The rhetoric of the Cold War portrayed the United States as leading the fight for freedom against a repressive, evil, and totalitarian regime. This regime was portrayed as ultimately wishing to instill its methods of repression on the rest of the free world. So the strategy employed could be considered one of containment.
This strategy, in practice, meant making sure Soviet influence was stifled in all free countries. This practice was found in Central and South America. Through military training and financial aid to anti-communist groups in these areas, the United States attempted to ensure that any Soviet influence would be quickly eradicated. However, such practices were not limited to this region. The strategy of containing Soviet influence could be seen throughout the Cold War. Furthermore, the rhetoric pointed to the United States as a last hope for the survival of freedom. It was only the United States that had the resources after World War II to feasibly make any impact on a geo-political scale. This influence is easily identified in the United States decision to bankroll Greece after World War II to ensure the Soviets would not come to control the Mediterranean area and the trade routes contained there. This decision was also reflective of the policy of containment in that if the Soviets were to gain control of the Mediterranean, then they would be able to move further south and control the Middle East and the oil there that the United States relied on heavily. A simple, but truly frightening, domino effect would surely follow according to the commonly held belief of the leadership in the United States. This portrayal of the United States as a last hope, in the rhetoric of the Cold War, was coupled with the portrayal of the United States’ uneasiness in this role as freedom’s warrior. At various points during the Cold War, the United States was portrayed as having no choice but to step into that role. Whether the lack of options stemmed from being the military and economic power of the 20th century international community, the lack of options certainly stemmed from the United States self definition just as much, if not more, than any definition being placed upon it by other countries. Examples of this “last option” can be found in Kennedy’s justification for renewal of nuclear testing. Such a renewal was something that had to be done, not because it was what the United States wanted to do, but because the United States was responsible enough to renew testing against its own states beliefs and intentions, for the greater security of the whole world. In the rhetoric of the War on Terror, the United States is once again portrayed in its, now more comfortable, role once again fighting for the freedom of all peace loving inhabitants of earth, this time, against evil terrorists whose ultimate goal is the destruction of freedom itself. However, a strategy of containment is certainly not in order for the 21st century especially against such an elusive foe as the international terrorist. Without any creed, save destruction, an international …show more content…
It is this “willingness,” of the United States, to do what is right that has been portrayed in both the rhetoric of the Cold War as well as the rhetoric of the War on Terror. In any case, we do lead the international ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ and this coalition is portrayed as consisting of only those countries with the courage and resolve to face an evil like terrorism.
Furthermore, recognizing this resemblance in the rhetoric of both wars is especially significant considering the campaigns are clearly separated by time, region, and philosophy. This might lead some to draw a greater understanding of other commonalities shared by the two …show more content…
In many ways, the rhetoric of the Cold War and the policies and operations that ensued from that rhetoric, were indeed noble and worthwhile. This does not gibe credence or legitimacy of future, and in the case of the War on Terror, unrelated operations also fought under the noble and worthy banner of freedom. Furthermore, the lessons from the Cold War need to be applied to future conflicts whether those conflicts occur at home or abroad, and those lessons need be applied, or at least acknowledged, in order to ensure the success of those future
This strategy, in practice, meant making sure Soviet influence was stifled in all free countries. This practice was found in Central and South America. Through military training and financial aid to anti-communist groups in these areas, the United States attempted to ensure that any Soviet influence would be quickly eradicated. However, such practices were not limited to this region. The strategy of containing Soviet influence could be seen throughout the Cold War. Furthermore, the rhetoric pointed to the United States as a last hope for the survival of freedom. It was only the United States that had the resources after World War II to feasibly make any impact on a geo-political scale. This influence is easily identified in the United States decision to bankroll Greece after World War II to ensure the Soviets would not come to control the Mediterranean area and the trade routes contained there. This decision was also reflective of the policy of containment in that if the Soviets were to gain control of the Mediterranean, then they would be able to move further south and control the Middle East and the oil there that the United States relied on heavily. A simple, but truly frightening, domino effect would surely follow according to the commonly held belief of the leadership in the United States. This portrayal of the United States as a last hope, in the rhetoric of the Cold War, was coupled with the portrayal of the United States’ uneasiness in this role as freedom’s warrior. At various points during the Cold War, the United States was portrayed as having no choice but to step into that role. Whether the lack of options stemmed from being the military and economic power of the 20th century international community, the lack of options certainly stemmed from the United States self definition just as much, if not more, than any definition being placed upon it by other countries. Examples of this “last option” can be found in Kennedy’s justification for renewal of nuclear testing. Such a renewal was something that had to be done, not because it was what the United States wanted to do, but because the United States was responsible enough to renew testing against its own states beliefs and intentions, for the greater security of the whole world. In the rhetoric of the War on Terror, the United States is once again portrayed in its, now more comfortable, role once again fighting for the freedom of all peace loving inhabitants of earth, this time, against evil terrorists whose ultimate goal is the destruction of freedom itself. However, a strategy of containment is certainly not in order for the 21st century especially against such an elusive foe as the international terrorist. Without any creed, save destruction, an international …show more content…
It is this “willingness,” of the United States, to do what is right that has been portrayed in both the rhetoric of the Cold War as well as the rhetoric of the War on Terror. In any case, we do lead the international ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ and this coalition is portrayed as consisting of only those countries with the courage and resolve to face an evil like terrorism.
Furthermore, recognizing this resemblance in the rhetoric of both wars is especially significant considering the campaigns are clearly separated by time, region, and philosophy. This might lead some to draw a greater understanding of other commonalities shared by the two …show more content…
In many ways, the rhetoric of the Cold War and the policies and operations that ensued from that rhetoric, were indeed noble and worthwhile. This does not gibe credence or legitimacy of future, and in the case of the War on Terror, unrelated operations also fought under the noble and worthy banner of freedom. Furthermore, the lessons from the Cold War need to be applied to future conflicts whether those conflicts occur at home or abroad, and those lessons need be applied, or at least acknowledged, in order to ensure the success of those future