The Social Liberties Development, Logical Request, And A Worldwide Temperature Alteration

Regarded as one of the most controversial and polarizing military conflicts in U.S. history, the Vietnam War has left a deep and lasting impact on American culture, politics, and foreign policy. From 1964 to the present day, the Vietnam War redefined the scope of U.S. influence both at home and abroad, and caused a fundamental shift in American society that dramatically changed the way in which Americans viewed their government and the role of the United States as a world power. For an entire generation of Americans, who watched as the horrors of the war in Vietnam unfold before the spotlight of the national media, the Vietnam War directly challenged the superiority of the American way and the infallibility of U.S military dominance. In truth, the U.S government, U.S. military, and the American people as a whole struggled to accept the lessons of America’s greatest military failure and the sobering reality of the war’s consequences. To this day, the legacy of this so-called “American War” continues to resonate throughout the fabric of American society as a cautionary tale of U.S foreign intervention and blind acceptance of open-ended conflict.

The United States is looked at by the rest of the world as a country of chances, a place where it doesn’t matter who you are or where you came from. In reality, however, it’s quite different. Many say that America the Great will always be divided. Despite being an improbable idea, it is possible for the U.S to succeed by seeing the problems with division and clash, and allowing the benefits of unity to outweigh its own prejudices.

Hanson’s 2012 premise, albeit over two years old today, is immediately discernible: America faces devastating self-inflicted wounds by implementing the current Administration’s defense spending budget. The dawn of 2014 finds this debate ongoing and the implementation of this budget well in progress, with even more drastic cuts taking effect than the ones analyzed by Hanson previously. While few historians of repute would argue against the reality that the siren song of defense reductions has lured the nation onto the shoals of unpreparedness for future conflict many times in the past, two shortcomings in Hanson’s piece beckon us to pause and reexamine.

In his article, “Why Has American Stopped Winning Wars?” Dominic Tierney discusses some of the topics in his recent book, “The Right Way to Lose a War: America in an Age of Unwinnable Conflicts.” The book, unlike the article, provides recommendations for how America can adapt to a new era of warfare. Having said that, Tierney’s article published in the The Atlantic, provides no such recommendations nor does it provide adequate reasoning to support his argument, rather he leaves the reader emotionally charged and unable to make an informed judgement concerning the validity of his claims. Specifically, the author commits the fallacies of appealing to emotion, followed by the presentation of glittering generalizations and a false dichotomy. Therefore, the purpose here is to analyze his argument as outlined in the article, “Why Has American Stopped Winning Wars?”

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

In the article, Why has America Stopped Winning Wars? the author, Dominic Tierney, asserts that the United States has entered an age of “unwinnable conflict”. Tierney argues that since the end of World War II excessive military power, an international shift from state-on-state war to internal conflict, the emergence of non-state actors and peace between states have contributed to The United States’ inability to win major conflicts. Tierney uses mistakes in strategy and tactical failures to support his argument.

The preference for “clarity over nuance” which means American people prefer simplicity over complexity when American people access significant declarations and military activities. American people vote their presidents so that American people like politicians announce the statement with the easily accessible idea, even though politicians lie to them, or the statement is wrong. Politicians deceive American people with the easily accessible idea that “...American people in their pursuit of happiness...” (38) according to Andrew J Bacevich’s “The Real World War IV”. Politicians simply state its purpose that the elimination of terror instead of the founding purpose that grab the accessible oil in the Middle East because American people prefer to hear the statement of simply understanding from their politicians who they vote. Also, American people prefer to see a simplicity in the military school in order to pursue their happiness. However, in “The Naked Citadel”, Susan Faludi exposed that there was no admission for women, sex-discrimination, and violence, and etc. many bad news in the military school. But the ugly and relentlessly truth deeply hurt American people’s feeling. Even if the reality is around American people, and we are familiar with it, the reality is too horrible to accept it. Same as soldiers, Tim O’Brien attempts to emphasize the war story is all about human’s love and memory, it is not about war in the “How to Tell a True War Story”. He is trying to explain that

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

In the two hundred years since 1775, there has been thirty-five years of fighting in what we consider major conflicts or wars. This averages out to about one year of war to every almost 6 years of our existence as a nation and during that time, we have not been without formal military organizations. Over the course of history, the United States has engaged in many battles that were a crucial phase in developing who and what we have become. Throughout this assessment, we will analyze what were some of the true tipping points that shaped (1) America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and, (2) How this relationship influences American warfare.

But one prevalent issue that has continued to be the source of much controversy is immigration. Founded on immigration this issue is not new to this country. Although it’s an issue that has been around for many years the mixed sentiments directed at it have only continued to become more prevalent. This may be due to the various perspectives from which it is viewed. The way in which an issue is looked at is influenced by various factors which become evident when the issue of immigration is discussed.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

People have eventually considered national borders and political interests as calamities and menaces to their everyday life.

Anna Bradstreet, Jonathan Edwards, and many writers had faith in religion, but others like Benjamin Franklin had faith in science. I believe that in order to find inner peace, people must learn to accept things for what they actually are. People do not need to have faith in religion to find their inner peace. Before reading this letter, I have not given much thought into the thing that unites all humans intellectually. This letter made me recognize that the key that unites us all is acceptance. Acceptance can be accomplished through factors other than religion. I established this thought while reading Bradstreet’s letter to her children. It made me realize that religion is not what kept people going through their tough times, but it was their faith that played an enormous role in people’s peace of mind. Furthermore, many writers in her time hoped to benefit future generations by sharing their experiences.

To speak of deterrence and strike capacity is to see war as a game; to speak of legal murder is to identify war as a murder of human beings; to speak of a struggle for social equality is to see war as an unclearly defined instrument for achieving an intensely sought objective. Thus, each war metaphor increases selected views and ignores others, thereby helping one to concentrate upon desired values of favored public policies and helping one to ignore their unwanted, unthinkable, or irrelevant sites and aftermaths. Each war metaphor can be a subtle way of highlighting what one wants to believe and avoiding what one does not wish to face (p.

Clearly this ripe moment is less about military wins and losses and specific casualty counts than about multiple types of perception – the perception that the military regime has of its image abroad as well as the perception that foreign states have of its legitimacy.