Military Force

The United States’ response to the Holocaust is a much-discussed and very sensitive subject for a variety of groups close to or related to the situation. The opinions on the subject are diverse and far-reaching, and the analyzations and comparison of some of these can lead to a greater understanding of not only the happenings of the Holocaust itself but also the social reactions to the event by the many groups involved. Four sources I intend to compare include Martin Gilbert’s Auschwitz and the Allies, David Wyman’s The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, W.D. Rubinstein’s The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved the Jews from the Nazis, and Peter Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life, because I believe that these four sources make up a diverse and widespread selection from which nearly all opinions, or the most conflicting ones, can be observed and interpreted. The first work uses an investigatory style that proposes pieces of evidence from the period shortly before the Holocaust that could have allowed the allies further and more prudent action. Similarly, the second work argues that there is substantial evidence that the United States and the rest of the allies could certainly have saved thousands of lives with earlier and more aggressive action, but argues from a more opinion and theoretical style that focuses less on

World War II is generally viewed to be a moral war, or, as Howard Zinn would put it, “a good war.” This conventional impression of World War II results from American propaganda, along with misinterpretations of related events. Quite the contrary, the United States’ foreign policy, especially during World War II, was driven by imperialist goals rather than humanitarian concern. These foreign interventions are usually justified using political ideologies that advocate the spread of democracy but the United States government fails to act in the interests of the common people in other countries; instead, the US government intervened in foreign countries to protect its own needs and those of its private corporations. In addition, the

Economics, national security, and democratic values were all factors involved in explanation of United States’ response to Japanese and German aggression. To the superior degree, economics did not surpass the national security and democratic values. The United States are acknowledged for their freedom and equality, therefore their democratic values are a focal precedence. Meanwhile, our nation’s wellbeing is essential to use consequently the national security is foremost aspect in the response to Japanese and German aggression. America sought to be isolated at one point and avoid going to war with other countries for the protection of our country, but then the Pearl Harbor attack occurred. Bearing in mind the attack the Japanese put upon us, we entered the war which triggered these factors to take place, we insisted on spreading our democratic ideals. The aggression that the German and Japanese placed with us managed to make us secure our nation, preserve our nations self-governing principles in mind, along with the economics involved. It is said that if the French and British strength weakens, “…the United States will find itself alone in a barbaric world…” it is continued by saying that dictators all agree “Democracy must be wiped from the face of the earth” which exemplifies that America insists on spreading their democratic views and building their national security. (Document C).

Imagine living in a world where your own homeland is under attack and you can’t rely on any other parts of the world to send you help. There are a multitude of reasons as to why we urgently need the interventionism policy in the United States. One of the biggest reasons would be while the Holocaust was occurring in Germany we were well aware about it, but didn’t come to intervene until it was too late. Along with this, another reason would be to maintain the allies that we have. Although the United States needs to consider the financial and human costs, overall it should follow a foreign policy of interventionism when it’s necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe and to maintain our allies.

United States involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last thirteen years has resulted in much debate over the role of the United States military. This debate is encouraged, as it will sustain conversation of how to best employ an important yet dwindling national resource. The publication of Dominic Tierney’s article “Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars” speaks directly to this debate. The article argues that the US military has lost the capability of winning wars since World War II . Tierney posits that the world is a more peaceful place and the United States is incapable of adapting to the resultant style of low intensity conflict that normally rises with state peace. He believes the U.S. government has a lust for global hegemony. The excessive use of military force is the only way to quench Washington’s thirst He concludes with an implication that American’s victory culture has led to disillusionment of our government’s expectations, and that this culture should be reexamined in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life in the future. Although Tierney makes a valiant effort to question US military strategic efforts over the last 70 years, he fails to realize that America’s emphasis on national security is a major contributing factor for why the world has seen a reduction in state-on-state war.

Over the course of this school year, the resurfacing topic of controversy is morality. Through the memoirs of Elie Wiesel, the darkness of humanity reveals itself. The sad truth this tells is that humans are callous or immoral to fellow man on an individual, national, and even global scale, leading to events that go down in history as atrocities. The international debate this raises, is whether nations, like America, should institute a policy of 'humanitarian military intervention' which is when an independent government fails to deliver human rights to the governed, other countries without permission can intervene with military force. Morality is the focus of the international debate regarding this foreign policy, because that underlying motivation

For the last one hundred years, the United States has been part of numerous regional and global wars. Logically, its engagement in these wars had foundations on various reasons, and it employed numerous tactics to ensure that it emerged victorious in each instance. Besides, these wars had different implications, some of which are still significantly relevant to the contemporary society. Since its establishment as a superpower at the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States has engaged in some legitimate wars and employed incalculable armed intrusions (Rockoff 8). Some of the most famous wars America partook in the last century include World War I & II, the Korean War (1950 – 1953), the Vietnam

American Exceptionalism has lead the country to believe that it is a victim and a constant target as it subsists in a believed to be a hostile environment. Therefore, America must protect itself and other lands from this presumed hostility. Its duty is to liberate other societies has been realized in many ways. They include foreign aid, diplomacy, economic and political pressure. It even functions as far as including strategies like embargoes. However, if it does not work, there still remains military intervention. For instance, the military operations that the United States has taken in the Arab world. This is considered to be the duty of liberating societies. On the other hand, some would see this as a move by America to make other

“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every Free State.”-Thomas Jefferson. It is provided that all Americans are free individuals and are able to do almost everything that they want. America has five armed forces that protect us every day. These five include Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Coast Guard. The Army is the largest branch of the United States Armed Forces and preforms land-based military operation. (army.mil) Navy is the naval warfare service branch of the United States Armed Forces and is the largest and most powerful navy in the world with the highest combined battle fleet tonnage. (navy.com) Marine Corps is responsible for providing power from the sea, using the mobility of the U.S. Navy to rapidly deliver combined- arms task forces. (marines.com) The Air Force is the aerial warfare service branch of the United States Armed Forces and was initially part of the United States Army. (airforce.com) And finally the Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique among the U.S. military

The United States of America holds a unique position in the world by being the most powerful nation. Our nation leads the global economy and dedicates more money to foreign aid than any other country. It has been seventy years since the last world war, yet the United States still maintains the largest and most powerful military on the planet. A position it has upheld since the end of WWII. Should the United States remain prepared for a large scale, global conflict? In this essay, I will detail the contentions surrounding the subject of the US maintaining such a large military.

Under the Utilitarian argument, if the young man went to fight and it helped the greater good than it would be a moral choice. If you look at this from a Kantian standpoint, the same decision would not be moral and carry any worth if he had false intentions to why he was fighting. I do not think that either of these positions are the best way to deal with this dilemma, at least if you looked at it from a Kant style perspective, if the young man stayed home and helped his mother he would be able to live with his decision. If he decided to go to war he would be guilty that he had not been there in his mom’s time of

​Throughout history there have been several radical events which have ultimately affected large groups of the human population, if not the world in its entirety. The events of World War II are without question a part of that list of radical events. Lasting approximately six years, this global war went from unprovoked acts of military invasion, to acts of mass genocide, to utilization of suicide bombers, and even the first appearance and use of atomic weapons. While it’s not hard to understand why the events in this war, or really any war or large scale battle, can be considered radical in nature, it is also not uncommon to also question whether certain actions were or were not ethical [1]. For instance, it has often been questioned whether

I use the virtues of justice, love, and generosity to help determine decisions in my life (Panicola pg. 25). This theory comes and complicates the more consequentialist theory of “the ends justify the means.” This virtue theory allows my definite line of good and bad to be challenged. If the virtue of love is fixed in the decision of bombing the terrorist’s camps, the decision might be that the love we should have for all human beings should rank above any bad that may arise later, if we do not bomb the camps. Virtues cause a decision to be more than just right and wrong, but what does it mean to be a good person? This would lead me to say, “don’t bomb the camps”. However, because I use both the consequentialist and the virtue theory, my true answer is this. I would choose the path of removing the people from the camp and the surrounding area to avoid harming them. After that I would allow the carnage to occur. Now this is no way near a perfect answer, but it is the most objective AND emotional I can see. This brings the principle of double effect. This is the principle that helps us determine whether we can progress ethically with an action that has two effects, one good, the other bad (Panciola pg. 57). This gives the most amount of love for those who have not harmed anyone and the justice from those that

the tenet of preventative war is immensely controversial as it is questionable how the elimination of a functional nation-state including all of the associated collateral damage and loss of life can justify the safety of the United States. Indeed, the ramifications of preventative war would only serve to be detrimental to national security as the deaths of innocent bystanders would only flourish more adversaries of the United

Two International incidents where the United States Military in the last five years and what foreign policy can be traced back to after the civil war that was created.