Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Power and political decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens examines the trials and tribulations of Henry Kissinger, a onetime diplomat, Nation Security Advisor, and United States Secretary of State during the administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. The author takes a partisan view of Kissinger’s crimes and put forward his assertions that the former diplomat was responsible for war crimes in Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, and Cambodia. Christopher Hitchens mounts a stinging indictment of a man whose ambition and ruthlessness have directly resulted in both individual murders and widespread destruction of lives. He manages to capture in details a complicated web of conceit that Kissinger used in order to rise to power and later to consolidate …show more content…
his position in power. Kissinger’s misdeeds according to Hitchens started way back in 1968 at the height of the Vietnamese war.
Kissinger symbolizes the freedom of power by negotiating the Vietnam peace agreement with President Gerald Ford. He deliberately sabotaged the peace negotiations to help secure the election of Richard Nixon. In return, Kissinger would be promoted under the new administration. However, this peace deal sabotage extended the war by four more years and resulted in the death of millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and tens of thousands of US servicemen who were serving in Vietnam. This illustrates the length a person can go to gain political power, even if it means involving his/her hand in the process. Kissinger became a symbol of flattery and dishonesty. He is seen as a man who was willing to trade loyalty for material and political gains. His willingness to delay the Paris peace treaty for his own political gains make the people see him as a power-hungry and ruthless individual.
The indictments did not stop in Vietnam for Kissinger. He was very involved in the deliberate mass killings of unarmed civilians in the Indochina war. With Kissinger’s knowledge, thousands of civilians were killed when US air force and infantry men attacked densely populated communities. The justification was that these communities were used as hiding places by the Viet Con guerillas. Customary laws of war and neutrality were violated, and in which conscious lies had to be told to conceal these facts and
others. Kissinger’s impunity and utter disregard of human life is highlighted in an incident where he ordered for an attack on Cambodian fighters who had held a US battleship. Despite the evidence that the ship crew had been released, Kissinger ordered the US marines and air force to what he called a “face-saving” retaliation attack. During the raid, the US air force dropped a 15,000 pound bomb on the island (24). This, according to Hitchens, starts serious war crimes because it broke combat rules. Besides, Kissinger used dishonesty to invade the neighboring Cambodia in 1970 where more killings were committed including the killing of as many as 600,000 Cambodians (35). There was evidence that the frontier region was populated by Cambodian peasants, but Kissinger, in a bid to push through with the bombing campaigns, claimed that the target areas were unpopulated. The book gives the readers different views on the United States. Nothing in its political culture would prepare the readers to the disclosure that it might be protecting a war criminal. Hitchens discreetly limited himself to Kissinger’s offences, as revealed in declassified documents and recorded telephone conversations between him and other members of the Ford and Nixon administration. Hitchens’s work reveals a complicated web of conceit. It is amazing how the presidents could act on false information furnished by Kissinger, especially in continuance of American foreign involvement in destructive wars.
Rick Perlstein argues over whether "Nixonland", a country at war with itself, still resides in the heart of America. The book took a in depth look at Nixon’s political career from the beginning up to the outcome of the 1972 election, as well as how America’s political scene went from perceived consensus in the LBJ era to the bitterly divided right versus left, also known as the red state/blue state split. Perlstein’s argument is that we are still living in Nixonland. “Nixonland” is a study of the consensus, it isn’t just about Nixon, he isn’t the protagonist of Nixonland although it does include his rise and fall; instead, the protagonist of Nixonland is the American voter who found themselves voting Democrat in 1964 and then Republican in 1972 for the same reasons. This book covers the American political and cultural terrain from LBJ’s liberal landslide in 1964, through Nixon’s comeback in 1968, and land...
Another strength of this book is Prochnau's treatment of the central characters. These journalists were often reviled and criticized for their caustic and searing articles about the Vietnamese situation. These popular opinions undermined the legitimacy of their work and the truthfulness of their reportage of the deterioration of South Vietnam. Prochnau's accounting of these individuals runs contrary to these opinions, and in effect, reaffirms the validity of these journalists' work. For example, the David Halberstram has often been portrayed as an antiwar hero, yet the author stated that Halberstram was quite the opposite. "But not once during his Vietnam years or well afterward, did he (Halberstram) question America's right, even her need to be there (Vietnam). His criticisms were of methods and foolishness, lying and self-delusion, of a failure to set a policy that could win."(pg 141) These depictions exonerate the image of this hardy "band of brothers."
The aftermath — No More Vietnams — is well-covered in Appy’s work. The No More Vietnam mantra is usually presented as avoiding quagmires, focusing on quick, sharp wins. Instead, Appy shows politicians have manipulated No More Vietnams into meaning greater secrecy (think Central America in the 1980’s), more over-the-top justifications (“You don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”) and an emphasis on keeping American deaths inside the acceptable limits of the day to tamp down any public anti-war sentiment.
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
In 1950, Alger Hiss, formerly an employee of the Department of State, was convicted of perjury. Born in November 11, 1904, he grew up shabby-genteel in Baltimore, Maryland. Lean and boyishly handsome, Hiss was a graduate of Johns Hopkins University and of Harvard Law School and was a law clerk to the Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter and later a clerk for Associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In 1933, he worked for law firms in Boston and on Wall Street, joined Roosevelt¡¦s administration, and worked in several areas, including the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Nye Committee, the Justice Department, and, starting in 1936, the State Department. In the summer of 1944 he was a staff member at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, which created the blueprint for the organization that became the United Nations. By 1945, he was an adviser to Franklin Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference as well as to Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill. Later that year, Hiss served as acting the temporary secretary general at the San Francisco assembly that created the United Nations. In 1947, John Foster Dulles, Chairman of the board of Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, asked Hiss to become that organization¡¦s president.
In 1971, John Kerry stood in front of the Senate and spoke about his experiences in Vietnam as a soldier. There would be many that would agree with his position, some that would disagree and ultimately some that had no strong opinion at all. John Kerry knew that although he was speaking to the senate he was also speaking to the American people and through his intentional way of speaking he used this to his advantage. In John Kerry’s speech, strongly opposing the Vietnam War, Kerry successfully uses his persona as one who experienced the war head on, to reveal the lack of morality in Vietnam and paint the war as barbaric acts with no true purpose behind them.
On April 30, 1970, when Nixon gave a speech announcing his invasion of Cambodia, anti-war factions rose up across the United States. In the speech he stated that, “If, when the chips are down…the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and institutions around the world. I would rather be a one term president and do what I believe is right than to be a two term president at the cost of seeing America become a second rate power.” Students did not agree with Nixon and protests cropped up on university campuses in the days that followed his speech. Amongst these protesters were students of Kent State University, “The Cambodian invasion defined a watershed in the attitude of Kent students toward American policy in the Indochina War.” At this point, the first two days of May, the students were protesting Nixon’s actions. While the cou...
Within this controversial topic, two authors provide their sides of the story to whom is to blame and/or responsible for the “Cold War.” Authors Arnold A. Offner and John Lewis Gaddis duck it out in this controversial situation as each individual lead the readers to believe a certain aspect by divulging certain persuading information. However, although both sides have given historical data as substance for their claim, it is nothing more than a single sided personal perception of that particular piece of information; thus, leaving much room for interpretations by the reader/s. Finding the ...
...mbodia was intentionally carried out without the consent of Congress, which also violated the articles outlined in the United States Constitution. The charged that he faced for that was Unlawful Refusal to Contempt with Congress. After all, having kept the bombing of Cambodia a secret was not a success for President Nixon, carrying out the plan wasn’t successful either. It did not stop Communism from spreading. The media would find out about the bombing and the only person to blame for all of the consequences would be the corrupted President Nixon. His own poor egotistical actions led to his downfalls including the downfall of the great Watergate Scandal. He had put this burden upon himself because he carried out actions so freely without having the issue discussed with the Congress and taking advantage of the power of the presidency and going beyond the boundary.
Gaddis, John Lewis. “We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On Controversial Issues in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras and James M. SoRelle. 14th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 302-308.
General William Childs Westmoreland is a figure that is inextricably linked with the Vietnam War and he is the man that embodies the event to the American people. To look at a timeline of his life is to look at a steady progression to his command in Vietnam. Beyond that he dealt with the aftermath. In effect, it was the defining feature of his life, and Westmoreland was the defining face of Vietnam. His were the policies that kept us in the war, and his were the policies that many claimed lost it. In his own words, “The President never tried to tell me how to run the war. The tactics and battlefield strategy of running the war were mine. He did not interfere with this. He deferred to my judgment, and he let me run the war or pursue tactics and battlefield strategy as I saw fit.” As a result, his decisions had a direct and long lasting effect on America, and its worldview. Three themes run through Westmoreland’s life and help to explain his role in the Vietnam War. His character, likeable, responsible, but conservative, stubborn, and even plodding, was certainly a salient aspect of his career. His upbringing, education, and military experience helped define that character and prepared him, for better or worse, for his eventual command. Finally there was what might be called the system itself, the institutions and their ideologies that steadily promoted him, often, it would seem, for reasons having little to do with merit, to a command in which he found himself in many respects overmatched at home and in the theater of operations. The execution, the outcome, and the ultimate effects consequences of the Vietnam War cannot be viewed as entirely the result of any one man’s actions, but William Westm...
This book would be an excellent source for anyone wanting to understand this period of the entrance into the Vietnam War. It is a great look into the character of each of the participants. It also would benefit those who are studying and learning how to develop strategy and policy for future wars that the United States may involve itself in. Works Cited McMaster, H. R. Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
The years leading up to the 1972 election were filled with new political tactics. Going into the election year, President Nixon seemed like he could never lose the second term election after successfully negotiating with Vietnam, Beijing, and Russia to improve international relations (Emery 4). Raising international toughness made Nixon seem like the most worthy person to stay president. Fred Emery analyses in his novel Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon, the president was also setting up the first summit meeting in history with Soviet Union Presidents (3). There seemed to be nothing capable of holding the seemingly responsible man back. However, this assurance came with massive consequences. The absolute certainty that Nixon would be reelected fueled the lies and abuse of power by the Nixon government (Emery 195). As the outlook of landslide winnings took over the White House, the moral reasoning, “the end justifies the means” became more prevalent. Nixon was obsessed with winning and being successful. Under his command his staff did whatever possible to ...
Robert McNamara, a major U.S. political figure in the mid-to-late 20th century, served as the Secretary of Defence and was involved in decision-making for events such as World War II, the Cold war, and the Vietnam war. Though his legacy was great, it also created ripples of contention. Many cite him as a very flawed individual, whose flaws perhaps overwhelm his positive contributions. The 2003 documentary “The Fog of War”, which outlines these major U.S. events through the lens of McNamara’s experience, provided a human element to this controversial political figure that was so heavily scrutinized. It is centered around an interview with McNamara in which he reveals his own reflections. This was paired with real footage and pictures to provide
...nd innocent villagers of My Lai, it was a time when American’s questioned their own as being “bad guys” or “good guys”. Were America’s tortuous and cruel acts to be considered patriotic or dishonorable? Some Americans, with bitter feelings for all the American lives lost in the Vietnam War, gave credit to Lieutenant Calley for leading troops in participating in such an atrocious event. History shows that there is still much debate on some facts of the massacre and many stories and opinions, although we will never know the facts exactly, what we do know is that America will never forget this tragic event, it will be talked about in American History for many years to come, and the Vietminh hearts will always fill with sadness when they think of the many lives that were lost on that tragic day in history, their minds will always have unspeakable memories of that day.