Strategies of Containment

During the Cold War, the United States employed a geopolitical strategic foreign policy known as containment. This policy was adopted as part of the countrys efforts to prevent the spread of communism in the aftermath of the Second World War. This geopolitical strategic foreign policy was essentially geared towards the containment of the Soviet Union during this period. Strategies of containment adopted by the U.S. during the Cold War have been the subject of numerous publications and studies throughout history. Existing publications and articles on this issue present different perspectives relating to history, national security, and international relations. John Lewis Gaddis wrote a book named Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War. The book provides a critical assessment of the strategies employed by the U.S. during the Cold War and their effectiveness in national security. Through the critical appraisal, Lewis sought to reinterpret U.S. national security policy during this period based on recent research and new evidence. This paper examines some sections of their book in relation to the geopolitical strategic foreign policy employed by the U.S. since World War II.

Flexible Response

Flexible response was a new military strategy that changed post-war U.S. foreign relations. This strategy dramatically changed the countrys national security policy. Flexible response emerged as part of John F. Kennedys administration to replace the massive retaliation strategy adopted by his predecessor Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhowers administration focused on portraying international communism as an efficient and ruthless monument (Lewis, 2005). President Kennedys incoming administration sought to replace Eisenhowers strategy on grounds that the National Security Council had become bloated and unwieldy. John F. Kennedy believed that President Eisenhowers administration spent more time creating policy papers on almost everything, taking them through appropriate bureaucracies, and discussing them in lengthy meetings. As a result, the entire National Security Council had become an obstacle rather than a catalyst to coordinate relevant and appropriate action as desired. The bureaucracies in Eisenhowers administration forced him to make actual decisions on major issues independently in consultation with a few key advisers in his office. The bureaucracies in policymaking were seemingly at the core of the massive retaliation strategy adopted by the Eisenhower administration. The adoption of flexible response by Kennedys administration involved cutting back the National Security Council staff and relying more on direct contacts across different agencies for decision-making. Through these measures, he sought to downgrade the National Security Council as the major decision-making organization on national security matters. Kennedy seemingly believed that downgrading this body would help in the adoption and implementation of the new flexible response strategy.

The new flexible response strategy was a critical part of Americas foreign relations policy as it remained in place after Lyndon B. Johnson became president. While President Johnson had a significantly different personal style, he continued with the new strategy. This implies that both Kennedy and Johnson viewed the new strategy as an effective measure of containment during the Cold War. Johnsons continuity of the new strategy involved retaining most of President Kennedys key advisers including Rusk, McNamara, Taylor, Bundy, and later Rostow. However, President Johnson had some disagreements with the approach adopted by his predecessor in the implementation of the new strategy. The administration of both President Kennedy and President Johnson adopted flexible response out of fear of embarrassment, humiliation, or appearing to be weak. While the strategy largely sought to address Soviet Unions threat to Western Europe, it was adopted by both administrations due to the fear or threat of humiliation/embarrassment. Both administrations did not fear communism as much since it was too fragmented. In addition, they neither feared China as much because it was largely impotent nor the Soviet Union because it was more devoted to dtente (Lewis, 2005).

Lewis (2005) notes that by the time flexible response strategy was adopted, U.S. strategies of containment had fluctuated between symmetrical and asymmetrical concepts. Prior to the adoption of this strategy, containment strategies like Eisenhowers massive retaliation initiative was largely asymmetrical. However, asymmetrical concepts received criticisms on grounds that they were offered inadequate measures of responding to various challenges. This implies that flexible response was fueled by dissatisfaction with symmetrical concepts/approaches due to their inefficiencies. President Kennedys administration created symmetrical approach known as flexible response. Symmetrical approach was the desired way of addressing the challenges facing the U.S. during the Cold War. When formulating this strategy, President Kennedy was aware of the perception of interests and threats facing the country.

As one of the strategies of containment, flexible response largely focused on addressing the threat of the Soviet Union to Western Europe. Even though Lewis (2005) states that it was formulated as a result of fear of being humiliated, flexible response essentially focused on dealing with the threat posed by the Soviet Union to Western Europe (Gavin, 2001). Consequently, this strategy not only had significant impacts on U.S. national security but also brought dramatic changes to the countrys foreign policy and relations. As a symmetrical approach, flexible response was a radical change that seemingly improved deterrence. It enhances deterrence by giving the president flexible nuclear alternative and increasing traditional capabilities to deal with several military crises. In essence, this strategy derives its name from the fact that it offers the president flexible nuclear options for dealing with military crises.

The provision of flexible nuclear options to the president and improving traditional capabilities are seen in how Kennedys administration introduced this strategy to the public. When addressing the public in March 1961, President Kennedy stated that the goal o flexible response was to insure the sufficiency of U.S. bargaining power as a means of halting the arms race. In addition, he stated that the strategy sought to deter general and limited wars regardless of whether they were nuclear or conventional. His administration sought to achieve this by persuading all potential attackers that any war would not solve disputes compared to diplomacy. This strategy placed emphasis on lessening the dependence on nuclear weapons in order to deter limited aggression. Secondly, President Kennedys administration focused on enhancing the conventional capabilities of NATO. This implies that a controlled nuclear war was one of the core assumptions underlying flexible response. This strategy was based on an assumption that a controlled nuclear war, which was relatively unrealistic, and improved conventional capabilities would help to settle any disputes. However, the strategy was inherently incongruous since it provided the president flexible nuclear options.

Implementing Flexible Response

On one hand, flexible response gave the president flexible nuclear options and focused on improving traditional capabilities. On the other hand, it sought to promote deterrence on grounds that any potential attacks would be futile. The inconsistencies in this approach to addressing U.S. challenges during the Cold War are evident in its application in Vietnam War. The war in Vietnam is a suitable case to determine the effectiveness of flexible response for two major reasons as stated by Lewis (2005). First, U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia practically demonstrates all components of this strategy. Secondly, President Kennedy and President Johnson as well as their advisers viewed Vietnam as a fair test of this approach. Therefore, the implementation of this strategy in Vietnams case would have serious implications for its application elsewhere. Given the significance of the implementation of the strategy in the Vietnam War, American leaders were fully aware of probable difficulties. In addition, these leaders were fully confident of their ability to overcome the potential challenges. For them, the successful implementation of the strategy would be an indictment of President Eisenhowers inability to deal with similar problems. However, any failures would be an indicator of the ineffectiveness of flexible response.

The inherent inconsistencies of flexible response came into play during the Vietnam War. This is primarily because of the varied accomplishments in this war with differing intended objectives. Lewis (2005) notes some of the failures of flexible response strategy including its inability to deter future aggression and the fact that it did not save South Vietnam. In addition,...

…had its nuclear weapons and capabilities. For the U.S., dtente with the Soviet Union was part of its efforts to lessen military expenditure and narrow strategic supremacy without compromising its national security policy and strategy. Moreover, it reflected Americas new foreign policy and strategy. By achieving dtente with the Soviet Union, the U.S. would make it difficult for Russians to adopt future actions that would harm Western interests.

The Completion of Containment

By the time Ronald Reagan assumed office, the previous administrations had adopted a series of changing foreign policies. These administrations had enacted different policies during the Cold War in effort to limit the spread and extent of the Soviets Union military and political influence. President Reagans tenure marked the completion of containment and represented another shift in U.S. foreign policies during this period. The change in Americas foreign policies was influenced by national security interests as well as its international interests. Lewis (2005) notes that Ronald Reagan assumed office at a time when the limits of symmetrical and asymmetrical containment had become quite obvious. On one hand, symmetrical approaches safeguarded against incremental threats and offered policymakers a wide range of choices than those of escalation and humiliation. However, these approaches allowed enemies to choose the nature and location of their competition and required nearly unlimited resources. Therefore, key global powers like the United States did not have adequate resources to support symmetrical containment. On the other hand, asymmetrical approaches enabled adversaries to select the manner of response given the realities of limited resources. However, these approaches forced adversaries to yield positions easily without defense or expand confrontations by capitalizing on new positions.

For President Reagan, the basic aspects of foreign policy and strategies adopted by previous administrations had largely failed. Understandably, President Reagan criticized Jimmy Carter and condemned the dtente policies explicitly (Zakaria, 2010). The completion of containment by President Reagan and his administration was fueled by his total rejection of the foreign policies of the previous three administrations. Therefore, President Reagan sought to evolve U.S. foreign policy and strategy outside those adopted by his predecessors. As a result, President Reagans administration adopted a radically different approach to containment.

The new U.S. foreign policy and approach adopted by President Reagan and his administration was based on rollback as the prime doctrine of the nations foreign relations. President Reagan seemingly relied on the prescription by James Burnham to roll back the Soviet Union. Based on his belief that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, President Reagan sought to contain and eventually reverse its expansionism. Some of the events that characterized President Reagans new foreign policy included the renewed arms race, supporting Islamist mujahideen to fight Soviets living in Afghanistan, and efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government. To enhance the effectiveness of his new foreign policy, President Reagan focused on results instead of details, selected among priorities instead of being pulled apart by them, refused to be intimidated by customs, and combined conviction with the ability to express it. The completion of containment by President Reagan was evident in the fact that his approach largely achieved its goals. As noted by Lewis (2005), President Reagan developed a new foreign policy that was relevant and extraordinarily consistent.

In conclusion, containment is essentially a term used to refer to the different geopolitical strategies adopted by the United States during the Cold War. These strategies were largely influenced by international events at that time and the interests of the Western world. As evident in this book, different administrations adopted different foreign policies and strategies in effort to achieve their goals. The strategies of containment adopted by the U.S. during this period oscillated between symmetrical and asymmetrical approaches. However, the challenges and successes of each administration demonstrate that both symmetrical and asymmetrical foreign policy approaches were not entirely effective in achieving the desired foreign policy goals and objectives. The strategies of containment had significant impacts on American society as well as its foreign relations. These strategies had significant political, military, and economic implications for the…