Thursday, September 19, 2013

Korea: The Changing Views of War and the American Presidency

NSC-68 was outlined in your optional reading, but not in the excerpt from the IB text, so Secretary Acheson's defense may have been the first you have heard about it.

In short NSC-68 was a paper written by the UN Security Council that placed the policy of containment at the forefront of foreign policy.  It stated that it was the responsibility of the government to not only 'contain' communism where it lay, but also it should take measures to thwart the potential for Soviet influence on other countries.  NSC-68 justified US intervention in Korea and further solidified the US and the USSR as enemies.

The era after WWII redefined the notion of war and broadened the scope of executive power.  How do you view Truman as not only the spokesperson against communism but also as the conductor--the person who actually commands ideology into action.  How is this a change from earlier presidents?

10 comments:

  1. I think Truman was afraid of people being upset or unsatisfied with the lack of action against communists and communism. Like Mike said in class, he didn't want to be the president that was known for not taking a stand on communism. He was a huge part of the idea of containment because the United States was starting to prove to other countries that their main object was to defend and quite literally to contain communism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, Presidents are sort of elected in for the purpose of representing the people; that's kind of why we have that whole democracy thing, but to be a spokesperson of anti-communism is a bit different because that isn't affecting the American people and their wishes it's more of an assertion of power. Our democracy was really more set up to take care of the American people and only them. to protect others was really something that those in a position of power took up in order to better the General country's worldly political stance rather than what's happening on the inside. So one of the affects of WWII would be this global community that we then had to participate in therefore creating a new role for our elected officials.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like how in "Truman Asserts Civil Supremacy", it explains that "If there is one basic element in our constitution, it is civilian control of the military. Policies are to be made by elected officials, not by generals or admirals." This perfectly describes Truman's heavy involvement in dictating the path of war. Truman took the reigns as the leader, and even eventually dismissed MacArthur from his commands as a general. This forced removal definitely suggests that Truman was a much more hands-on military leader than some earlier presidents.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I view Truman as a militarilistic leader. He wanted his actions to speak louder thanchis words when it came to containment. I think this is different from past presidents because Truman is extremely bold and as Nicki mentioned, a hands-on leader. He believed in civilian control of the military and he wanted to use that aspect of free government to his advantage. He explains that thus was his duty to act because no previous presidents' lives were "dedicated to the military". I like Truman's statement about there being a difference between the wrong kind of victory and the right kind if victory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that Truman saw himself in some way obligated to fight against communism, In one of the readings he talks a lot about the American constitution and that the best thing about it is that it protects people from oppressive military. And how Sydney said, presidents are expected to represent fundamental values like this one. North Korea of course, is also a very extreme case of communistic dictatorship, so Truman did have a lot of reason to intervene.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that all presidents would have liked to have taken a strong stance on their respective situations, but they were playing the majority game and didn't want to lose any support through having a definite opinion. Many presidents spend their first term just wanting to be re-elected and this can result in them not really achieving anything at all.
    Truman took his anti-communism stance because that was what the people wanted. The communists had already been labelled as the 'bad guys' so the people would have been unhappy with Truman if he hadn't done anything. He was bold, however, in his delivery of policies which really tried to stamp out communism from very early on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When McCarthy went oh his communist witch hunt, Truman's reputation was in danger. If he were to be soft on the communist, then he would be labeled as a communist sympathizer. Truman wanted to make sure that everyone knew exactly how far he would go in order to contain communism. Going into korea was one of those steps. I think that his conduction of the war also helped/hurt his reputation. On the one hand south korea had not been taken over, but north korea had taken its toll on each country involved. Truman didn't want to be labeled as a communist sympathizer and i believe that is why he went into korea and fought so hard to keep south korea out of communistic control.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Truman begins his statement with, "If there is one basic element to our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military", but proceeds to say General MacArthur was always unwilling to accept these administrative policies. I found the letters between MacArthur and Truman to be interesting, especially when Truman argues that the victory MacArthur envisions to be the "wrong kind of victory". I like this aspect about Truman. It almost connects to the peoples' views of him as a "soft" president (I may have remembered that wrong). Basically, I think Truman is different from other presidents because unlike most, he did not want to go to war, but the opinions of his people were important to him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As Mitch said, I believe that Truman was quite frankly afraid of what people would think without him taking a stand against communism. As well I would think any president would. When he found that his reputation was being diminished by the acts of McCarthy, he though people would begin viewing him as kinder to the communist and that would lead to people thinking maybe he likes communism. And slowly everything around him would crumble to pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Truman's willingness to take action and 'demonstrate' his resolve to wipe communism out only on the domestic front but also internationally as well. As stated by many other students (and for good reason since its is such a ubiquitous and prominent fact) that Truman really did fear being known as "The president who didn't..." so to speak. Like the present who did not stop America from being consumed by communism. and fear when utilized properly is an astounding motivator if not a morbid one.

    ReplyDelete