There is a case that argues that war is an inevitable part of the system of politics and human struggle. As ideologies clash and the right to resources is contested, violent acts between groups can and do occur. Alignment to an economical and political system was the cause of polarization during the Cold War. The Communist bloc held one belief, while the capitalist “free” market held another. The players revealed themselves during the Vietnam Conflict.
The United States set out on campaigns in south east Asia to prevent the spread of communist influence on non-aligned countries. The United States and other anti-communist forces in the area decided to wage an offensive on the communist forces in the area. The containment of communism was the key goal of the efforts of these countries in Southeast Asia.
It can be argued that the creation of war and conflict revolve around central themes. Three tiers of this axis are the balance of power on a global scale and the dynamics of that system, the existence of polarizing ideologies, and the finite amount resources available, both physically and nonphysically.
One of the key reasons why the outbreak of war is inevitable is found in the nature of a global system. From this perspective, there is and has never been an overreaching international power that can prevent the actions of any one country. There is no system in place to prevent the countries with a large military or economic influence to wield power in any way that they deem appropriate. This system is inherently unstable. It is a system with one balance point. Powerful countries can wield resources and power that keep weak countries in place.
While the global system of power is a key factor in the creation of war and conflict, another key component is the possession of polarizing ideals. When a set of ideals is based off the denial of another set of ideals, diplomacy and non-violent resolution has a low rate of success. In the case of the Vietnam Conflict, the United States and allied countries held a belief that the market should not be regulated and that the government should be democratic. The Communist bloc held an equal and opposite set of ideals in regard to economic and government. The conflict is found in the nature of the beliefs themselves. Each side was perfectly opposed to the other and the core of their ideologies revolved on self promotion and limiting of the other. If two ideals are based on the function of opposing the other, confrontation and conflict will develop.
Another factor that promotes conflict is resources and there subsequent distribution. Resources are physical and nonphysical requirements for the sustaining of a system. In the case of the United States, the resources that were contested over during the Vietnam Conflict were both physical and nonphysical. This physical resource was land. Land that was governed by a democratically aligned power. The United States wanted to see land and natural resources, whatever they may be, to be in the possession of a power that they can align with. The Communist bloc wanted this as well. Land and expansion of territory is a key physical resource that is constantly fought over and the Vietnam Conflict was not an exception. The struggle for nonphysical resources was also a key factor in the escalation of conflict in Vietnam. This resource is the need for the propagation of a social-economic system to be vindicated and viewed as the only valid method of power and resource distribution. For a system of government and economics to exist on any level, especially globally, there must a desire to sustain and promote that system. The United States and allied countries possessed a democratic and open market approach. The Communist bloc held a different belief.
These three tiers, global power dynamics, ideologies, and resource distribution, are proponents in the creation of war and its general inevitable nature.
The frequency of war can be reduced by limiting the causes of why war and conflict are created. Based on the reasons outlined above the logical conclusion would to put in place mechanisms that limit the influences of the major causes of war. Since war is a multidimensional phenomenon, its prevention is difficult as there must be a comprehensive effort in regulating all its different dimensions.
The global system of power and its dynamics are inherently unstable. There is also a paradox involved with any potential amendment of the rules of this system. Power is accumulated by countries with economic and military resources. This power can then keep weaker countries non confrontational.
The paradox reveals itself when the trying to regulate this unregulated environment. One flaw in developing a super-global power is who will be a member of this body? Where will it be located? How will it be funded? All of these necessities for the super-global power to function are vectors in which global powers can user power to influence the nature of the super-global power. This could result in a super-global entity that is aligned, however slightly, to any of the global entities thereby voiding any of the regulatory power that it was intended to have.
The next component of the creation of war is the possession of ideologies, especially ones that are mutually opposing. There is little to be done on this front. If the nature of the ideology is to oppose all efforts to contradict or limit its influence, then any attempt for diplomacy or non-violent resolution will be met with opposition.
Resources are finite. This is a fact that cannot be changed. What can be changed, as an effort to stave of war and conflict, is the method of distribution. The same paradoxes that were in the global environment arise in this situation. What entity will take from those with resources and redistribute them to those without resources? How can this be done in a fair way? Will this system be abused? All of this reasons point to a non solution. The United States does not promote this type of system. The “free” market prides itself with the ability to function in the marketplace with minimal restriction. The creation of a super-entity that will oversee the fair and balanced distribution across the system is unlikely as it will be seen as an ideological threat.
The causes of war are heavily interwoven. It is highly unlikely that a broad comprehensive effort can be implemented to fully eliminate or manage the outbreak of war. Each dimension of conflict rely on the other dimensions. The paradox of a super-global regulatory mechanism also hinders the efforts in reducing the frequency of war.
War brings about change. The change can benefit some and harm others. It has been the case in the past and in the present that a country benefits from United States military action. In the long run, the countries that are invaded and restructured are better prepared to function in a global environment.
Take the case of Japan. During World War II, this country was in direct opposition to the United States and its allies. After an extensive campaign that resulted in the eventual defeat of the Japanese, Japan then became restructured and is currently now a powerful country that is a global leader in scientific innovation and economics. The United States accepts Japan on the global marketplace and is one of its larger trading partners.
Germany was another country that benefited from the invasion of the United States. After the Nazi regime was overthrown and the military forces were destroyed the country underwent reconstruction. It currently is one of Europe's most economically influential countries. Germany is also a world leader in innovation and technology.
While the cost of war is high, the United States often contributes in the reconstructive efforts to create an improved country that can function internally and also on a global scale.
In hindsight, the American involvement in Vietnam was a negative experience. The Cold War ended with the implosion of the Soviet Government. It can be argued that an American military campaign in Southeast Asia had little impact on the integrity of the Soviet Union's internal workings.
Amidst the human and economic loss involved with the Vietnam conflict, there is a cultural loss involved as well.
From the perspective of the United States military leaders of the time, one of the options for the containment policy was to meet the Soviets, and their allies, in war to try and limit the sprawl of communist influence on developing countries. This seemed as a logical move then, the the leaders at the time, to engaged Communist factions in Vietnam, and other Soviet sympathizing regions. The Vietnam Conflict was the expensive solution to the demands set by the containment policy.
As history played its self out, the Vietnam war ended up looking like an unnecessary human and monetary expense as the Soviet Union collapsed from internal pressures. They did not have the luxury of perspective from the future, so the leaders of the United States acted in a way that served their purposes.
The soldiers on the ground and the veterans that came back from the war were the target of a cultural rejection that typically does not follow a conclusion of a war. Shadowed by the triumphant return of G.I.s from World War II, the Vietnam soldiers came back to a country that was strongly polarized. There was a public opinion that rejected the efforts of the Vietnam veterans. This sentiment took a personal toll on the people returning home after long tours in the jungle. This psychological factor had a larger impact on the mind set of the United States. The fractured public opinion of the war weakened national pride and unification and had a detrimental effect on the social integrity of the United States.
The polarization of ideals during and after the Vietnam war, in concert with the high human and economic loss and the seemingly unnecessary nature of the Conflict, creates a net negative impact on the United States as a whole.
0 comments:
Post a Comment