has conducted its military operations since becoming an independent nation has largely depended upon the overall political and military objectives of each individual conflict. The United States first three hot wars after the end of World War II display the marked difference in US objectives and the operations used to achieve them better than any other modern wars in which American troops participated.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and subjectively concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a

Looking back at America’s history, we are a nation that was built on violence and war. Europeans came across the ocean to this land and brutally took it over from the Native Americans, we fought for our independence from the British on this land, and we even fought amongst each other. All of these disputes helped build what we know as The United States of America today. It seems that no matter what we do, violence seems to follow us, or in some cases we tend to seek it out. But not everyone in this nation has always been for the unimaginable amount of carnage we have partaken in. The feeling toward violence has had its ups and downs within our culture. We have gone through periods of supporting our nation in war and we have also gone through periods of disapproval of our governments choices to enter conflict. The main thing that dictates our nation’s attitude toward violence and war is the purpose in which we are fighting for. If the people of our nation feel that the issue is worth all of the repercussions that come along with war and it is something that needs to be fought for, then it will be largely supported. If it is something that thousands of people should not be risking their lives over, then it will be largely protested.

Nothing can impact society like war. War can be viewed as noble and just, or cruel and inhuman, as well as everything in between. War affects everyone in society whether they are fighting in a foreign country or waiting at home for a loved one to return. War is an indispensable part of civilization; found at every chapter of human history. It is the culmination of the basic survival instinct when provoked. As has the technique of battle; society's view on war has changed as well. Today the act of war has become almost shameful, whereas in earlier eras war was glorified and heroic. American society's view on war has changed also. Our history, even as a young country has seen a great deal

Clausewitz defines war as an “act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each followed by a discussion of US strategic guidance and ending with an analysis of the training resources and force structure requirements needed to achieve success for all types of

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US