Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

The Fog of War

Good Essays
1252 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Fog of War
Bassam Theodory
Political Science 116
05/13/2013
The Fog of War Any military commander was honest with himself will admit that he had made mistakes in the application of the military power. He had killed many people unnecessarily. But he hasn’t destroyed nations. As McNamara said “In this world, there will be no learning period with nuclear weapons, you make one mistake and you are going to destroy nations.” According to that, McNamara was trying to tell us that using nuclear weapons in these days will be extremely harsh and dangerous even if we knew the consequences and the circumstances of using it. Consequently, we see the United States and the United nations these days chasing Iran, Afghanistan and other countries that are trying to improve their nuclear weapons. So the U.S could stop them. Let’s just think for a moment if world War 3 happened and both sides used nuclear missiles, what could happen? Beside the awareness of using nuclear missiles, McNamara talked about ten lessons he experienced during war. I’m going to talk about five The first lesson is to emphasize with your enemy. Emphasizing is the idea that we try to put our self in our enemies’ body, and look through their eyes. Just to understand the thoughts and ideas behind their decisions and actions. For example, what The United States will do if it was Cuba during the Cuban-Russian Nuclear missiles crisis? One of the best ways to simplify that lesson is to go back to that crisis. When Russia introduced their nuclear missiles in Cuba targeting 90 million American citizens, it was a sign of a beginning of a new war. The United Stated faced two letters after a while. At first, they received the soft message and then the hard one. During that time, Thomson was thinking of a way to stop the war. He was thinking of a deal that he could say to the Russians” Kennedy was going to destroy Castro but I prevented it”. He made the right choice in the perfect time, Because Kennedy thought that replying to the soft message will do nothing. If the war started, neither the United States nor Cuba will win. It will be a disaster. “Rationality alone will not save us”. That’s the second lesson McNamara talked about. He said, at the end of the Cuban crisis, “It was luck to prevent nuclear weapons. We came that close to nuclear war at the end” why that happened?! Rational individuals. Kennedy was rational, Crusher was rational and Castro was rational. Everyone was acting rationally. They became so close to a total destruction of their societies. He also added “Is it right and proper that today there are seventy-five hundred strategic offensive nuclear warheads that could be launched by the decision of one human being?” Personally, that question is really difficult to answer. So if we analyze the way how the Cuban crisis was going, we can realize that the combination of nuclear weapons and human errors will result in a major catastrophe. Therefore, human decisions can really affect in global politics. For example, a week ago, we saw Israel had an attack on Syria. I don’t want to talk about why or how, I’d like to talk about the president Bashar Al-Assad reaction after that attack regarding to the rationality. We saw no reaction from the Syrian side. Which I think that was one of the best ways to deal with that attack during this difficult time that Syria is going thru. Because if Syria’s reaction was to attack Israel, the situation will be like Israel saying “hey world, Syria is attacking us. Killing us …” and the whole world will be like attack Syria! And that’s what Israel wants, a war against Syria and Iran because they are the only remain resistance against Israel in that area. But the president made the right choice. So the president didn’t only use the rationality, he emphasize with his enemy too If we go back to Tokyo, 100,000 burned alive in Tokyo. Wasn’t that awful? McNamara said by himself “We were as war criminals”. Since then, McNamara realized an important lesson we can use in war which is “Proportionality should be a guideline war”. McNamara possess the question of whether or not it was necessary to drop two atomic bombs on Japan when they were destroyed already with firebombing. McNamara then goes through how much of Japanese cities were being destroyed and making proportions. Some of the more notable figures are: Tokyo, roughly the size of New York at that time, 51% destroyed; Toyama, the size of Chattanooga, 99% destroyed; Nagoya, the size of Los Angeles, 40% destroyed; Osaka, the size of Chicago, 35% destroyed. Can you imagine after all that, throwing nuclear bombs what could possibly happen??! In the movie, away from the ten lessons, we see Dominos over the world map between several scenes. That refers to a theory that’s called the Domino theory. It’s like whenever the War started in a country, it will affect the other countries next to it. For example, since 2010, The Arab Spring. It all started in Tunisia. After that, the revolution started in Libya. Then, it was Egypt’s turn. In the end, it stopped in Syria. In one year, Three Arab presidents were out of the presidency except Syria. We’ll be waiting to see what news and developments could happen in Syria. “Never say never” is the number ten lesson McNamara has mentioned. The point that McNamara was trying to tell us is not don’t quit on war or don’t surrender in a war time. He was trying to say: never say that you never make mistakes. The point is that everyone makes mistakes but we shouldn’t repeat them, especially when individuals think rationally. For instance, after the United States knows that Vietnam War wasn’t a good decision, why did it go to war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq? The U.S already knew what’s going to happen. Same thing in Afghanistan. Moreover, McNamara said that if John Kennedy was alive, the situation would not have been as bad as it was. Also, McNamara stated that he is sorry for his errors. He admit that he had mistaken. That was brave and honest. Finally, “You can’t change the human nature”. Besides all treaties that have signed and peace agreements, the possibility of war is still available. Personally, one of the things that I like in realists, is that they see the world as anarchic. Which is definitely true. All against all in the state of nature. Especially, when there’s no national authority above all states. Each state wants to be the hegemon and trying to do that. Furthermore, McNamara explains that ‘the fog of war’ refers to how complex war is and the inability of the human mind to fully comprehend all of those complexities at one time. In conclusion, As Benjamin Franklin stated “There was no good war or bad peace”. According to that quotation, I think it is obvious what he was trying to say. Especially, after watching “The Fog of War” and seeing what happened during Cuban missiles crisis, Japan war and Vietnam War. Because if we had a look, there was no winner at the end of each war. For example, the U.S had lost 54,000 soldiers and the other side got ruined during cold war. But unfortunately, as McNamara said, the human nature will never ever change.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In President Harry Truman speech to inform his citizens on how he was going to end WWII, he said the U.S. “shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war” (Harry Truman). The U.S. made it very clear that their main goal was to force Japan to surrender and that they would stop at nothing to make that happen. Evidently, even using the world’s first nuclear weapons in war did not limit the United States. After the destruction and devastation the bombs had caused, Japanese officials had no other choice but to unconditionally surrender, and announce an end to the war. Though there is still a debate today about whether the bomb was necessary to end…

    • 165 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    In this paper the overview, prelude, and battle of Lake Trasimene will be analyzed and discussed to understand the brilliance behind one of the greatest military tactical attacks in history. The Battle of Lake Trasimene was waged by one of the most charismatic, smart, and cunning generals of all time in Hannibal. Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar Barca of Carthage, was raised to eat, breath, and hate Rome from the beginning of his childhood. Livy states that, “From the day when he was proclaimed commander in chief, he seemed to regard Italy as his assigned field of action, and war with Rome as a duty imposed upon him.”(Livy 21.5, Line 1-3.) This inner rage that was instilled in him as a child is a driving force that can be seen throughout this battle as well as his remaining campaigns against the Romans.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rob Mcnamara Fog of War

    • 617 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Robert McNamara held the position of Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy administration and Johnson administration. He was faced with making some major decisions and giving important advice under loads of stress and pressure. Years after he left his position in the white house, he looked back on his life and provided eleven points of his own wisdom. Now let us examine the film The Fog of War and some of the points stated by the former Secretary of Defense and compare them to the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli and see how the ancient philosopher might have praised or critiqued the ideas of McNamara.…

    • 617 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr Jamal

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages

    This review focuses on the contents of chapter three of Leaders At War by Elizabeth N. Saunders. Saunders dedicated this chapter to the explaining intervention through the president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Her main Argument is that Eisenhower’s is an externally focused leader and as such, his beliefs about the origins of threats shaped his decision to intervene. This review does not criticize the author’s argument about the former president but it does however criticize her methodology through the use of cost benefit calculations. I argue that Saunders, in trying to explain leadership choices in times of war, uses special cases that would only aid her argument and not go against it and for this reason, her argument becomes weak.…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Wittner, Lawrence S. "There Is an Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War." Nuclear Armament. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War." hnn.us. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.…

    • 946 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    During this speech at the United Nations, the U.S. insisted that they will protect its allies by responding to military provocation “at places and with means of our own choosing” (Dulles, 1954). This was a military doctrine and a nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack. The policy announcement was further evidence of Eisenhower’s decision to rely heavily on the nation’s nuclear arsenal as the primary means of defense against communist aggression. Even though Eisenhower didn’t personally give the speech, he agreed 100%. This was another proof that Eisenhower’s all-or-nothing strategy threatened to turn the Soviet Union into a smoking, radiating ruin within 2 hours.…

    • 892 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    McCloy felt with the intention of the Japanese that they would have surrendered with no use of the Atomic Bomb if the U.S. had a moment to consent them to defend themselves and maintain their emperor. Technically, in this incidence, the Atomic Bomb was to be avoided, however with their pronouncement, Japan was not particularly supporting the thoroughness of deliberation and the vigor thought that the president of the United States was enforced to have a judgment before and the consequence of this was taken absent. Then he gave examples that deciphered his opinion that he did not consider under current circumstances that the existing in the U.S. whose evaluation of the percent of the success of any including program is worth a great transaction compared to what…

    • 635 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Imagine living back in 1930s the depression was heavy and despair was clear in America and the world, conflict arose the need to protect America from war was necessary this was named World War 2. Rick Sorenson got into the marine corps by choosing to be in the navy recruitment, but when younger his parents did not sign until he was eighteen he left for the Marines. Sorenson took his training in San Diego for two and half months, then transferring to Camp Pendleton later leaving for war. When remembering World War 2 it is important to keep in mind what happened in hospital ships, how boot camp for the Marines worked, and were the Marines got deployed.…

    • 1201 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A fundamental component of the proliferation debate revolves around the perceived or alleged efficiency of nuclear deterrence. Proliferation optimists argue that, “more may be better” because nuclear weapons increase the cost of nuclear conflict, ultimately deterring states from engaging in nuclear warfare with a nuclear-armed state (Suzuki 2015). Optimists argue that nuclear deterrence works reliably, thus there seemingly less to be feared from nuclear proliferation and beneficial to a state to…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    We can also learn about the past of the United States. The United States had war with Japan. We had to drop an atomic bomb and they surrendered. Then we had to fight with Germany…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Vietnam War had profound impact on America in many ways. Many important lessons can be taken from the conflicts as a whole. The first lesson that can be taken from historical analogy is that of patience. The more the U.S. waited to tend to the foreign affairs in Japan, Italy, and Germany, the stronger those powers became, allowing only major war to stop them. President Georgia H. W. Bush, Sr. was quoted during a speech to the Department of Defense, “A half century ago our nation and the world paid dearly for appeasing an aggressor who should and could have been stopped. We’re not about to make that mistake twice” (159). President Bush was referring to the issues concerning Adolph Hitler, and relating them back to the Persian Gulf War. When assessing the possibility of joining allied forces in the Persian Gulf War,…

    • 1244 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The United States should not continue to develop and test weapons of mass destruction because it can kill millions,It's expensive and has lack of morals. On August 6, 1945 Harry S. Truman, had to make a world changing and tough decision. The United States dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb all over Japan,Hiroshima.The explosion destroyed 90% of the city and very quickly killed about 80,000 people and later on because of radiation exposure , 10,000 people died. The United States shouldn’t make and test weapons of mass destruction because it’s harmful, costs a lot, and has flaws.…

    • 608 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It is simple: we learn from our mistakes, and act based on what we have learned. We already realize that the Holocaust was a horrible tragedy, and it should never have happened, but that is only the beginning. We should take the destruction that we learned can happen so easily because of us, and take that into consideration when doing something big. This can range from choosing leaders, to going to war. If we take that destruction into consideration, that can prevent such disasters from happening and make the world a better…

    • 630 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each, together with the fear of escalation to general nuclear war, keep it that way.” (Art, Waltz, 1983) Yet there are many who also share the view of Jonathan Schell who dramatically infers that if we, society, do not “rise up and cleanse the earth of nuclear weapons, we will “sink into the final coma and end it all.” (Schell, 1982) The central purpose of this essay is to challenge the conventional wisdom about nuclear proliferation; that nuclear weapons do indeed induce a greater stability amongst international politics however this does not justify countries to continue nuclear arms proliferation with seemingly no endless bounds. However despite this it is naïve to declare that a world without nuclear weapons would be without peace either. Nuclear weapons are more than just symbols of destruction and chaos but however hold far more important roles in international politics. They are at the forefront of national security and hold considerable importance in domestic debates and internal bureaucratic struggles and serve as international normative symbols of modernity and identity and as such have to be treated with utmost care and with a sense of supreme responsibility by countries that hold them.…

    • 2181 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    From a business perspective there are two large multinationals competing (the US and the URSS) with a number of subsidiaries (e.g. USA’s Turkey and Berlin and URSS’ Cuba). Kennedy represents a company’s CEO trying to take the company through a period of crisis. The Soviet CEO (Khrushchev) has made a move that affects USA’s market position (deploy missiles in Cuba). The American CEO has a clear goal and a strategy is built to achieve it (remove missiles pacifically). He seeks advice from his leadership team (Ministers and heads of Military) to make decisions that will create value to the company’s board (Congress) and shareholders (electorate).…

    • 889 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays