US Military History - Essay Example

U.S. Military History PART 1 During World War II, the U.S had taken a decision of neutrality and as such avoided involving itself in the first two years of war. The U.S decisions to avoid involvement with Europeans affairs saw the nation maintain neutrality form that was declared official in the Quarantine Speech of 1937 that the U.S President Delano Roosevelt declared. Prior to the period when the U.S declared war, the U.S held ties with various nations involved directly in the war. The role of U.S included acting as a supplier of war materials to the Soviet Union, Britain as well as China. Achievement of that role occurred through an act referred to as the Lend-Lease Act that later became signed into law in 11th March 1941 (Stewart, 2005). The U.S equally ensured deployment of its military to serve as replacement to the British invasion forces located in Iceland. The previous role of the U.S however, changed drastically after the Pearl Attack instigated by the Japanese military. Prior to the attack, the U.S placed economic sanctions on Japan as an effort to deter the military aggression of Japan in the Asia-Pacific region. The attack eventually led to the end of the isolation policy that the U.S adopted through that attack conducted on 7th December 1941. The two hour surprise attack saw the Japanese warplanes manage to eighteen warships while also destroying one hundred and sixty-four aircraft transpiring to loss of lives of over two thousand and four hundred civilians and servicemen. Following that incident, Roosevelt made declared war against Japan and the determination as well as will of the American people to attain absolute victory. On the following day, Roosevelt sought the Congress support to declare war on Japan with just a single dissenting vote passing the declaration. After three days, Germany and Italy became allies of Japan and consequently declared war on the U.S. PART 2 Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the Korean War broke at the height of cold War with the two super powers playing significant role in influencing the war. The Soviet Union supported the North communist region as the U.S offered support to the South region that held the idea of capitalism. Although Russia failed to engage in direct combat during the war, it provided support through offering war equipments to the North region and eventually supporting Chinese communist military leading to the end of the war. The U.S involvement however occurred through providing support and engagement of U.S military in combat (Stewart, 2005). The primary objective behind the U.S engagement in the Korean War resulted from the fact that the U.S held a need of saving face as well as ensuring that it appeared stronger than communism. Therefore, it is indicative that America never held vital interests on Korea. In supporting the south anti-communists Syngman Rhee that was considered as tyrannical in the same manner as his North counterpart Kim II-Sung, the support offered by the U.S relates from the simple reason of the south region adoption of a non-communist approach. The U.S lacked justification in joining the war in that it lacked any direct interest from the war or region. Furthermore, offering support to Rhee a leader that was equally corrupt and tyrannical served the negative policies that the U.S advocated. Again, the culminating factors that led to involvement of Chinese military in the war served in portraying the weakness of and establishment of the superiority of the communist forces. That results from the fact that as opposed to the first two wars, the reinstitution of the 38th parallel serves as clear indication that the U.S and Chinese military faced a standstill and setting up history where the U.S entered a war and failed to emerge as winners. PART 3 Presidents Kennedy, Johnson as well as Nixon all found themselves in challenging situations relating to the Cold War that eventually culminated to the Vietnam War where the U.S faced significant loss. Kennedy as the forerunner among the three and one serving during the initiation process of the war, failed to possess high commitment to the Vietnam War despite placing some advisers in the region. The same strategy was applied by Johnson as his indication right rom the start was that he was against the war (Chambers and Anderson, (1999).However, despite deploying military advisers in the South Vietnam region, Kennedy still maintained some level of vagueness as towards commitment in the war. However, a difference results in the strategy applied by Johnson in that Johnson became fully committed to Vietnam prompting to dooming his administration and culminating to the loss of the war.The initial stages of Johnson assumption of office present the similarities in strategies adopted by the three presidents through ensuring continuing increased presence on South Vietnam while still holding off major escalations. Both Johnson and Nixon focused on secretive plans about conducting attacks without making it known. Despite the existing similarities, and the desire for all the three presidents to win the war in Vietnam, differences result through Nixon’s private plans regarding concealing facts of the war through making the Americans believe of his withdrawal from the war, while also make Russia and China believe of his capability to use nuclear weapons if provoked. Of the three strategies, neither of the strategy held sufficient grounds of becoming successful against the others. The reason behind the failure of the strategies towards a possibility of success since both Johnson and Nixon held individual desires to win the war while Kennedy’s plan was incomplete. Since Johnson followed Kennedy’s plans, neither of the three held a chance of success in the war. PART 4 Operation Desert serves as a representation of the military offensive project that the U.S forces and NATO allies embarked on during the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. Despite the Iraq forces proving significant in numbers while also possessing territorial advantage, the U.S forces and her allies resulted as winners in an operation that recorded significant casualties and disillusionment among the Iraq forces. Strategy adopted by the U.S forces played a crucial role in ensuring that the U.S emerged victorious. Immediately after Iraqannounced annexation of Kuwait on 8th August 1990, U.S air fighters began making arrivals in a variety of Arab nations to help in offering protection against possible attacks on Saudi Arabia by Iraq (Burckett, 2015). The strategy adopted by the U.S as the leading force and its allies immediately the war begun caught Iraq and its allied forces by surprise. To enhance in disabling communication efforts of its opponents, the U.S on the very first day of war hit Iraq’s air defenses through surprise while equally making swift moves to the nation’s communication networks, weapons as well as oil refineries among others. After a few days of air strikes, the U.S military shifted to war on the ground beginning on 24th February 1991 aimed at surrounding the Iraq forces a feat that was achieved in the next four days leading to complete defeat of Iraq forces. Consequently, the U.S forces stormed Iraq through west of Kuwait and a ceasefire was declared on 28th February by the U.S president Bush. The role of American military as well as its strategy evolved significantly from the period of Revolutionary War to the time of Operation Desert storm. Roles changed in that other than only offering protection to American citizens, the military is involved in maintaining global peace. Againhigh training enhances in achievement of better strategies as opposed to the initial period where the military was ill-trained (Stewart, 2005). References Burckett, N. (2015, February 8). The American Military: A Look AtIt's Purpose. Retrieved from http://nickburchett.hubpages.com/hub/The-American-Military-A-Look-At-Its-Purpose Chambers, J. W., & Anderson, F. (1999). The Oxford companion to American military history. New York: Oxford University Press. Stewart, R. W. (2005). American Military History. Vol. I. The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917. Washington, DC: Defense Dept, Army Center of Military History. Stewart, R. W. (2005). American Military History. Vol. II. The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation,1917-2003. Washington, DC: Defense Dept, Army Center of Military History. Read More