Doing a little last-minute reading before class tomorrow, I came up on this passage in the NSC document United States Objectives and Programs for National Security from 1950.
But if war comes, what is the role of force? Unless we so use it that the
Russianpeople can perceive that our effort is directed against the regime and its power for aggression, and not against their own interests, we will unite the regime and the people in the kind of last ditch fight in which no underlying problems are solved, new ones are created, and where our basic principles are obscured and compromised. If we do not in the application of force demonstrate the nature of our objectives we will, in fact, have compromised from the outset our fundamental purpose.
Worth thinking about.
UPDATE:
Huh. This, too:
[I]t is important that the United States employ military force only if the necessity for its use is clear and compelling and commends itself to the overwhelming majority of our people. The United States cannot therefore engage in war except as a reaction to aggression of so clear and compelling a nature as to bring the overwhelming majority of our people to accept the use of military force. In the event war comes, our use of force must be to compel the acceptance of our objectives and must be congruent to the range of tasks which we may encounter.
If only.





{ 2 } Comments
Those cold-war leaders were America-hating pussies.
God, that was uncharacteristically crass of me, now that I see it on the screen. Sorry about that.
Post a Comment