Statecraft was very useful for applying and experiencing concepts we learned in class. It was very helpful for understanding the material better because we actually experienced what we were learning instead of just reading about it. Had we not gone through the Statecraft simulation, the class would have been less interesting and less effective.
Overall, I am not entirely satisfied with the way Statecraft turned out for my country. In the beginning, it seemed like we were doing well compared to the other countries, but Panem soon caught up to us and surpassed us. Despite trying to get back to the top, we were ultimately unable to catch up with Panem. Our biggest issue was the lack of resources. We were good on gold, producing 1000 a turn from the Orion Mountains. At
…show more content…
As the only military dictatorship in a world full of democracies, I feel that we really had to overcome hostilities from the other countries. Right off the back, we sought to inform the other countries that we wanted peace with them and had no intention of attacking them. Still, a lot of the countries were weary of us. I feel like Panem and the Democratic Republic of Lima were the most accepting of us as we did a lot of trade and negotiations with those countries. I think the others were still expecting us to start a war, even though we didn 't have the largest or strongest military. On the contrary, we were the ones who really pushed for world peace. We chose to be a military dictatorship because we felt it would be advantageous for us since we were surrounded by terrorism. In the end, I do not think being a military dictatorship helped us out a whole lot, but other than some hostilities from some countries, it did not hurt us either. I think if we had more types of government in the simulation it would have made the simulation more
...ia, Korea, Germany, and China have a history of an authoritarian power that abused the military on civilians. These episodes are looked down on with shame and left wrecks that had to be rectified over a long course of time. Such behaviors only lead to destruction.
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
Through the policies of containment, McCarthyism, and brinkmanship the United States was able to successfully remain a democratic nation. Although some of its policies where corrupt, the U.S. perused its goals and eventually stopped the spread of communism.
The Statecraft simulation is a helpful tool for understanding the different aspects of international politics. In the simulation, students are able to experience diplomacy through trial and error in political positions within their designated countries. In addition, the simulation was created by Dr. Keller to resemble reality. As a result, each country has different advantages and disadvantages with regards to recourses, location, country attributes and government type. Furthermore, through this recourse, students have the chance to gain valuable learning experiences in a manner, not harmful to society.
Should the United States have participated in the Vietnam War? Some people felt that the US should have been there for two reasons. The first reason was the US was attempting to establish a stable democracy. The second reason was that our participation in Vietnam helped the US win the Cold War. Others believed the US should not have participated for two reasons. One reason was that the South Vietnamese government was a brutal dictatorship. Another reason was our strategy for winning the war was inept. While it appeared that we were trying to spread democracy and win the Cold War., in truth we were supporting a mini-Hitler, and our war strategy had little chance of success.
No one could have realized that what seemed as an insignificant gesture to partake in training South Vietnamese armies and America’s involvement in Southeast Asia would one day have the impact it did on America. Although at the time when Eisenhower was trying to stop of the spread of communism it seemed the right thing to do, the repercussions of that decision and the war it eventually led to was devastating to America politically, socially, and culturally.
...ne in a preemptive nature; many of which were poorly justified. The U.S intervention in Chile cannot be denied. Whether the U.S merely influenced the military coup against Allende or whether they had a direct hand in the attack does not excuse the overthrow of a legitimate government. It is also important to note that Salvador Allende’s presidency was at times overly ambitious, which only added fuel to the fire. By nationalizing and expropriating all of the U.S companies’ property, Allende might have been too ambitious in trying to change the regime. That being said, the U.S involvement of a functioning democracy and its eventual overthrow contradicts U.S ideals and values. Furthermore, although one could argue that the initial overthrow of Allende’s regime was necessary for geopolitical influence; the continued support of a violent dictatorship cannot be justified.
But the idea that the United States was involved in Latin America to encourage the creation of democratic institutions that could effectively enact reform and enable public discourse seemed far-fetched given how President Eisenhower and Nixon dealt the coup that followed in 1960. Before President Lemus caused a full-scale revolution with the massacre of the student protesters that was waiting to happen, moderate military officers organized a coup and overthrew the president. While the officers promised to implement the reforms promised by liberal generals in the late 1940s and to hold elections in 1962, Eisenhower “found the promises insufficient,” and “withheld ...
If the United States had a strong standing Army, a lot of these conflicts would have been dealt with either by force or a better diplomatic system. The treaties and negotiating that were delay due to bureaucracy and how chaotic and confusing the system was and how long it takes for anything to be approve of.
In a recent verbal bout with my History of the Military Art professor, I contended that the true might of a nation may be inversely proportional to the size of its military during peacetime. My thinking, though perhaps idealistic, was that the maintenance of a large military during relative international tranquility is an overt admission of weakness and increases the likelihood of unnecessarily employing that force—it is contextually irrelevant. Instead, I proposed that a strong and stable economy is the best metric of national prowess, for such an economy can resource many opportunities as they arise. On the contrary, a robust standing military has a much narrower utility. To be sure, this author is not one that intentionally seeks to take an interdisciplinary approach to academia, but the connection seems relevant given the nature of this assignment. Whereas a nation may accomplish a strategic goal through military force, a leader may accomplish a task relying upon coercive power; whereas a nation may transform and develop the world through its economic strength and versatility, a versatile leader may transform others through the employment of one or many leader development principles—both theoretically based and experientially acquired. This piece serves to describe acquired PL499 course concepts and their relevance to my project team and the West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS). Only through a...
... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations.
...sed by Korea. In 1950 the Truman Administration faced, “The real dilemma of obtaining congressional approval to implement the $15 billion or more recommendations of NSC-68 as well as European rearmament.” Truman needed a catalyst in order to make it possible to implement those funds. Before Korea, America’s political landscape made it impossible for such a sum to be approved. As Acheson admitted, “Korea came along and saved us.” The war made it possible to increase the budget and implement change because public support was high. American lives were at risk, and that would loom larger to the public than possible economic repercussions. The Korean War gave Truman the precedent to raise the budget, implement NSC-68, and oppose communism at every turn. The new policy established shaped the course of the Cold War, which in turn has shaped the world stage to this day.
One of Realist theory fundamental pillars is that states are sovereign, and because there is no higher authority to answer to, the cycle for power is never-ending. This could explain why a conflict of this magnitude would occur only 15 years after World War 2. Fidel Castro declared in 1961 to be a Communist until his death, the very next month the US withdrew diplomatic recognition of the Cuban government ...
...policy making have slowly eroded the rigid structure of state sovereignty. However the state still maintains a strong role in the international system and many areas still remain state-centric. Whether the state will continue to play a small role in the post-Westphalian era is yet to be discerned. What is certain is that the role of the state is slowly changing and may eventually lead to its demise.
To examine what state formation is and how it has occurred the logical route seems to assess from where they have evolved. The notion of the state is a relatively recent concept, for example in 1555 there existed only two national states, England and France. With otherwise the existence of disorganised and corrupt empires, federations and protectorates. It appears states have formed despite the many obstacles facing their development. Not only did the challenges of securing territory exist but ri...