Quote:
|
Most history teachers try to stay away from subjects concerning military history (which actually really pisses me off), and I think my paper should lean more towards foreign policy and the "big picture." As much as I'd like to talk about MiGs and SAMs, I think my teacher is looking for something more along the lines of foreign policy
|
That being the case, as a justification, you can always throw in the good old Von Clausewitz quotation:
'War is a continuation of politics by other means' After all, the US aircraft carrier fleet's purpose, for example, is to project power around the globe in being 'the big stick'.
Most history teachers I had were content to let you write whatever the hell you wanted as long as you indicated that you had studied the thing in some depth. Which is easy to indicate with a few pithy quotes and some relevant dates etc. Regardless of the political aspirations of world leaders, it still very often comes down to military events either boosting or ruining political careers; you only have to look at what the failed 1980 hostage rescue attempt in Tehran did to Carter's career to see that. And, as with Vietnam, the unpopular image of body bags coming home from the Gulf is having an effect on determining US foreign policy and putting pressure on the present US Government; if things had gone better in the Gulf, the Republicans would absolutely walk the next election. Which is of course, why Governments like proxy wars, which they can distance themselves from, or choose to take credit if it all comes up smelling of roses.
Anyway, good luck with whatever you write.
Chock