In the past, it would have been worse to let Communism spread freely. Luckily, we do not
have to look at the alternative in hindsight. What if Communism was spread freely? What would
the world and the US look like now if Communism was not contained? The United States, along
with other countries had a deploring perspective of Communism. There was an awareness of the
perilous impact Communism would not only have on the affected countries but also to the United
States.
What happens in other countries will impact the US to a certain degree and vice versa.
When significant threats such as Communism and tyranny take place over the world, the US gets
involved. This is not for every case but for the most significant ones, the US is involved to some
degree in the fight against it. The America Creed speaks of this importance, “embodies truths that
apply beyond America’s borders” (Gingrich 2011, 229). China is argued by some to be the next
overall superpower. Even with this possible defeat, America is still more willingly than China to
consider other countries’ interests and is seen more of a partner to other countries than China
(Pew Research Center 2013). The US does consider other countries’ interests, and that was
especially seen during the Cold War.
The foreign policy developed during the Cold War embodied the ideological fight against
Communism (Wortzel 2005, n.p.). Containment and deterrence was the philosophy developed
during the Cold War (Snauwaert 2004, 123). After WWII, Europe was in ruins and the US came
to aid. Due to post-war economic realities, America was required to move from her traditional
isolationism toward globalism and world leadership (Kirby 2014, 134). The US provided
resources to build up their economy which in turn prevented the spread of Communism. The
European Recovery Program was established to send humanitarian aid to Western Europe and
even to communist states in the East (U.S. History, n.d.). The US strategically described the aid
as a humanitarian effort to lessen the agitation of the enemy. This was a smart move.The U.S.
post-war aid actions helped prevent the serious threat of communist takeover during the Cold
War (U.S. History, n.d.).
There was a moral duty to combat against the Communism takeover but this did not
come without divisiveness. Due to the extreme economic costs taken to contain Communism,
there was a divide in support from the American people. “The insistence that the Soviet Union
was the incarnation of evil enabled Truman to move America into permanent military, political,
and economic intervention on a global scale, despite the tremendous cost” (Kirby 2014, 136).
However, there was an overall support to defeat evil.
Some may compare this approach to the terrorist threats the country has faced since 9/11.
However, this Cold War philosophy changed with the Bush Doctrine. The US faced a different
type of threat than the Cold War faced. New threats usually require a new approach. During the
Cold War, the deterrence philosophy worked because of the promise of massive retaliation
against nations was plausible. The 21st terrorist networks do not have a home nation or citizens to
defend like the Soviet Union had which made it difficult to apply the deterrence philosophy
(Snauwaert 2004, 123).
In addition, the Cold War containment philosophy would not be the right pick either.
“Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can
deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies (Snauwaert 2004,
123-124). This goes to show, not every threat should be met with the same philosophy. In the
case of the Cold War, it is easy to see how these two philosophies worked for the threats at the
time. It is also easy to see how these philosophies are not the best fit for the new emerging
threats the nation and other countries are facing with terrorism.
Some may agree that there was an over-involvement in dealing with international ills
during the Cold War. However, it was a far better option than allowing the evil to run free, take
over other nations, and oppress their people. As stated in the beginning of this post, luckily we do
not have to look at the Communist takeover in hindsight. If the US did not take action and get
involved to help other countries, the world may be in a far more oppressive state. “Let each of
you look not only to his own interest, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4 [ESV]).
References:
Gingrich, Newt, and Vince Haley. A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism
Matters. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2011.
Kirby, Dianne. 2014. “Christian Anti-Communism.” Twentieth Century Communism 7, no. 7
(July): 126-152. http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?
p=WHIC&u=vic_liberty&id=GALE%7CA381666679&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon#
Pew Research Center. 2013. “America’s Global Image Remains More Positive Than China’s.”
Pew Research Center, July 18, 2013. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/americas-
global-image-remains-more-positive-than-chinas/
Snauwaert, Dale T. 2004. “The Bush Doctrine and Just War Theory.” The Online Journal
of Peace and Conflict Resolution 6, no.1 (Fall): 121-135.
www.trinstiute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf
U.S. History. n.d. “52c Containment and the Marshall Plan.” Accessed March 4, 2019.
www.ushistory.org/us/52c.asp
Wortzel, Larry M. 2005. “The Bush Doctrine: What the President Said and What It Means.”
The Heritage Foundation, June 2, 2005. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-
bush-doctrine-what-the-president-said-and-what-it-means
Parker, thank you for your post. I thought you touched on many relevant issues regarding
the impact of US involvement in international affairs. I agree, America should not be too
involved in matters such as international ills if it means forsaking the priorities of her people. It
is America's duty to first protect the American people. I also agree with you that the issue does
not have a black and white answer. In some cases, I do believe certain circumstances make it
easier for the US to get involved rather than stand back from the issue. For example, the
economic peril Europe faced after WWII was such a circumstance. This economic peril required
the US to move from traditional isolationism toward globalism and world leadership (Kirby
2014, 134). Although not all of the American people agreed with the aid provided to Europe and
even some communist states during this time, it was a solution that not only benefited those
countries' interests but in turn contained Communism. These post-war aid actions prevented
the serious threat of communist takeover during the Cold War (U.S. History, n.d.). Yes, it may
have been at the financial expense of the US which caused divisiveness but the overall outcome
reaped the necessary benefits. “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we
will reap a harvest if we do not give up” (Galatian 6:9 [NIV]).
References:
Kirby, Dianne. 2014. “Christian Anti-Communism.” Twentieth Century Communism 7, no. 7
(July): 126-152. http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?
p=WHIC&u=vic_liberty&id=GALE%7CA381666679&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon#
U.S. History. n.d. “52c Containment and the Marshall Plan.” Accessed March 4, 2019.
www.ushistory.org/us/52c.asp
Thank you for your post, Tiffany. I thought you did a good job explaining the pros and
cons of dealing with international ills. The most significant con of dealing with international ills
is obviously the number of American lives lost during the fight. Although, as you stated, there
are victories in dealing with international ills. The Cold War is a great example of this. This was
a war was not waged on the battlefield, so the loss of American lives was not an issue as it was
with the Vietnam war. The current terrorist threats are not so much a war against terrorism but a
war against religious ideologies. This is a more dangerous and complex issue than the fight
against the ideology of Communism, but they do share some similarities. In the 21st century, the
US experienced a shift in Cold War philosophy and foreign policy transformed. During the Cold
War, deterrence and containment were the philosophies that proved successful results but they
were not the best fit for the newer threats of terrorism (Snauwaert 2004, 123). Just as the
majority of people were opposed to the evilness of Communism, the majority of people are
opposed to terrorism. However, these threats of terrorism are not only coming from various
locations in the world but also from the homeland. These ideologies cannot successfully be
fought against by using the same philosophies of the Cold War, and this caused a new kind of
dilemma for the Bush administration and still continues to. “So we say with confidence, The
Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?” (Hebrews 13:6 [NIV]).
Reference:
Snauwaert, Dale T. 2004. “The Bush Doctrine and Just War Theory.” The Online Journal
of Peace and Conflict Resolution 6, no.1 (Fall): 121-135.
www.trinstiute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
