Military

Way War?

 

CSC 1991

 

SUBJECT AREA - General

 

 

                                                           Major Chuck Oltman

 

                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

 

                                    WHY WAR?

 

 

  During this century the United States has engaged in five major conflicts--

World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian

Gulf War. This paper broadly surveys the reasons why we have waged these wars.

For each conflict we set the stage for our involvement, examine the reasons for our

involvement, and briefly touch on conflict termination. Finally, we look for any

common themes in these conflicts that will help us answer the question: "Why war?"

   The United States fought each of these twentieth-century conflicts with different

allies against different enemies for different reasons. World War I was fought to

"make the world safe for democracy." We entered WWII in response to an attack by

Japan and a declaration of war by Germany. Wars in Korea and Vietnam were both

fought, in their own way, to contain communism. We rallied our forces against Iraq

in order to restore the legitimate government in Kuwait and to protect our access to

Persian Gulf oil. Is there a common theme here that will help us better understand

why the United States goes to war?

   Some common threads do run through these wars, the most important of which is

the primacy of the President in determining when military force will be used. Why do

we go to war? We go to war because the President decides that military force is the

appropriate instrument of national power to use to accomplish our national

objectives. We have fought wars this century because the President of the United

States decided it was in our best interests to do so. He does not make this decision

without other counsel, but the final choice belongs to him.

 

                                   Why War?

 

 

                                    Outline

 

Thesis Statement. This paper will examine the reasons why the United States has

waged major wars during the twentieth century. We will then look for any common

themes in these conflicts that will help us answer the question: "Why war?"

 

 

 

I. World War I

      A. Background

      B. Reasons for entering war

      C. Outcome

 

II. World War II

      A. Background

      B. Reasons for entering war

      C. Outcome

 

III. Korean War

      A. Background

      B. Reasons for entering war

      C. Outcome

 

IV. Vietnam War

      A. Background

      B. Reasons for entering war

      C. Outcome

 

V. Southwest Asian War

      A. Background

      B. Reasons for entering war

      C. Outcome

 

VI. Analysis

      A. Theme identification

      B. Theme examination

VI. Conclusions

 

                                   Why War?

 

 

       "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will"1

 

 

   Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has waged war. The reasons for

engaging in this form of diplomacy are almost as varied as the diplomats who have

employed it. As the noted military thinker Carl von Clausewitz points out:

       First, therefore, it is clear that war should never be thought of as something

       autonomous but always as an instrument of policy; otherwise the entire history of war

       would contradict us. Only this approach will enable us to penetrate the problem

       intelligently. Second, this way of looking at it will show us how wars must vary with

       the nature of their motives and of the situations which give rise to them.2

 

According to Clausewitz, then, wars vary with the nature of their motives. By

examining some of the wars we have fought, we will be able to increase our

understanding of why we fight wars.

   In 1917 the United States joined the Allies in the First World War. Twenty-three

years after fighting the "war to end all wars" we joined some of the same nations in

fighting the Second World War. Less than five years after completing that war we

found ourselves halfway around the world embroiled in a much different kind of

conflict in Korea. Following on the heels of Korea was a conflict that was very

similar yet very different--the Vietnam War. And finally, after an almost twenty-year

lull, we became involved in our most recent major conflict, the Persian Gulf War.

Why has a nation that enjoys the protection of two large oceans and relatively

 

 

  1Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 75.

  2Ibid., p. 88.

 

friendly neighbors chosen to use the military instrument of national power? What

factors drove the use of military force? What vital interests were we protecting? For

what objectives were our soldiers fighting and dying?

   This paper will broadly survey the reasons why the United States has waged major

wars during the twentieth century. Because of the scope of this endeavor, we will

focus only on the one or two key reasons for fighting the war. For each conflict we

will set the stage for our involvement, examine the reasons for our involvement, and

briefly touch on conflict termination. Finally, we will look for any common themes in

these conflicts that will help us answer the question: "Why war?"

 

 

                                   World War I

Background

 

   The forty years following the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) were tumultuous

times. At the turn of the century Germany was the dominant power on the

European continent. The lines of power were not clear, however, and mistrust

between nations was rampant. To counter these political instabilities, many alliances

were formed.

   This alliance structure eventually collected around two major axes, the Triple

Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) and the Triple Entente (France,

Great Britain, and Russia). The exact terms of these alliances varied, but they all

called for the signatories to come to the aid of their alliance partners if they were

attacked.3 Bellicose behavior and mistrust were the norm. This tinderbox was

eventually ignited when a Serbian terrorist assassinated the Austrian Archduke

Franz Ferdinand and his wife on June 28,1914. Less than six weeks later the

continent was at war.

 

  3Brig. Gen. Vincent J. Esposito, ed., The West Point Atlas of American Wars, Vol. II (Washington

D.C.: Praeger Publishers, 1959), Map I.

 

   In its early stages the war was fought between Germany and Austria-Hungary

(known as the Central Powers) and Belgium, Great Britain, France, Russia, and

Serbia (known as the Allies). Italy initially elected to stay on the sidelines because, in

her estimation, the Triple Alliance had not been attacked. As the war continued the

Central Powers were joined by Turkey and Bulgaria; the Allies were actively assisted

by Greece, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Portugal, Rumania, and the United States.

 

U.S. Involvement

 

   When the war began in 1914 the commitment of U.S. military forces to the

European continent was not an option. America's long history of non-involvement in

European wars, which was deeply rooted in the Monroe Doctrine, caused the

American people and leadership to pursue a policy of neutrality. As the war

progressed, the United States continued to suffer the effects of Germany's submarine

warfare on commerce shipping. These losses of people and material, coupled with

the generally pro-Allied position of the majority of Americans, brought the U.S. very

close to entering the war by early 1917. Finally, after ten days spent "in virtual

seclusion, taking counsel with no one save his god,"4 President Wilson opted for war.

On April 6,1917 the U.S. formally declared war on the Central Powers.

 

   What were the reasons for this declaration? President Wilson outlined American

war aims in what were called the "Fourteen Points." These goals included "...a new

world order based on principles of national self-determination, democratic

government, freedom of the seas, an end to imperialism, open diplomacy,

disarmament, and free economic development."5 Many of these goals were part of

Wilson's vision for the League of Nations. However, to most Americans the picture

was much clearer--we needed to defeat the Germans in order to "make the world

 

  4Melvin Small, Was War Necessary? (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980), p. 206.

  5Peter Maslowski and Allan R. Millet, For the Common Defense (New York: The Free Press,

1984), p. 331.

 

safe for democracy." This moral imperative was spelled out in Wilson's war

declaration to Congress: "The day has come when America is privileged to spend her

blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness. God

helping her, she can do no other."6

 

War Terminafion

 

   After a tremendous amount of bloodshed and suffering, the Allies prevailed and

the "war to end all wars" ended on November 11,1918. The Treaty of Versailles was

eventually signed and a peace of sorts was wrought. However, the harsh terms

forced on Germany became the seeds that eventually blossomed into World War II.

   Had American war aims been accomplished? Many of Wilson's Fourteen Points

were stillborn due to U.S. Congress refusal to join the newly formed League of

Nations. We had succeeded in making the world safe for democracy, but this victory

did not produce the enduring peace that was so eagerly sought at the onset of the

war.

 

 

                                 World War II

 

Background

 

   The European portion of the Second World War was a direct result of two factors.

First, as previously mentioned, the abusive "peace" imposed by the Treaty of

Versailles made Germany susceptible to the rise of fascist power. Secondly, France,

Germany, and Russia had all lost an entire generation of their nation's youth in the

Great War. This immense loss made these countries very reluctant to resume

making similar payments. This reluctance gave Adolph Hitler the opportunity to do

what the Allies feared most--rearm Germany! By the time the Allies had generated

 

 

  6Col. Dennis M. Drew and Dr. Donald M. Snow, The Eagle's Talons (Maxwell Air Force Base:

Air University Press, 1988), p. 149.

 

the will to resist Germany, Hitler had already annexed Austria, Czechoslovakia, and

Poland. The occupation by force of Poland in September 1939 finally brought the

formal declaration of war on Germany by Great Britain and France. Germany was

joined via treaty agreements with Italy and Japan to form the Axis Powers. Opposing

the Axis Powers were France, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, and

numerous other nations (known as the Allied Powers).

   In the Pacific region, Japan had continued her efforts to "grow" in the early 1930's

by invading and occupying the Manchuria region of China. The U.S. vehemently

protested this aggression, but did nothing. As Japan continued to attempt to

dominate China, the U.S. began to use various means, primarily economic sanctions,

to try and convince Japan to withdraw from China. Tensions continued to heighten

until Japan, wanting to eliminate the only real military threat to her continued

expansion, initiated hostilities with the bombing of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl

Harbor on December 7, 1941.

 

U.S. Involvement

 

   Much like the early years of World War I, the U.S. was initially averse to once

again sending our boys "over there" to "pluck their chestnuts out of the fire." Both

the failure of the post-WWI peace and the Great Depression combined to create a

very strong isolationist sentiment in the U.S. During the period of 1939 to 1941

President Roosevelt recognized that eventually we would have to get involved in the

European war; many leaders believed we would end up fighting the Japanese as well.

However, Roosevelt also foresaw the great difficulties he would have in convincing

the American populace to commit men and money to the war effort.

   By attacking Pearl Harbor Japan solved half of the President's problem. On

December 8,1941, one day after the Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S. declared war on

Japan. But what about Europe? How was FDR going to convince the American

people to throw in their lot with Great Britain and France (and by this time, the

Soviet Union)? Once again the enemy took care of the problem. Three days after

the U.S. declared war on Japan, Hitler honored his treaty obligations by declaring

war on the United States!

   Unlike the other twentieth century wars, our reasons for becoming involved in the

Second World War were unambiguous. We had been attacked and we had to

retaliate in kind. Our national resolve was eventually transformed by FDR into

equally unambiguous war aims--the enemies' unconditional surrender. This clarity of

purpose and goals made World War II a very popular war. Unfortunately, this same

clarity created an image in the minds of the American people of what war is

supposed to look like--an image that may never be repeated.

 

War Termination

 

   Our war aims were satisfied. Germany surrendered in May 1945. After the

bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, Japan capitulated in

August of the same year. However, once again, differing visions of what constitutes a

better peace (this time between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union) became

the beginnings of the next conflict.

 

 

                                     Korea

 

Background

 

   After defeating Korea's two northern neighbors (China in 1895 and Russia in

1905), Japan formally annexed Korea in 1910. Korea remained under Japanese

control until Japan was defeated by the Allies in August of 1945. At that time, the

United States and the Soviet Union reached an agreement on how to remove the

beaten Japanese from Korea. The U.S. would accept the surrender of the Japanese

south of the 38th parallel, and the Soviet Union would do the same north of the

parallel. President Truman viewed this as an administrative division to facilitate the

handling of the surrender, but Stalin had other ideas. As he had done in Europe,

Stalin created a buffer zone between Russia and her perceived enemies by

establishing a communist government in what came to be known as North Korea. As

the result of a United Nations resolution, democratic elections were held in South

Korea and a conservative constitutional assembly was elected. Both sides

consolidated their positions. Korea was divided.

   In June of 1950, the North Koreans attempted to reunite the Korean peninsula by

force. The invasion caught the South Koreans by surprise and almost succeeded in

overrunning their country. President Truman responded swiftly by authorizing the

use of U.S. military forces in Korea and spearheading the necessary United Nations

resolutions to allow that body to respond with force.

 

U.S. Involvement

 

   The Korean War was a different experience for the United States. The two

previous wars had both been coalition events that were ongoing when we got

involved. Also, they were total wars--the objective was the destruction of the enemy's

ability to fight7. In contrast, the Korean War was fought under the flag of the United

Nations, although we were the dominant force and the U.N. commander was an

American general. Also, the objective of the war was not the complete destruction of

the enemy, but just to re-establish the ante-bellum border. This conflict was a limited

war. Finally, it was not technically a war at all, but a police action. A formal

declaration of war was neither sought nor received from Congress.

   Why did the U.S. get involved? Five months prior to the invasion by the North

Koreans U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson made a speech where he declared

 

 

 

  7Ibid., p. 226.

 

that Korea was not a vital interest to the U.S. If Korea was not that important to us,

why were we so quick to commit U.S. troops?

   The answer lies in the prevailing view of communism in the early 1950's. As

World War II was drawing to a close, "Uncle Joe" Stalin made it very clear that

capitalists and communists were not on the same team. His moves in Eastern

Europe and Korea, as well as his rhetoric, revealed his hand unmistakably.

Communism would dominate the world! Coupled with this aggressive behavior was

our view of world communism as a monolithic entity. All manifestations of

communism had the same source and the same goals. The only question was where

and when this creature would next rear its ugly head. When North Korea invaded

South Korea we had our answer. The reason we entered the was unambiguous--we

had to stop the spread of communism!

 

War Termination

 

   After three years of fighting, shifting objectives, and stalled negotiations, a truce

was declared. This truce restored the border at the 38th parallel--our initial

objectives had been accomplished. To facilitate South Korean acceptance of the

peace accord, the United States agreed to keep some forces stationed in Korea.

These forces remain in South Korea to this day. After almost forty years, the peace

has held; however, it remains a fragile peace.

 

 

                                    Vietnam

 

Background

 

   The U.S. had just fought a limited war to prevent the spread of communism. We

knew the mistakes we had made and would not make them again. We had learned

our lessons. If this were true, we would have never gotten involved in what turned

out to be the worst war in our military experience--Vietnam.

 

   Vietnam had a long history of being subjected to various colonial powers. During

World War II Vietnam was under Japanese control. As the war ended, the Allies

made arrangements for the Japanese in Vietnam to be disarmed by the French.

Things proceeded well until it became obvious that the French had no intentions of

granting independence to Vietnam. A long guerilla war ensued in which the

Vietnamese gradually wore down both French military assets and French support for

the war. Hostilities ended with the 1954 Geneva Accord which divided the country

into north and south sections along the 17th parallel.

   The U.S., which had provided assistance to the French during their struggle in

Vietnam, began to assume more and more responsibility for ensuring that South

Vietnam did not come under communist rule. This assistance increased gradually

through three different presidential administrations until, in 1965, President Johnson

began providing large numbers of troops and not just "advisors." We were once

again involved in a conflict on-the Asia mainland.

 

U.S. Involvement

 

   The story of U.S. involvement in Vietnam is one of gradualism. We went to war

little by little. Unlike Korea, no single major decision was made to commit U.S.

troops. The decisions spanned five different presidents and twenty-three years. Why

were we there at all?

   The overriding reason we were involved militarily in Vietnam was the same reason

we went to Korea--to contain communism. Our policymakers were still convinced

that, despite the Sino-Soviet rift, communism was a cancer in the world and had to be

opposed wherever it appeared. If one country fell, others would fall just like

dominoes. As Drew and Snow point out, "If there was an underlying, pervasive issue

common to the entire sweep of US involvement in Vietnam, it was the containment

of communism: the determination not to allow the expansion of another Communist

regime."8

 

War Termination

 

   U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a failure. We were unable to defeat the North

Vietnamese and we were unable to train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves

adequately in our absence. Due in large part to the opposition to the war back in the

United States, a "peace" was negotiated in 1973; we then departed Vietnam. Two

years later South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam and the country was

unified by force and became the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Communism had

not been contained.

 

 

                                Southwest Asia

 

Background

 

   The Berlin Wall came down. East and West Germany were united, and the Cold

War ended. The shift in world order was rapid and resulted in a very different

picture--a much better picture in the eyes of the U.S. and other Western powers.

Socialist governments, under tremendous economic pressure and internal strife, were

crumbling all around the world. A more peaceful world was emerging! Or was it?

   On August 2,1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraqs leader, Saddam Hussein, claimed

he was righting a past wrong and simply reclaiming Kuwait as Iraqs nineteenth

province. However, in all likelihood, Iraq was attempting to get out from under

tremendous international debt caused primarily by Saddam's fiscal priorities and the

eight-year war between Iran and Iraq (1980-1988). As former Assistant Secretary of

State Richard Murphy said, "To get out of bankruptcy, you rob a bank."9

 

  8Ibid., p. 275.

  9As quoted in Don Oberdorfer, "Missed Signals in the Middle East," The Washington Post

Magazine, 17 March 1991, p. 23.

 

   U.S. President George Bush led the world's response via numerous United

Nations resolutions. These resolutions called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and

return to ante-bellum borders. Iraq refused to comply resulting in U.N. troop

deployments and economic sanctions against Iraq. Continuing his efforts through

personal diplomacy and United Nations channels, President Bush assembled a

coalition military force. This force consisted of troops and equipment from over

twenty nations including the U.S., Great Britain, France, Italy, Egypt, and Syria.

Initially tasked with preventing Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia, this coalition force

was eventually called on to forcefully eject Iraq from Kuwait. On January 16, 1991,

following six months of successful deterrence and failed negotiations, the war began.

 

U.S. Involvement

 

   Why did President Bush respond so decisively? The U.S. has had a longstanding

interest in the Middle East. President Carter formalized that concern by establishing

access to Persian Gulf oil as a vital interest to the United States. President Bush

agreed. In October 1989, Bush signed National Security Directive 26 which states,

"Access to the Persian Gulf and the key friendly states in the area is vital to U.S.

national security."10 By overrunning Kuwait, Saddam Hussein threatened those vital

interests.

   Not only was an important interest of the U.S. being threatened, but President

Bush was convinced that something must be done to reverse it. He

 

       understood at once the far-reaching consequences of Saddam's aggression--for this

       country and for the West: In particular, the president focused on the threat to the

       principle of national sovereignty, the implications of having Saddam control up to 65

       percent of the world's oil supply and the instability inherent in permitting a ruthless

       dictator to develop weapons of mass destruction.11

 

His personal convictions moved him to action.

 

  10Ibid., p. 20.

  11Lally Weymouth, "How Bush Went to War," The Washington Post, 31 March 1991, Section B, p.

4.

 

   But why use military force? Could Iraq have been convinced to leave Kuwait

without resorting to violence? Although it will never be definitively known, the

answer is probably no. Economic sanctions had been in place for the previous six

months, and they appeared to have no effect on Iraqs resolve to retain Kuwait.

 

   Prior to initiation of hostilities by coalition forces, President Bush clearly stated

our objectives:

 

       - Achieving complete and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait;

       - Restoring the legitimate Kuwaiti government;

       - Protecting American lives;

       - Enhancing regional security and stability.12

 

Bush decided these objectives were worthy of American blood, and, for the most

part, the people of the U.S. agreed.

 

War Termination

 

   After approximately six weeks of fighting, the war was over. Iraq was expelled

from Kuwait and the legitimate Kuwaiti government was restored. Our war aims had

been accomplished. At the time of this writing, the details of the peace have not

been implemented.

 

                                   Analysis

 

   Having looked briefly at these five major conflicts this century, do they have

anything in common? World War I was fought to "make the world safe for

democracy." We entered WWII in response to an attack by Japan and a declaration

of war by Germany. Wars in Korea and Vietnam were both fought to contain

communism. We rallied our forces against Iraq in order to restore the legitimate

government in Kuwait and to protect our access to Persian Gulf oil. Is there a

common theme here that will help us better understand why the United States goes

to war?

 

  12Dick Cheney, The Annual Report to the President and the Congress: Januaiy 1991 (Washington

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), p. 13.

 

   At least three common threads runs through these conflicts. First, in general, each

war was fought in an attempt to maintain or restore borders that were in existence

prior to the outbreak of hostilities (although some borders did move as a result of

post-war settlements). Second, we did not initiate the hostilities. You could argue

that we were the aggressors in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf conflict (and for a

portion of the Korean War), but if others had not started shooting first, we would not

have been there. Lastly, in each case the Commander-in-Chief was the key player in

determining whether or not military force would be used. This last point is by far the

most important and will be the focus of our examination of why we go to war.

 

   We have fought wars this century because the President of the United States

decided it was in our best interests to do so. "Further probing suggests that in all

cases, these conflicts arose from the ambitions and policies of politicians and leaders

who conceived of themselves as thinking and acting in the national interest."13 What

are these interests? Where do they come from and how are they determined? How

do you determine which ones are worth dying for?

 

   What are national interests? National interests are simply a country's perceived

needs and aspirations in relation to other countries. They are the product of a

political process in which the country's elected national leadership arrives at

decisions about the importance of specific external events that affect the nation's

political and economic well-being.14 Some of our enduring national interests include

the defense of our country, our economic well-being, a favorable world order, and

the promotion of our values abroad.

 

   However, all national interests are not created equal. The issue is usually not what

we care about but how much do we care? Do we care enough to go to war? In

 

  13Reginald C. Stuart, War and American Thought (Kent: Kent State University, 1982), p. xi.

  14Donald E. Nuechterlein, America 0vercommitted: United States National Interests in the l98Os

(Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985), p. 7.

 

general, this decision falls squarely on the shoulders of the President. Because of his

position he is able to "...shape and direct the national energies that sustain wars."15

 

   How does the President come to this decision? As Bernard Brodie states

 

       There are always important latitudes of choice within existing patterns of thought.

       And there can be few decisions more crucial than that of whether or not to go to war.

       Within any given climate, one man may decide for one course and another man for

       the opposite course, and surely it should be redundant to say that it matters which of

       them is in control. Why each makes his choice the way he does depends in large part

       on things internal to him....16

 

That is it. There is no magic formula, no mechanistic grid to determine if military

force should be used. It comes down to a question of judgement--one person's

judgement. And that person draws on the sum total of his being--his upbringing, his

intellect, his experience, his moral character--to make that decision.

 

   The president does not make this decision in a vacuum. He receives counsel from

his advisors. He reacts to inputs from other heads of state, both allied and enemy.

He is constrained by what he perceives the American people and Congress will

accept. But the final say belongs to him.

 

   Woodrow Wilson chose to enter WWI. He had managed to stay out of the war for

three years, and he could have continued to do so. FDR was committed to helping

the British in WWII well prior to Hitler's war declaration; his only problem was how

to convince the rest of America. Truman decisively committed U.S. troops in Korea

in spite of his Secretary of State's earlier pronouncement that Korea was outside of

America's "defensive perimeter." Five different presidents chose to use military

force in varying degrees in Vietnam--all to no avail. The Persian Gulf conflict saw

President Bush taking the lead both nationally and internationally in the war effort.

Some of Bush's intimates said that, in a very real sense, "...the gulf war was George

 

 

 

  15Stuart, War and American Thought, p. 192.

  16Bernard Brodie, War & Politics (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973), p. 130.

 

Bush's war."17 In any one of these situations another person may have made an

entirely different set of choices. For example, if President Kennedy had not been

assassinated, the course of the Vietnam War may have been radically different. The

President is the key factor in determining when and where the United States goes to

war.

 

   The U.S. has fought five major conflicts in this century. These conflicts have

varied in duration, intensity, objectives, level of support, outcome, and cause.

However, these wars all clearly bear the imprint of the President(s) who undertook

them. By examining these wars we can see more clearly the role the President plays

in determining whether or not we will use our military power. The President is not

the only player, but he is certainly the key player in the process.

 

   So then, why does the U.S. go to war? We go to war because we choose to go to

war. We go to war when the President decides that military force is the appropriate

instrument of national power to use to accomplish our national objectives. But this

should come as no surprise because, as Clausewitz notes, "We see, therefore, that

war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of

political intercourse, carried out by other means."18 However, we must use this tool

with the greatest care because its use always exacts the greatest cost.

 

 

"...the essence of war consists of the political decision that a given cause is worth killlng

                             and sacrificing for."19

 

 

 

  17Lally Weymouth, p. 4.

  18Clausewitz, p. 87.

  19Angelo Codevilla and Paul Seabury, War: Ends and Means (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,

1989), p. 12.

 

                                 Bibliography

 

1. Brodie, Bernard. War & Politics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,

      1973.

2. Cheney, Dick. Annual Report to the President and the Congress: January 1991.

      Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.

 

3. Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Ed. and Tr. Michael Howard and Peter Paret.

      Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

 

4. Codevilla, Angelo, and Paul Seabury. War: End and Means. New York: Basic

      Books, Inc., 1989.

 

5. Drew, Dennis M., Colonel, USAF, and Dr. Donald M. Snow. The Eagle's Talons:

      The American Experience at War. Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University

      Press, 1988.

 

6. Drew, Dennis M., Colonel, USAF, and Dr. Donald M. Snow. Making Strategy: An

      Introduction to National Security Processes and Problems. Maxwell Air Force

      Base: Air University Press, 1988.

 

7. Esposito, Brig. Gen Vincent J., ed. The West Point Atlas ofAmerican Wars, II.

      Washington, D.C.: Praeger Publishers, 1959.

 

8. Fleming, D. F. The Origins and Legacies of World War I. New York: Doubleday

      and Company, Inc., 1968.

 

9. Hoyt, Edwin P. America's War and Military Excursions. New York: Magraw-Hill

      Book Company, 1987.

 

10. Hunt, Barry, and Adrian Preston. War Aims and Strategic Policy during the Great

      War, 1914-1918 Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1977.

 

11. Maslowski, Peter, and Allan R. Millet. For the Common Defense: A Military

      History of the United States of America. New York: The Free Press, 1984.

 

12. Nuechterlein, Donald E. America Overcommitted: United States National

      Interests in the l98Os. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.

 

13. Oberdorfer, Don. "Missed Signals in the Middle East." The Washington Post

      Magazine, 17 March 1991, pp. 19-23, 36-41.

 

14. Paret, Peter, ed. Makers of Moderm Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age.

      Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

 

15. Small, Melvin. Was War Necessary?: National Security and U.S. Entry into War.

      Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.

 

16. Stuart, Reginald C. War and American Thought. Kent: Kent State University

      Press, 1982.

 

17. Weigley, Russell F. The American Way of War: A Histoiy of United States Mllitary

      Strategy and Policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973.

 

18. Weymouth, Lally. "How Bush Went to War," The Washington Post, March 31,

      1991, Section B., pp. 1,4.