I have not been blogging much lately because I have been working on applications for graduate school in journalism and have generally been busy and somewhat devoid of opinions, or at least well-formed opinions. To kill two birds with one stone, I will provide a question to which I responded while practicing withan old Columbia University writing test for prospective journalism students. All feedback is welcome, though I would prefer it if it focused on style and quality of argument rather than ideological disagreements. There is a 500-word limit and a 45-minute time restriction. Without further intrdouction, here is the question and my answer.
4. What criteria should the United States use in deciding to wage war on another country? Give specific examples from current and/or historical events in your answer.
Waging war has never been an easy decision for the United States. It has always been fraught with moral, ethical, and practical quandaries, from the American Revolution to the current War in Iraq. Several of these wars have palpably demoralized the American populace. Generally, they were been offensive in nature, encroachments into sovereign states with militarily savvy populations, as in Vietnam and the War in Iraq as opposed to containment of an overzealous aggressor as in World War II and the Gulf War.
The U.S. has done best when it has fought wars that do not pose great tactical obstacles. One such obstacle is unfamiliarity with terrain that an opponent knows well. U.S. soldiers encountered muggy, swampy jungles in Vietnam where they were re-routed by the savvier Vietcong. In Iraq, urban warfare has challenged a military that has been more accustomed to air wars under a command that is averse to putting troops in on-the-ground, guerilla situations. During World War II, the U.S. encountered the Axis troops on mutually unfamiliar territory in the USSR, but, allied with the Soviets, the U.S. had the tactical advantage when they stopped the Nazis in Stalingrad.
Though leaders have often invoked the specter of the emboldened enemy to rally a nation behind a war, the wars that are today considered successful responded to far more imminent threats than those that were considered demoralizing for the U.S. populace. World War II and Iraq are examples of the former. Though very different in scope, U.S. intervention was precipitated by an overzealous foreign power that invaded neighboring countries. Vietnam, on the other hand, was not an invading force, and while the United States was worried that Communist China would take control of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, China did not invade the country in the manner that Germany did in World War II or Iraq did in the Gulf War. In the same vein, Iraq in 2003 did not have designs to invade neighboring countries and had remained relatively reticent to display force after the Gulf War. Moreover, the United States had invaded Afghanistan, which was governed by a regime that sanctioned Al-Quaeda, the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, along with many others directed at Americans.
The tactical problems in wars like Vietnam and Iraq are not coincidentally tied in with ethical and moral problems with these wars. A state that has not committed an act of aggression towards another sovereign nation, even a state whose political structure is disagreeable to the United States, has historically been an unfortunate target for war: not only is an invasion impractical, but it can verge on truculent. The U.S. becomes the aggressor, and an ineffective one at that. It is better when the United States can use its considerable (but not omnipotent) military might to prevent aggressors rather than to become an aggressor itself.
January 15, 2008 at 7:41 am |
Elaine, please don’t take offense…
Your essay is generally well written, but 1) the US wasn’t at all involved in Stalingrad – the destruction of the German army there was all the Soviet Army’s doing (if memory serves me right, the one time in the twentieth century where the United States had any real military presence in Russia was in 1917-19, during the Revolutionary period)…had you said that the Americans met the Japanese on mutually unknown ground in the Pacific islands or that we (along with the British) fought Germany on the terra incognito of North Africa, that might work.
Also, 2) your answer unfortunately skirts around the main point of the question, which is to consider under what criteria the United States should contemplate going to war…your essay starts to provide solid analysis of the concerns of aggressive war vis a vis wars of putative “containment” purposes, but you muddy that up by trying to vaguely link this dichotomy with public approval of war efforts and the morality of military response to political and other situations.
Also, on a more specific clarity note, when you write “…while the United States was worried that Communist China would take control of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, China did not invade the country in the manner that Germany did in World War II or Iraq did in the Gulf War,” it makes it construable to mean that Germany and Iraq both invaded Vietnam.
It’s well written, but I think that more time should be spent organizing and less on determining which GRE words best fit your ideas.
January 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
I am a little foggy on the military details of WWII (and all military history, for that matter), and my writing exhibits this, but I think I was implying that the U.S. alliance with the Soviets in WWII was helpful because the Soviets knew Stalingrad better than the invading Germans.
I agree that my thesis is a little muddy. Providing a tight answer to such a broad question in 45-minutes seems daunting, but I think I would have done a better job if I had just said that the criteria for going to war is met when a state is an aggressor. Getting into moral, ethical, and tactical “quandries” probably requires a lot more exposition than I have the time or knowledge for.
This is Jon A. I assume? I say that because of the prevalence of law school words (”putative,” “terra incognito,” “construable” which may or may not best fit your ideas
)
January 15, 2008 at 7:33 pm |
Yeah, man. Jon F. would have just said “Fuck those terrorists.”
January 15, 2008 at 7:34 pm |
Though the question is really about the word “should.” You probably don’t need such a detailed discussion of history.
But isn’t journalism about answering broad questions in short passages using massive generalizaitions?
January 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm |
Ok, Elaine. Hopefully this criticism is nothing but constructive. I agree with Jon above, but I have a few more specific things.
1) I think you’re afraid to come out and say that one criterion should be the possible demoralization of the American public. You mention it a couple times but in a way that only obliquely supports your argument.
2) The sentence beginning “Generally…” I would probably avoid the word. The sentence has some grammar issues, however. Also, “containment” to characterize WWII seems like a massive understatement. It may be better to unite the Gulf War and WWII under the umbrella of “defending allies” (rescue is more accurate, but perhaps overblown for the occasion).
3) The argument about unfamiliar terrain seems very weak to me. The question asks about waging war on another country, meaning, no matter what, except for a few circumstances, the terrain would be foreign and unknown. The implied criterion in that paragraph seems to be more, make sure we have native allies on the ground that we are fighting with who can give us the tactical advantage.
4) I was confused in the third paragraph. It sounds like you’re saying that the war in Iraq has been a success, but I think you meant the Gulf War, in which case, establish set terms to differentiate between the two.
5) Your last sentence (unintentionally) obliterates completely your past argument because of the word “prevent”. The current Iraq War was a “preventative” war against a perceived aggressor. The word “prevent” is the issue. The Gulf War and our involvement in WWII occurred far too late to prevent the aggressor. There was already a record of aggression. Perhaps it would be better to talk about potential aggression vs. actual aggression or pre-emptive vs. reactive wars, which you kind of do, but not very clearly.
Did you make a quickie outline before you wrote this?
January 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm |
Elaine, where are you applying to j-school? I filled out so many applications, essays, etc., so if I can be of any help, drop me a line!
January 16, 2008 at 3:25 am |
Heh, I’ll stand by my word choices (and no, they’re not lawyerly…if I were to take that approach, I would be much more blunt and straightforward).
January 16, 2008 at 4:23 am |
I like your suggestions, Chris. Alex, I am applying to J-school. Columbia, NU, and Berekely. Hopefully, I will get into at least one. I’ll let you know if I have questions, and I hope it’s going well for you. I guess my primary question right now is whether J-school is worth it!
January 23, 2008 at 10:07 pm |
It’s too early to tell in my case. I’ve gotten a job at a newspaper and a gig with MTV News covering the election in Kansas, but j-school gave me a foot in the door with those. Beyond that, I haven’t learned a whole lot that I didn’t already know. I guess it depends on what you want to do.