Analysis of The Causes of Word War 3: Thirty Years Later Article by Ted Goertzel - Essay Example

World War 3 Ted Goertzel in the article en d, ‘The Causes of Word War 3: Thirty Years Later,’ presents a critical assessment on C. Wright Mills prediction of an imminent World War 3. Accordingly, Mills published an article entitled ‘The Causes of World War 3’ in the 1950’s. In it, Mills presented his argument on the inevitable possibility of World War 3. However, thirty years on, Ted Goertzel conducts a post analysis of the article in which he vehemently criticizes Mills analysis of the scenario. The critic directed to Mills reveals his analysis as flawed and based on conspiracy theories. Moreover, reviews by other authors such as Irvin Howe revealed that Mills article lacked sufficient evidence and factual arguments. Despite such critics, Howe was castigated by student Movements who supported Mills views at the time. The article written by Mills came in the wake of nuclear arms production which he believed was setting the stage for an eminent global war. Interestingly enough, his book received record positive reviews from activists with sales totalling one thousand copies. This was due to the general atmosphere at the time by supporters that a nuclear disaster was imminent. An in depth analysis of Mills theories concerning his believe of a nuclear World War 3, provided sufficient grounds for criticism by Ted Goertzel. One theory that Mills advanced revolved around the role of the power brokers in America and Soviet Union. To this end, Mills believed that the executive and military stakeholders in Pentagon were a dominant force in America’s political sphere. Furthermore, he equally believed that the Kremlin leaders of the Soviet Union were also fomenting its nuclear power for pursuing an impending Armageddon (Groertzel 242). To this end, Mills argued that both power brokers in America and the Soviet Union were manipulating the minds of innocent civilians through the media and consequently leading them towards a nuclear warfare. However, Goertzel disputes this line of thought due to several reasons. Foremost, Goertzel argues that Mill’s failed to justify his theory of military domination in the United States economic sphere. To this end, Goertzel stated that one measure of examining control of power by a specific group was through its control of national income and resources. Thus, if Mills theory on power control by the military was true, it would have reflected on the country economic indicators. Consequently, to poke aspersion into Mills theory, Goertzel draws in statistical evidence from the Gross National Product of America. The findings indicated that the military spending from the GNP had dropped drastically over the last thirty years. Thus, from a high of 13% during the Korean War, the percentages had dropped to 10% by the time Mills had published his book (Groertzel 242). Furthermore, Goertzel criticized Mills belief on military control over the political environment with reference to the Vietnam War and Reagan regime. To this end, Goertzel claimed that ideological and political factors instigated by Lyndon Johnson are what precipitated the Vietnam War. He further states that these facts were evident in the Pentagon Papers. The Vietnam War was thus fuelled by the political class as opposed to the military. In reference to the rearmament exercise by Ronald Reagan’s regime, Goertzel advances that it was fuelled by the Committee on Present Danger rather than the military wing (Goertzel 243). In addition, previous efforts at building up the military strength were instigated by civilian efforts known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. This initiative further cast doubt on Mill’s theory pertaining the military domination of power. From the statements advanced by Goertzel, several facts come to light. First, Mill’s theory on the power control by the military powerbrokers was flawed since it was not reflected on the Gross National Income. To this end, the level of influenced asserted by Mill’s should have reflected through increased spending on military activities on the country’s GNP. Moreover, the subsequent wars instigated by the political class rather than the military cast aspersion on the level of power control theorized by Mills. On another dimension, Mills philosophically stated another cause of the impending war as the ‘military preparation of it.’ In this respect, Mills believed that preparations were evident through the nuclear armament by America as well as the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Mill’s reiterated that the resources were being allocated for purposes of investing in weapon technology. He theorized that America’s fascination with weapon technology were all indicators of an imminent World War 3. However, Goertzel discredits this line of thought by inferring that preparation does not translate to war. Besides, Goertzel further questions why thirty years on since Mill’s prediction, the ‘imminent World War 3’ has failed to suffice. In reference to America’s weaponry development, Goertzel advanced a specific reason for its justification. Consequently, he asserted that America was a society fascinated by technology. This fascination delved from the perception that it would result to social economic gains to America. More specifically, the culture of fascination was deeply maligned towards the development of military hardware. These developments are pinged on asserting the value of technologically advanced weaponry. Consequently, despite the mass production of advanced weaponry such as missiles over the years, it has not affected the balance of power or increased the risk of conflict with other superpowers. Perhaps, Mill’s theory on the preparation of war was fulfilled through the manifestation of the Vietnam War. However, Goertzel equally disputes this assertion by claiming that Mills had no capacity of foretelling the war apart from anticipating its occurrence. This was in recognition of the eventual decline of the United States and Soviet Union superpower influence after World War 2. Moreover, Goertzel asserts that the possibility of war between United States and the Soviet Union was highly unlikely due to the gradually decline in political, economic and military influence of both countries as superpowers. Consequently, it was only logical that America sought to reverse the negative effects of Word War 2 to boost its economic, military and political standing in the world. To this end, the reason advanced pertaining to ‘preparation of war’ as a probable cause, failed to satisfy the credibility test. Mills equally advanced another reason as a probable cause of the inevitable World War 3. His sentiments regarding the growing military complex in United States suggested that it was intent on taking over power. This would be through the creation of a ruling elite that would consequently lead the nation to World War 3. Consequently, Mills believed that the inevitable change of power would serve as a cause for the inevitable nuclear world war. On the contrary, Goertzel disagrees with Mills in this respect by dismissing it as political propaganda and a conspiracy theory. Goertzel believed that Mills theory was based largely on his ingenuity to spur political change. True to this, Goertzel cited Mills opinion regarding the military’s excessive powers. Mills was on record by insinuating that the military’s excesses were caused mostly due to ‘civilian default of political power’ than ‘greed for power’ on the military’s part. Consequently, according to Goertzel, this statement was intended to spur the intellectual class to action by filling the political void. As a testament to this statement, Goertzel credits the rise of New Left Movements of the 1960’s to Mills sentiments in his book (244). Furthermore, the political change motive was evident through his utopian and radical proposals that advocated for nuclear disarmament, increase in foreign aid spending, cementing student exchange policies with Soviet Union and increased recognition of Red China (Goertzel 244). To this end, Goertzel believed that the Mills was advancing political propaganda and conspiracy theories under the veil of a growing military complex. The political propaganda was created as political fodder by Mills to advance zeitgeist and radical political movement in the 1960’s. In this respect, Mills achieved his goal through the New Left Movement whose values were based on outrage, as opposed to objectivity, radical demands and style in opposition to substance. Goertzel further expounds that Mills success in instilling belief to the conspiracy theory, arose from his recognition that people rallied against the military paradigm if it proved detrimental to their peace. Over and above this, Goertzel further criticized Mills military industrial complex theory by noting that peace efforts were successful through the fomenting of relations between system elites. In this respect, Goertzel reiterated that peace was more likely through the building of synergy between the military and political class. An attempt to suggest that vilification or overthrowing one system in favour of another would only serve to create seeds of discord. Thus, Goertzel asserted that overthrowing of capitalism or nuclear disarmament, as proposed by Mills, was not necessary in preventing a third world war. In addition, Goertzel recognized that improving mechanisms for relations between the United States and Soviet Union were better placed. This would aid in reducing nuclear threats, as opposed to halting weaponry systems. In addition, Goertzel notes that the powerful elites that Mills believed were increasing their influence through military strength had grown less powerful compared to the 1950’s. However, Goertzel does recognize that the risk of a nuclear global threat is more visible today than 30 years back. Irrespective of this, he acknowledges that the novelty value previously attached to it has eroded. Consequently, the imminent World War 3, as envisaged by Mills, is highly unlikely between the United States and Soviet Union. Work Cited Goertzel, Ted G. . ""The Causes of World War III": Thirty Years Later." Sociological Forum 4.2 (1989): 241-246. Jstor.org. Web. 27 Oct. 2012. Read More