Reassessing U.S. Strategy in the Aftermath of the Korean War

...

C assumed that American must increase efforts to disturb and weaken the Soviet Bloc and to maximize the disruption there. All the task force agreed on continuation of the present level of national security spending.

Finally NSC 162/2 was put in force for produced a single page agreement on these three tasks mentioned above. In closing, NSC 162/2 concluded that although the Soviet focused on developing weapons of mass destruction, it’s impossible for the Soviet to launch an all—out offensive to the U.S. Thus sustaining a stable development of economy, education, technology in all valuable things is more vital and feasible to the U.S.

Though withdraw of U.S. / U.N. forces from Korea would free the soldiers from restriction of the armistice. Considering that the ROK couldn’t promise remain secure, Chinese and North Korea had not endured by the armistice agreement and increasing power of the Soviet Union part of the U.S. / U.N. army will remained in the Peninsula.

Overall, people still assess that President Eisenhower achieved big success: ended the Korean War, wisely intervened in Vietnam, strengthened the NATO and took responsibilities at all of the foreign policy’s outcomes. His career looks similar to today’s president Obama, that both of them seem quite tranquil if compared with previous but difficulties facing in today not easy to solve. But both them will surely get more praises and confirm from people later in history.

(3.) Stueck, William. “Reassessing U.S. Strategy in the Aftermath of the Korean War” Orbis 53, no. 4, (2009): 571–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2009.07.007 (accessed Nov. 17, 2013).589

(4) It seems that the author’s argument based on well researched evidence. The sources he used contained both primary and secondary source. Some of them were included in books (e.g. Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945–1954 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 324.) This example was cited when the author showed how much does the expensing exactly increased (on the page of 574). This documents is a primary source (e.g. Senior Staff Meeting, July 8, 1952, File Folder 334, NSC Files, Box 24, SMOF-PSB files 323–334, Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, Independence, Mo., as quoted in ibid., pp. 93–94.) This example was cited when the author tried to precisely expressed how Bohlen really thought the US’s situation if they compete with the Soviet Union in long-term.

(5) I see the intended audience of this article mostly could be historians, professions who studying the US’s modern strategies on East Asia and some of the public who are interested in historian study. Because it provides a very detailed aftermath recession on the military spending strategies which were applied during the war and at the end of the war. And accompanied with the situations that how did each different of strategies made and how what’s the response of each of the strategy. And this article also contains many of the words which are not supposed to see in ordinary life. I think this article is a very precise professional article for study.

(6) Author’s purpose in writing this article is for helping us understand more comprehensively that how did the pattern made at the end of Korean War, why did the polities concerned in that way. If it maximize the benefits on both first and second world countries. And part of author’s attitude also include a confirmation on what Eisenhower did on Korean War and post war’s affairs.

(7.) (page 583) One of my question was why the rumor that the Unites States was about to reduce its troop level in Europe increase fears of France people and German rearmament? As a result of situation in European countries especially the Soviet Union and German still not steady, the US reduced its troops in means of less protection for its ally’s countries like France and part of Germany. Is the German the western part one? Is rearmament important and beneficial for this part of Germany keeping conflict with the Communalists and Soviet Union? Are the Communalists and Soviet Union can be mentioned together and opposite with NATO?

(Since page 583) The second question is did Eisenhower accept Truman’s psychological method to invade the Soviet? Does the NSC162/2 contained this psychological method?

(Page 584) Why U.S. was required to base positioned closer to Soviet territory than continental United States in turn of no necessary so long as the U.S. maintained a capacity to launch a devastating counterstrike on the Soviet