The reasons for and manners in which a leader decides to engage in war usually vary from one war to the next. However, the reasons for engaging in war and the intensity of the war can certainly be similar. A comparison of the United States’ involvement in World War II, Korea in the 1950s, and Vietnam in the 1960s, shows the similar patterns for United States interests in foreign disputes. The United States ultimately became involved in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to put an end to the expansion of communism, but unlike in World War II, the United States’ fought limited wars in Korea and Vietnam due to concerns for the safety of the American population, the costliness of war, and because of conflicts in political agendas. The United States
…show more content…
North Korea was supported by the communist Soviets and South Korea was supported by the United States. Gary Hess, the author of “Presidential Decisions for War: Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq,” mentions, “…the aggression challenged the security of the United States. Whatever the Soviet motivation, the attack was on a government that was dependent on the United States and a symbol of the American position in Asia” (22). The United States wanted South Korea to remain strong and ensure that communism did not expand further. Additionally, “…if the United States stood by while South Korea fell, it would demonstrate to the world that the United States was either afraid of Soviet power or unconcerned with the safety of its allies” (Hook and Spanier 69). That would most likely lead to a rise in the amount of communist territories and a decline in the amount of respect other countries had for the United States. Both of those results would be extremely costly for the United …show more content…
In terms of the reasons the United States limited themselves during wars, one reason seemed constant. High expenses and personal agendas were sometimes reasons why the United States was limited during the wars, but it seems as if the safety of American troops was consistently under consideration. The president of the United States has a tough job of balancing the protection of American troops, while trying to effectively defeat the enemy. More recently, President Barack Obama is facing that dilemma with the ISIS terrorist organization. This type of dilemma will most likely haunt presidents of the United States for many more years to
North Korea was supported by the communist Soviets and South Korea was supported by the United States. Gary Hess, the author of “Presidential Decisions for War: Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq,” mentions, “…the aggression challenged the security of the United States. Whatever the Soviet motivation, the attack was on a government that was dependent on the United States and a symbol of the American position in Asia” (22). The United States wanted South Korea to remain strong and ensure that communism did not expand further. Additionally, “…if the United States stood by while South Korea fell, it would demonstrate to the world that the United States was either afraid of Soviet power or unconcerned with the safety of its allies” (Hook and Spanier 69). That would most likely lead to a rise in the amount of communist territories and a decline in the amount of respect other countries had for the United States. Both of those results would be extremely costly for the United …show more content…
In terms of the reasons the United States limited themselves during wars, one reason seemed constant. High expenses and personal agendas were sometimes reasons why the United States was limited during the wars, but it seems as if the safety of American troops was consistently under consideration. The president of the United States has a tough job of balancing the protection of American troops, while trying to effectively defeat the enemy. More recently, President Barack Obama is facing that dilemma with the ISIS terrorist organization. This type of dilemma will most likely haunt presidents of the United States for many more years to