Wars often have an accidental beginning. History demonstrates this to us. Do our leaders acknowledge that? In my earlier days perhaps motivated by self interest I studied the US entry, as a nation, into the Vietnam conflict. Did our leaders actually visualize a monolithic communism, comprised of various countries, spreading their unified tentacles across the perceived free world. At that time George Kennan’s “Containment Theory” prevailed. Kennan, a career Foreign Service Officer, formulated the policy of “containment,” the basic United States strategy for fighting the cold war (1947–1989) with the Soviet Union. At that time as a nation we had minimal if any Southeast Asian expertise. The Soviet Union and China were apparently viewed as primarily one huge threat to freedom. Without significant geopolitical expertise we had drawn imaginary lines on our world globe and were set to contain the communist spread.
Kennan’s ideas, which became the basis of the Truman administration’s foreign policy, first came to public attention in 1947 “The main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union,” Kennan wrote, “must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” His opinion substantially more detailed endured for years. Despite the extreme animosity between China, communist or otherwise, and Vietnam, the US perhaps failed to comprehend that Ho Chi Minh was not about to welcome Chinese domination of Vietnam. This containment theory was short changed by our lack of knowledge.
Richard Nixon and others used the “red scare” tactic to build a political base. When he achieved the Presidency about 20 years later with Vietnam still raging, President Nixon found his way to China. The Kennan Containment Theory was expanded and further implemented with the help of Henry Kissinger, a Harvard professor and Nixon’s Secretary of State. Kissinger certainly understood the international order and found great support with President Nixon. These two amplified containment with balance of power theory and believed in a multipolar approach to contain and maintain world peace.
Mr. Kissinger saw the power of triangulation as a tool for diplomacy, and this can be seen in his near-concurrent negotiations with China and the Soviet Union, as well — connecting the world’s three superpowers at the time. Dr. Kissinger later reflected that the triangular relationship was “in itself a form of pressure on each of them, and we carefully maneuvered so we would try to be closer to each than they were to each other.” These three forces would be balanced against others including Western Europe, the Western Pacific Rim including Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, the SEATO nations, on to India and Israel rounding out the southern containment boundary. This was power drawn together to insure or at least maintain a balance for peace through this containment ring.
This is an over simplified outline and not intended to be an academic analysis. This is what should be a minimal understanding of the world order which our leaders should acknowledge, but do they?
Significant lengthy conflicts have ensued since WWII but not a world war. Reviewing the happenings since the end of the Second World War may not present a peaceful time worthy of our praise. We should consider how some of these lesser conflicts began and why. Territorial aggrandizement certainly seems to find favor as a cause and perhaps that always will be. The question we should ask is why a nation chose to act when it did. Did the Chinese believe the US would standby and allow Korea to fall under the Chinese or Russia spheres of influence in 1950? Vietnam was different. It was communism but driven by nationalism on the part of Ho Chi Minh. Vietnam had already been divided after Dien Bien Phu and the 1954 Geneva Accords. The next significant event may have been the Cuban Missile Crises. Did Khrushchev see this as an opportunity to void the Monroe Doctrine and get his foot in the new world assuming weakness on the part of a new, young untested president? The world went on building nuclear weapons and reinforcing the concept of mutual deterrence. Nixon stepping into the Soviets back yard, China, raised some hackles and accentuated a balance of power point. The Berlin Wall, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on followed. Now we are confronted with Russia invading Ukraine, Israel and Gaza with the potential to expand. When Russia’s Putin see members of Congress not willing to continue funding Ukraine, what does that say to him? Incorrect interpretations or failing to truly understand what other countries are doing created ambiguity and an increased risk of expanded military action. International relations are simply personal relations on the larger scale. Misunderstandings and failure to issue a clear message can lead to a greater war. Our leaders must recognize a defined ring of containment and vocalize the integrity of that “red” circle. Our way of life and our beliefs are threatened if we fail to speak up and stand up in union and with strength.
Phil's Personal Perspectives 