History
291
Richard H. Immerman
Superpower
America
Fall 2002
Final Examination Study Guide
Your final
opportunity to dazzle me with your expertise, perspicacity, and erudition is
rapidly approaching.
You must be growing anxious. You must be asking yourself, "What will
Immerman ask? Why did he wait so long to provide me with the questions? What do I still need to read? What do I need
to review? Where can I
get some Cliff notes? Are there Cliff notes for history?"
Well, I hear you. Here the questions are. Smile and look relieved. But don’t waste your time in search of Cliff notes.
A reminder:
your essays must focus on the fundamental historical issues that inhere in the
questions. To
the greatest extent possible assiduously provide support for
your conclusions (i.e., arguments) with robust evidence gleaned from the
readings, lectures,
and materials on line (e.g., documents). Think about what response is
necessary and sufficient for each question (what precisely am I asking
you to think about and do), and organize your presentations and illustrations accordingly. Strive
for logic, consistency, and
succinctness (avoid tangents); anticipate counterarguments and preempt/coopt
them. Keep in mind that this time
around you will be required to write two essays.
For this reason I have decided not to include on the exam those dreaded
identification questions. Hence you should have ample time to produce thorough
essays.
I have
confidence in all of you; I hope you share my outlook. Don't worry; be happy.
1.
An authority on U.S. history has written, "Henry Kissinger believed
that, in creating a design for a world order, realism was more
compassionate than romanticism. The great moralists, in his judgment, had been
failures. Woodrow Wilson had proved ineffectual, and John Foster Dulles had
turned foreign policy into a crusade that led straight into the Indochina
quagmire. Kissinger did not make peace or justice the objective of his
policy, nor was he particularly interested in 'making the world safe for
democracy.' He merely wished to make the
world safer and more stable." For this insightful understanding of history
and astute recognition of what constitutes
the national interest, this authority concluded, Kissinger deserves the
congratulations and gratitude of all Americans.
What
advice would this authority have provided President George Dubya Bush on
September 12, 2001? Would you agree with that advice? Base your reasoning on
your evaluation, as an authority, of Kissinger's diagnoses
and prescriptions--as well as your assessment of the conduct of
foreign policy--and the outcomes of this policy--by
those in Washington whose diagnoses and prescriptions have differed from
Kissinger's.
2.
Responding to a question at a Press Conference in 1982, Ronald Reagan
provided the following history
of the escalation of
America's commitment to Vietnam:
"If I recall correctly, when
France gave up Indochina as a colony, the leading nations of the world met in
Geneva in regard to helping those colonies become independent nations. And
since North and South Vietnam had been previous to colonization two
separate countries, provisions were made that these two countries could by a
vote of all their people together decide whether they wanted to be one country
or
not. . . .
"And there wasn't anything
surreptitious about it, but when Ho Chi Minh refused to participate in such an
election and there was provision that the peoples of both countries could
cross the border and live in the other country if they wanted to,
and when they began leaving by the thousands and thousands from North
Vietnam to live in South Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh closed the border and again
violated that part of the agreement
. . . .
"And openly, our country sent military advisors there
to help a country which had been a colony have such
things as a national security force, an army you might say, or a
military, to defend itself. And they were doing
this, if I recall correctly, also in civilian clothes, no weapons,
until they began being blown up where they
lived, in walking down the street by people riding by on bicycles
and throwing pipe bombs at them. and then they
were permitted to carry side arms or wear uniforms . . .
"But it was totally a program until John F.
Kennedy, when these attacks and forays became so great that
John F. Kennedy authorized the sending in of a division of marines. That
was the first move toward combat moves
in Vietnam."
Please provide the former president
(and Jared’s parents) with the correct history of the evolution of America's
military intervention
in Vietnam.
3.
The history of U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan administration remains to
be written. To some, he was a skilled statesman with exceptional foresight who
achieved his most important aims: He prevented Communist
expansion, he brought the Soviet Union to his knees, and he restored America's
strength, confidence, and spirit. To others, he was an uniformed, detached
ideologue, incapable of understanding global complexity. His rigidity, myopia,
and ignorance unnecessarily increased international tension even as it
undermined America's economic
vitality.
Choose your side. How would you evaluate Reagan
and his foreign policy? What do you consider his legacy? Comparing Reagan’s
successes to Carter’s distresses, address this fundamental historical
question: Would you attribute the
results and consequences of their respective foreign policies primarily to the
premises and initiatives of the two presidents and each’s advisors or to the
historical circumstance in which each president found himself?
Provide
appropriate evidence (e.g., examples) to support your arguments.
4.
Subsequent to the events of 9/11, many commentators have addressed the question
of how non-Americans perceive the United States around the globe, especially in
less developed regions and by peoples with religions and cultures very different
than America’s.
This course by design has concentrated on
those officials in Washington—whether elected or appointed—who formulated
and implemented the policies and programs associated with America’s “global
reach.” Thus this course has at least implied that officials in
Washington—the U.S. government—are largely responsible for America’s
international behavior and thus foreign perceptions of the United States. Walter
LaFeber, however, argues that especially but not exclusively since the
acceleration of the process of globalization in the 1980s,
non-state actors such as Michael Jordan and the Philip Knight have
eclipsed the U.S. government as a force in expanding America’s international
influence and power. LaFeber maintains
that Michael Jordan illustrates a new form of American power, and only by
examining it can we hope to understand the tragedy of 9/11.
Carefully summarize and critically analyze LaFeber’s
argument. Be sure to discuss what evidence LaFeber provides and the reasons why
you find this argument persuasive—or not.