• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

COLD WAR

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

There is widespread agreement that the end of the Cold War was a triumph for the United States and the West; but even several years later, there is little consensus about its meaning and implications for the future. As a result, it is not surprising that we call the period in which we now find ourselves the "post-Cold War" world, defining it as much by reference to what it is not and by what is behind us, as by what it is and by what lies ahead of us. A few features of the post-Cold War environment already are clear. First and most obvious, our victory in the Cold War -- not only the fact that we won it but how we won it -- transformed what might be called our "security environment." This occurred in the fundamental sense that the very real threats to our national security interests and core values we faced for a generation have disappeared for the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding all the issues and problems we confront in the post-Cold War world, none compares to the dangers -- including the specter of nuclear annihilation -- we faced during the Cold War. The simple but remarkable fact is that, for the first time in my adult life, the United States no longer faces a direct military threat to its vital interests. Second, and perhaps less obvious, the end of the Cold War offers new possibilities. ...read more.

Middle

Given this ambivalence, it should not be surprising if the pressures to spread (if not shed) the burdens of international leadership we shouldered during the Cold War seem nearly irresistible; yet at the same time we give voice to the impulse to redress the injustices and relieve the suffering that we find in abundance in the post-Cold War world. And so we hear a cacophony of voices. On one side is a growing chorus insisting that this problem is one with which the Europeans should deal, and that one is properly the concern of the Africans, and that other one is no concern of ours. On the other side is another loud chorus insisting that as the world's leading democracy and only superpower, we cannot stand aside but must "do something" to resolve this crisis, end that conflict, rebuild this nation, or bring the blessings of democracy to that one. IS ISOLATIONISM AN OPTION? Put differently, for the first time in a generation, we face an apparent choice between international engagement and leadership on the one hand, and a retreat into isolationism and unilateralism on the other. It is, however, a false choice unless we really are prepared to squander the opportunities and responsibilities we face, and accept whatever kind of world results. Isolationism is not a real option because the world is becoming increasingly interdependent. This growing interdependence, moreover, is unstoppable. ...read more.

Conclusion

With courage and sacrifice, and at great cost in blood and treasure, we led the allied forces to victory in World War II. In the aftermath of that conflict, we soon faced a choice between a return to American isolationism and American leadership of the free world facing a growing Soviet menace. This time -- with the painfully learned lessons of the interwar period in mind, but primarily prodded by an aggressively belligerent Soviet Union -- bipartisan American internationalism won out and, building on that consensus, we embarked on a course that culminated in our victory in the Cold War. The simple fact is that we can no more opt out of the external world and "mind our own business" in the post-Cold War world than we could after World War I or World War II. History tells us that following the siren song of neoisolationism ultimately serves neither our interests nor our values: we may be able to postpone a foreign policy day of reckoning, but we cannot avoid it. The United States literally cannot "abdicate" its role as international leader in the post-Cold War world because there is no one else -- no other country and no institution -- that could fill the role. Although we cannot and should not make every problem our own, we need to be clear that when and where we choose not to lead, chances are that no other country or institution will fill that vacuum. Put simply, no one and nothing else will take our place, because no one and nothing else can. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE History Projects section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE History Projects essays

  1. WHY HAD INTERNATIONAL PEACE COLLAPSED BY 1939?

    France and Britain were unwilling to agree because they: a) disliked Communism and did not want to defend it b) suspected Stalin aimed eventually to control Eastern Europe c) thought the Red Army was too weak to fight effectively 3. Poland refused to allow Soviet troops on its soil.

  2. Free essay

    What was the Grand Alliance, and how did it come to the Cold War?

    that Stalin needed a buffer zone to defend the Soviet Union from future Western aggression. By the 1960s many came to question America's innocence and blamed the Cold War on the US economic imperialism or untrustworthy behaviour during WWII. Revisionists criticized Kennan's idea that Stalin was a mad man who wanted world domination.

  1. How did the Cold War begin?

    matter of fact it had signed simply for the short-term convenience to prepare for the invasion to the USSR. Although this pact was meant to last for ten years it actually lasted less than two years. On June 22, 1941 Nazi Germany's invasion of the USSR called Operation Barbarossa commenced.

  2. 'Law and Order in the American West'

    This vigilance committee came to be known as the 'baldnobbers'. At their peek the baldnobbers are reported to have be between 500 and 1,000 members strong and though they may have started out with good intentions they soon abused their power to such an extent that their violent escapades gained national attention.

  1. Arab-Israeli Conflict

    Also, the weakness in the Arab tactics was that they were unable to defend each other quick enough and they lost their pride after this humiliating defeat. After this war Palestinians everywhere lost faith in the inability of the Arab states to defeat Israel.

  2. Gallic war

    Also, tensions rose between Pompey/Crassus; short-term goals had been achieved, regarded each other with contempt. * Caesar called Conference of Luca in 56 ? renewal of triumvirate. Was in best interests of each triumvir to maintain coalition. Led to 2nd joint consulship of Pompey/Crassus in 55.

  1. In what ways were the lives of children on the home front affected by ...

    to look cool which wasn't good for their future so they still didn't realise that the war was serious. They built shelters like Anderson shelters which protected the citizens of large in the areas they lived in and building shelters meant that children didn't get as affected as all they

  2. Nazi Control and Hitler's Foreign Policy

    of the fuhrer no matter what it will be will be discussed as the only correct one for Germany" Terror was the last form of control used by the Nazi's and it was aimed mostly at those Propaganda and education did not work on.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work