In Crusaders and Pragmatists, Stoessinger mainly compares and contrasts two schools of thought in American foreign policy: the crusader and the pragmatist. Stoessinger defines a crusader as someone “whose hallmark is a missionary zeal to make the world better, but often manages to leave it in worse shape than before” due to their undying belief in their ideas while a pragmatist “refuses to get locked into a losing policy, changing directions without inflicting damage to his self-esteem” and is able to accept suggestions and receive criticism. (Stoessinger 366) John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson represent the two schools of thoughts respectively as Stoessinger reflects upon Kennedy’s actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Johnson’s actions
…show more content…
The best event which exemplifies this belief were the actions Johnson took during the Vietnam war. Johnson saw the war and its purpose as an insult to democracy across the world. His general “had estimated that only 300,00 troops would be needed by the end of 1966. He quickly revised that figure to 400,000… close to 600,000 by the end of 1967.” (Stoessinger 191) Johnson quickly turned what could have been a minor war into a major war which would leave a blemish upon his presidency and the democratic party. The crusader will exacerbate a conflict as he sees fit; they will ignore the truth and only believe in what they want to believe. This is the price of ignorance as Johnson could not understand his opponent. Therefore, if Johnson wasn’t a crusader, maybe we would have never taken this path. As Stoessinger notes in Crusaders and Pragmatists, “If Kennedy’s statements of intent before his death are to be believed, the United States would have withdrawn, or at worst, limited its involvement without committing combat troops.” (Stoessinger 202) As a pragmatist, Kennedy wouldn’t engage in a prolonged war that he knew nothing about. It would go against Kennedy’s modus operandi and he would actually gather a team of advisors who are knowledgeable about East Asia. Johnson’s team of advisors, on the other hand, were great foreign policy …show more content…
The world is becoming bipolar again as China’s economy and military might continue to rise. (Hook 9) Therefore, the United States should tread carefully in order to avoid exposing itself to weaknesses in how it approaches foreign policy under Donald Trump. The greatest issue in foreign policy today which threatens US supremacy in the world is how we should react to the threat North Korea poses with its possession of ICBMs and other weapons capable of mass destruction. On one hand, the crusader will charge and face the threat, but will ignore critical factors like the possibly of blowback from Russia and China while the pragmatist will search for the best avenue of success, but that will simply delay our response to North Korea whose leader, Kim Jong Un, is unpredictable. It is important for Donald Trump to make careful considerations in this situation as he does not want to risk starting World War III or allowing other countries to perceive the United States as a weak superpower due to its lackadaisical response to North
The best event which exemplifies this belief were the actions Johnson took during the Vietnam war. Johnson saw the war and its purpose as an insult to democracy across the world. His general “had estimated that only 300,00 troops would be needed by the end of 1966. He quickly revised that figure to 400,000… close to 600,000 by the end of 1967.” (Stoessinger 191) Johnson quickly turned what could have been a minor war into a major war which would leave a blemish upon his presidency and the democratic party. The crusader will exacerbate a conflict as he sees fit; they will ignore the truth and only believe in what they want to believe. This is the price of ignorance as Johnson could not understand his opponent. Therefore, if Johnson wasn’t a crusader, maybe we would have never taken this path. As Stoessinger notes in Crusaders and Pragmatists, “If Kennedy’s statements of intent before his death are to be believed, the United States would have withdrawn, or at worst, limited its involvement without committing combat troops.” (Stoessinger 202) As a pragmatist, Kennedy wouldn’t engage in a prolonged war that he knew nothing about. It would go against Kennedy’s modus operandi and he would actually gather a team of advisors who are knowledgeable about East Asia. Johnson’s team of advisors, on the other hand, were great foreign policy …show more content…
The world is becoming bipolar again as China’s economy and military might continue to rise. (Hook 9) Therefore, the United States should tread carefully in order to avoid exposing itself to weaknesses in how it approaches foreign policy under Donald Trump. The greatest issue in foreign policy today which threatens US supremacy in the world is how we should react to the threat North Korea poses with its possession of ICBMs and other weapons capable of mass destruction. On one hand, the crusader will charge and face the threat, but will ignore critical factors like the possibly of blowback from Russia and China while the pragmatist will search for the best avenue of success, but that will simply delay our response to North Korea whose leader, Kim Jong Un, is unpredictable. It is important for Donald Trump to make careful considerations in this situation as he does not want to risk starting World War III or allowing other countries to perceive the United States as a weak superpower due to its lackadaisical response to North