U.S. DIPLOMACY
WORKING DEFINITIONS, PARAMETERS AND GUIDEPOSTS James R. Corcoran, Ph.D. © 2020 jcorcoran@hpu.edu
1
Page 1: Basic definitions are essential to any course of study, along with parameters and guideposts used for study. This PowerPoint and lecture will delineate what we shall use in this course of study. By the end of this course on U.S. military history you will have these various items memorized because you will be required to use them again and again. Commit them to memory so that they will be on the tip of your tongue, not just for this course, but in all your undergrad/grad courses and for use in your professional/private life. Many of these terms/definitions can be expressed in many different ways. Through decades of teaching, researching, and writing I have developed these specific definitions. For example, my definition of war: A violent clash of vital interests between two or more large, organized, entities, involving the use of military force is taken from the USMC Manual on Warfighting. There are many different definitions of war, but this one serves our purposes, and for this course (and all my other courses) this is the one we will use. You are welcome to your own definitions and terms, but for your participation in this course, please use mine; that way your classmates and I will all be on the same page.
You will note that these terms are regularly abused by those who have not mastered them. Consider “the war on drugs”, what are the opposing sides, who, exactly, is the enemy, how is military force being applied, where is the enemy’s center of gravity (from Clausewitz: the main thing(s) which the enemy cannot do without and which you act to deprive him of; it can be his capital, his electronic network, his petroleum, his space satellite system; at the operational and tactical level of war it usually is his main force)? Distinctly defining war is important, for as our guide Clausewitz tells us:
“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and the commander have to make is to
establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is
alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive”. On War, the Howard/Paret translation (my favorite), 1976, 88-89.
Can we say that our “statesmen and commanders” (congress, the president, NSC, Pentagon, State department, and others) established “the kind of war upon which they are [were] embarking on” in the case of the Korean War, Vietnam, and OIF? We shall see, and you will decide.
Also, in the public use of these important terms and definitions, a lot of words are tossed around carelessly. Our use of the term sovereignty is composed of three ingredients: independence, unity, and territorial integrity. Absence of any one of these three ingredients means that you don’t have sovereignty. Still, you will frequently see some national leader telling the public that “we are going to war to protect our sovereignty and independence”, or “our sovereignty and territorial integrity”. It’s rather like saying “I want a hot dog with a frankfurter in it”, or, “with a bun”; all hot dogs come with a wiener and with a bun, don’t they? Such inexactness can bring about needless war which can cost many lives and impoverish your country, which is what the great Chinese strategist Sunzi (Sun Tzu; correctly pronounced shwun-zuh; say it: shwun-zuh; not “Son Zoo”) told us 2,500 years ago FN .
But, we know better, so we will master the terms, definitions, and guideposts below .
HISTORY
A RECORD OF EVENTS OF THE HUMAN PAST WITH AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR CAUSES, AND SOME EXPLANATION OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
2
Page 2: One of the most important things to begin the course is a clear idea in mind of the various definitions we are going to be using in this course on U. S. diplomatic history. The first is the basic definition of history: a record of events of the human past with an examination of their causes, and some explanation of their significance. There are, of course, may different definitions of history. But for the purposes of the course, this is the one we will use. The idea, first of all, it is a record; written down, recorded, that you can refer to. Second, it is a record of the human past. We are not interested in the geological past, or the biological past, but the human past. We cannot always pin down, clearly, the causes of the events that take place but we need to participate in the examination of this past and also to provide, as well as we can, an explanation of what all these events mean—what is their outcome and what is their significance? History lives, it is the reenvisceration of true-life experience, living again; that’s why we historians are constantly researching, writing, conferring, on the human past. History is, thus, constantly renewed (not revised) as we discover new primary sources (letters, records, journals, reports, contemporary news, anything else created by participants and eyewitnesses) and new ways of looking at our past. That’s history. History IS exciting. You have to live it; put yourself in the times that you are looking at; how would you have handled the Bataan death march, jumping into Normandy the night before the invasion, fighting against overwhelming Chinese communist attackers just to get out alive from the Chosin reservoir trap. For some of you, you have lived the history of the Afghan war, the Iraq war, Mogadishu, Bosnia, and other American military historical experiences. Use those life episodes to help you relate to America’s DIPLOMATIC/military past and to history itself.
DOING HISTORY
4 W + S
WHO?
WHAT?
WHEN?
WHERE?
SIGNIFICANCE?
3
Page 3: We apply Dr. Jim’s formula: 4W+S for the doing of history. Who? (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin: the “Allies”), What? (important decisions for the war against the “Axis” [Germany and Japan and associates] and for postwar configuration of international affairs [the nature of the world order after the war]), When? (February, 1945), Where? (the Livadia Palace, near Yalta in the Crimea region of Russia); SIGINIFICANCE (while the “spheres of influence” agreement appeared to be a valid working solution to the division of responsibility between the allies, as things played out after the war, Soviet deviousness and British and American shortcomings resulted in Soviet control over the eastern European nations, which in turn was a major factor in the Cold War which developed after the end of WWII and lasted up to December, 1991). Note that there are other “significances”, this is just one. You must read and learn in terms of 4W+S during this history course. It is not enough to know only the place, time, participants, and event (s), but you must understand the meaning, the significance, of the event. That’s HISTORY: a record of events from the human past with an examination of their causes and an explanation of their significance.
WORLDVIEW (WELTANSCHAUUNG)
AN INDIVIDUAL, OR GROUP’S, VIEW OF THAT WHICH IS ABOVE (GOD, COSMOS, MANY GODS, ETC.) THAT WHICH SURROUNDS (CIVILIZATION, SOCIETY, TRIBE, CITY, COUNTRY, VILLAGE, ETC.) AND THAT WHICH IS BELOW (NATURE, THE EARTH, MOUNTAINS, OCEAN, ETC.)
W V
4
Page 4: Everybody, and every group has a worldview (in the German language the term carries much more meaning than it does in English). In history, much of the conflict between people, nations, groups, has been the CLASH of worldviews (e.g., the conflict between the WV of Stalinist communism and that of western capitalist-democracy; the conflict between Judaism and Islam, etc.). Yes, you can say that those were clashes between ideologies (the former) or between religions (the latter); but for our purposes these and other ways of thought work to shape worldviews. In diplomacy knowing the WV of the other party is key to gaining successful outcomes. Thus, for this course in diplomatic history, knowing the WV of the powers under study is key to understanding the outcomes of the events under consideration. Success of American efforts in today’s Afghanistan rests upon the ability to work out the differences in WVs: while President Afghani and his supporters hold an Asian, Afghanistani WV, Americans live within a distinctly Western, modernist WV. Think that over. What are the differences? How can successful solutions be achieved?
Also, what is your WV? How do you view “up there”? “Around you” (take your choice would you rather be living in Honolulu or Kabul right now)? Nature (should humans try to fit themselves in with nature or should we use nature to suit our needs)? Please write out a 1 to 2 page statement of your own WV. For my eyes only. e-mail it to me at jcorcoran@hpu.edu This assignment is worth 5 participation points.
RELIGION
A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS, PRACTICES, AND ORGANIZATION BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPERNATURAL (HIGHER) POWER, AND DEALING WITH THE SACRED, OR HOLY.
5
Page 5: This is the definition for our course. You are of course free to have your own definition, but this what we will use in our studies. I have worked out this definition intellectually, with people of religion; academically, with teachers and students of all brands; and on the ground (three years in Japan, three years in Germany, one year in Korea, almost 5 years in China-Taiwan, some total of 2 years in the China mainland, the war in Vietnam [1967-1968], two years in Bangladesh [the third most populist Muslim nation], and two years in Indonesia [the most populist nation in the world], among other places. Terms are important. When, in this history course, the term religion comes up: this is what we mean.
WAR
A VIOLENT CLASH OF VITAL INTERESTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE LARGE, ORGANIZED ENTITIES, INVOLVING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
6
Page 6: Again, there are many different definitions and yours may differ from this one. However, this one serves our purposes well. It is a variant of the definition from the U.S. Marine Corps manual MCDP 1 Warfighting. That manual is a kind of “working man’s” interpretation of Carl Von Clausewitz’s Vom Krieg (On War). For my in-class course on U.S. Dip history and U.S. Military History I require reading from this manual. For this course you would benefit studying this text on your own:
U.S. Marine Corps, Warfighting: the U.S. Marine Corps Book of Strategy, NY: Doubleday, 1994; (or its equivalent U.S.M.C. MCDP 1, Warfighting, Wash D.C: U.S. GPO, 1997). If you are majoring in DMS this would be a key reference source for you. As with all these terms and definitions, break each one down into its parts and then put them back together again: a clash; of interests; two, or more, LARGE, ORGANIZED, entities (not just nations, could also be tribes, clans, “races”, regions, etc., BUT for this course we are interested in the major wars and their effect on American history); military force (is seizing a commercial airplane and flying it into the WTC an act of military force ; were the 9/11 perpetrators members of a large, organized entity [how many people are there in AQ? Where do we go to attack its Center of Gravity? Who do we meet with to carry out diplomatic negotiations?] While I have done lots of study on terrorists, that topic does not lend itself readily to the study of military history. One source I use which can be of value to you is Moghaddam, Marsella, eds. Understanding Terrorism, WADC: Am. Psych. Ass’n, 2004, a reference used in module X (lesson X) of this course. Also, for an account of successful counter-terrorism missions, read the book by Shelton, General (ret.), Hugh, 14th Chairman, Joint chiefs of Staff, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010. Gen. Shelton’s list of the “bad guys” who were snatched, flown to the U.S., tried by our civil courts and convicted and jailed, just during his time as the four star commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the mid-1990s, especially page 277. This is just one example of the application of history to current circumstances.
SOVEREIGNTY SOVEREIGNTY = INDEPENDENCE + UNITY + TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
7
Page 7: Note that I am not attempting to define the term; I am merely providing the three elements which make up sovereignty. A nation must possess ALL THREE of these elements in order to have sovereignty: it must be calling its own shots in determining its courses of action, it must be unified, and all of its parts must be integrated. If China claims that Taiwan is part of China, and China has absolutely no control over Taiwan (the P.R.C. since its founding in 1949 has never had any say in Taiwan affairs nor has it had any control over Taiwan’s policies or actions) does China have sovereignty? IF China gave up claiming that Taiwan is part of China, the P.R.C. would have sovereignty. Can’t we say that Taiwan has sovereignty? It has been solely responsible for its own policies and actions since 1949. It has been unified with all its people and main island and contiguous islands working together. All of the main island and contiguous islands are under the control of the people and the government of Taiwan (the “Republic of China”---R.O.C.), and have been, continuously, since 1949. At all points in this U.S. military history course please make sure that the issue of sovereignty of the participants is clear in your mind. Also, notice that most people don’t fully understand sovereignty. You will see official government announcements saying something to the effect that “the U.S (or other nation) stands for the sovereignty and territorial integrity, or the sovereignty and independence, of country X”. These terms are important.
CLAUSEWITZ’S REMARKABLE TRINITY
THE MAINTENANCE OF A VIABLE BALANCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT, THE PEOPLE, AND THE MILITARY.
GOVERNMENT
PEOPLE
MILITARY
8
Page 8: Clausewitz can be labeled dense writing; a term used in historiography. In fact, I view Brien Hallett’s Declaring War to also be dense writing. In this case Clausewitz refers to the “remarkable trinity” of policy (the realm of the government), violence(the realm of the people; they must have the passion, the will to fight a war), and chance (the roll of the dice, meaning that the military must be ready: competent, equipped, trained, and ready to take advantage of any warfighting opportunity which presents itself, at any time; as the book author, mentioned earlier, Gen. Hugh Shelton maintains, the U.S. military must be always trained and ready). For our purposes in this course we must analyze historical events in terms of people, government, and army (today, military; no navy or air force, space or cyber in Clauzewitz’s day). So to assist you in memorizing: PVC is carried out by GPA . His lesson is that there must be a balance between the three points of this triangle. During America’s Vietnam war the American people became worn down by U.S. government lies and deception; loved ones, draftees, were coming home in body bags (some 58,000 KIA) or maimed, there was no workable strategy for carrying out the war, it drug on for 10 years with casualties and costs mounting, Watergate, TET ’68, etc., the American people no longer supported the war. As a result the U.S. was defeated in its objective of keeping the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) sovereign by preventing a takeover by communist North Vietnam (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam; DRV), and communist North Vietnam took over South Vietnam on April 30, 1975; two years after America had withdrawn its combat forces and turned the war over to the South's government and army. A good example of the importance of maintaining the balance in Clausey’s Remarkable Trinity. Always apply GPA to your reading of American military history.
THE ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER
SOCIO-CULTURAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL,
POLITICAL,
ECONOMIC,
DIPLOMATIC,
MILITARY
SPEDM
9
Page 9: These are the tools that a government has at its disposal to conduct its national affairs. Each element is like a musical instrument in a quintet. Music can’t be made using only one, or two instruments at a time. All the elements must be used in concert. And, notice that the military is last on the list. After all else has failed, then bring in the element of the military (at the end, not at the beginning). For our purposes these elements provide a valuable way to assess the status of any given nation, in the past as well as in the present. If we assess Imperial Japan in 1941, or Nazi Germany in 1939, we see that they were each VERY strong in each of the elements of national power. At the same time we see that America was weak: the Great Economic Depression had split us socially and psychologically as well as politically, the economy had failed, our diplomacy had no effect in impeding or preventing world war, and our military had been allowed to sink to about the same level as Portugal’s military. SPEDM. In this course you should be steadily assessing the SPEDM of the nations involved in whatever phase of your study you are in. BTW, remember that the source I gave you in module I, the IISS Military Balance provides you with detailed information on national militaries around the world; up-to-date, readily available, HPU pays BIG $$ for the MB to be available to you, please use it in this and other courses, it will not be available to you unless you are actively enrolled in HPU.
STRATEGY
STRATEGY = ENDS + WAYS + MEANS
10
Page 10: Stratego is Latin for general. Here again, notice that I don’t define the term, I merely provide the elements composing the term. A nation must determine its goals clearly (ends). Then it must figure out ways of achieving those goals (ways, HOW to do it). Then, what will be needed to implement those ways (means). Quite simple isn’t it? THEN how come we see sssooo many failures of strategy throughout history? Strategy is simple but it isn’t easy. As our Clausewitz tells us “The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and the commander have to make is to establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.” Of course strategy doesn’t just apply to war; it can apply to virtually all aspects of our lives: ENDS (WHAT do you want to accomplish), WAYS (HOW are you going to accomplish your ends), MEANS (What-all do you need to accomplish your ends).
The practical lesson is if your assessment of EWM won’t do the trick, then do something else, back to the drawing board. For example, if you don’t have the necessary 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops to establish order and stability in Iraq after you invade and topple Saddam, then go back to the drawing board: raise the number of ground troops needed, or, don’t invade, keep the Saddam regime bottled up (as had been done successfully for 12 years before March 2003) and wait for him to fall of his own accord. The threat of WMD you say? No WMD have been found:
The threat of Saddam supporting the 9/11 Islamic extremists you say? Not only has there been no evidence of him supporting the Islamic extremists, but he wiped them out wherever he found them because they also posed a threat to his rule. Refer to the 9/11 Investigation report, testimony by David Kay, the U.S. leader of the WMD search in Iraq, and other sources found in Related Reference Materials in module II. What if we weren’t sure he had WMD and he actually did have them you say? Well, keep him boxed in and work to get the intell; don’t go to war on a guess. What if we were misled by our Intel agencies which told us that he had WMD you say? Read these sources I have given you, especially Gen. Shelton’s Without Hesitation, pp. 474-480; he was on the scene, he had the access, he knows that the Intel was torqued to suit a Neo-con agenda set as early as 1998 by VP Cheney, SecDef Rumsfeld, DepSecDef Wolfowitz, UnderSecDef Feith, UnderSecDef for Intel Steve Cambone, Richard Perle, “Scooter” Libby, and others. Don’t just take his word, study the other sources. We have found no WMD and no Saddam support of the 9/11 Muslim extremist attackers.
That is not to diminish the excellent performance by you, members of the American military (or supporters), in carrying out the mission assigned in Iraq, you did well in carrying out your assigned tasks; it’s just that, similar to the case of America’s Vietnam War, the president and his administration bungled the strategy, with (as in the case of the Vietnam era Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) the acquiescence of those we elected to represent us in Congress.
LEVELS OF WAR
STRATEGIC (THE WAR) ( )
OPERATIONAL (THE CAMPAIGNS)
TACTICAL (THE BATTLES) (AND BELOW)
11
Page 11: This slide explains itself. In earlier days the term sot was use to describe an alcoholic, or he was sotted last night. Here to remember the three levels of war just remember S O T. The rank I have associated with SOT holds for all services: ground, sea, air, cyber, and space.
Look at it as a building block: the battles (shooting at and being shot at by the enemy) are clustered together to win the campaign; the campaigns are clustered together to win the war. There is no clear red-line between the three levels, the 4 (5) star responsibilities can sink down to the upper part of the operational level, just as the 3 star’s can float up to the lower part of the strategic level; the 3 star responsibilities can edge down to the 2 star level and vice-versa. Important to note is that the fighting, armed combat, shooting and bringing shot at, takes place at the tactical level. If a 3 star is dodging bullets and taking aim, something has gone seriously wrong, OR, he is not where he is supposed to be, directing all of those forces below him. There have been cases of 3 star commanders hotdogging it and participating at the tactical level at the exclusion of command and control over ALL his subordinate units. Chain-of-command is VITAL. Most of the screw-ups, actually all of the screw-ups we see in history can be laid at the feet of failure in the C-o-C. From defeated on the battlefield, to strategic failure, to discipline issues, to non-readiness and non-training can all be laid at the feet of the C-o-C. The principle is that every private has a sergeant, every sergeant has an LT, every LT has a captain (or the equivalent for the navy), every captain has a major, every major has an LTC, every LTC has a COL and every COL has a General. Failures at the PFC level are the responsibility of every member of the C-o-C right up to the generals, the SecDef and the Commander-in Chief. The basic rule is that the commander is responsible for everything his/her command does, and does not, do.
Most importantly in your studies for this course in U.S. military history always keep in mind the level of war you are reading/researching/writing about. That especially holds true in you military job, do you serve at INDOPACOM (strategic level), USARPAC (operational level) or the 25th ID (or it’s USAF, USN equivalent) the tactical level?
| 4W+S | HISTORY | RELIGION |
| WORLD VIEW | SPEDM | STRATEGY |
| LEVELS OF WAR | WAR | REMARKABLE TRINITY |
| ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER | SOVEREIGNTY | SOT |
TERMS TO KNOW
~END~
12