How did Clausewitz’s theory of warfare affect Kennedy and Khrushchev’s decision-making process during the Cold War? This essay will look at the decisions by Kennedy (from the USA) and Krushchev (from the USSR) and how their decisions are linked to Clauswitz’s theory related to war. The Cold War happened because both men were stubborn and wanted to be the most powerful leaders in the world. Not too many people were surprised that the USA were involved in the Cold War as they were the superpower of the time and were involved in many political problems such as World War I and World War II. The questions that need to be asked include how were the decisions made by Kennedy and Khrushchev related to Clausewitz’s theory? And were the decisions made by these leaders a conscious effort to follow Clausewitz’s theory? Clausewitz was a theorist who specialised in the nature of war. He stressed the importance of understanding how the context of a situation contributed to the dynamics and structure of a possible war (1). President Khrushchev of the USSR and President Kennedy of the United States of America (USA), realised the importance of the context during the 1960s and this affected international politics as there was a clear divide between the East and West. There was also a divide of ideologies being Capitalism from the USA and Communism from the USSR. The most rational way for us to understand politics and conflict is to integrate subjects such as philosophy, psychology and so forth. War is not autonomous and violence expresses the political purpose in wars and should do so in a sensible manner (2). Problems emerge in the context due to the opportunities, people, solutions and the people involved in the situation (3). Leaders also play an important role and need to be sensitive to the perceptive response to and from the opponent, the role of history and the intellectual creativity of the situation (Bell, 1978: 51). Clausewitz referred to the ‘genius’ in his theory about wars, in which is the role of important individuals, their power of choice and rationality were emphasised (Paret, 1989: 204). Khrushchev has been described as a leader that did not want a nuclear war and ultimately wanted a ‘peaceful co-existence’ with the USA. Perhaps, Khrushchev realised that if the Soviet Union tried to fight against the USA, it would have lost (4).
Comment [MG1]: When first discussing abbreviations, write the whole word out first followed by the abbreviation. Once this is done, the abbreviation can be used throughout the work. Comment [MG2]: Be careful not to include assumptions in academic assignments Comment [MG3]: This introduction hasn’t introduced the points that are going to be discussed throughout the work
Comment [MG4]: Incorrect referencing. Reference through the software to automatically insert the numbers. Comment [MG5]: Is this relevant information? If so, explain why.
Comment [MG6]: Make sure the paragraphs are in the same style and that there is 1.5 spacing throughout the essay Comment [MG7]: Choose which referencing style to do throughout the work and stick to it. Do not use more than one style.
Leaders are the actors that control and direct the wars (Paret, 1989: 199). War is seen as a continuation of policy in which armed forces should be included in to control the mobilisation of forces and limited achievements (Paret, 1989: 199). Clearly seen with the USA and Soviet Union, Khrushchev and Kennedy pulled the conflict away from becoming a nuclear war.
Nuclear missiles were used as a bargaining move. If the Soviet Union was to remove their missiles, it was assumed that the USA removes their missiles from Turkey and Italy (Allison, 1971: 42).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Paret, 1989: 186 Paret, 1989: 199 Eisenhartdt & Zbaracki, 1992: 27 Allison, 1971: 64
Comment [MG8]: Make sure all the work is in the same size font and the same font style
Comment [MG9]: Reference through the software so it will automatically appear at the bottom of the page.
By placing missiles in Cuba, the Soviet Union was seen as posing a threat on the western world (Allison, 1971: 42). There was a strong division between the western and eastern hemisphere as there was a clash of ideologies between capitalism (represented by the USA) and socialism (represented by the Soviet Union) (Garthoff, 1989: 23). This could affect the perception of political survival within the context of the Missile Crisis (Guttieri, Suedfeld & Wallace, 1995: 597).
Comment [MG10]: Use the same name as mentioned before...refer to USSR throughout the work or the Soviet Union
The USA had a number of contingency plans that were available as an alternative to the blockade (Anderson, 1983: 211), to create a promising response from the Soviet Union. Contingency plans dictate how well the crisis is managed and thought through (Bell, 1978: 54). The contingency plans included a secret negotiation with Castro, invade Cuba, an air strike, and include a third party such as the United Nations, ignoring the conflict or having a blockade (Allison, 1969: 697).
Comment [MG11]: Are the paragraphs flowing and linked to each other?
One of the contingency plans was the possibility of an air strike (Levi & White, 1994: 247). Military planning of the air strike went forward, however political planning did not (McKeown, 2001: 1181). The consequences of the contingency plans are predicted which is linked to the role of decision making (Anderson, 1983: 211). In conclusion, conflict is a phenomenon that occurs throughout time which is unique and needs to be understood due to its complexity. Possibility of future wars and the history of wars were important in understanding the emergence of conflict and necessity of decision-making. Decision making is an impromptu activity in which the decision of one actor is reliant on the actions of the adversary. This makes the strategy behind decision making difficult to establish. This essay has addressed the main concepts that make decision making effective. The latter includes the one game theory, rational actor model, goals and assumptions as well as the security dilemma. The balance of strategic power also needs recognition as well as the prisoner’s dilemma, geopolitics and contingency plans. The leader’s role has also been addressed as the role of communication between leaders plays a determining role in conflict. Domestic politics affects leader’s decisions when solving a conflict.
Bibliography Allison, G., 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 63 (3). Allison, G., 1971., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis., Little, Brown and Company, USA. Anderson, P., 1983. “Decision Making by Objection and the Cuban Missile Crisis”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28. Belkin, A. & J, Blight., 1991. “Triangular Mutual Security: Why the Cuban Missile Crisis Matters in a World beyond the Cold War”. Political Psychology, Vol. 12 (4).
Comment [MG12]: These paragraphs are too small and structurally weak. They need to have more in depth explanation and examples to make them stronger. Comment [MG13]: Has the essay question been answered throughout the essay?
Comment [MG14]: Place the bibliography on a separate page
Bell, C. 1978. “Decision-making by governments in crises situations”, in Frei, D., International Crises and Crisis Management., Gower Publishing, England, pg. 50-59. Eisenhartdt, K. & M. Zbaracki. 1992. “Strategic Decision Making”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13. Kahan, J. & A, Long., 1972. “ The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Study of Its Strategic Context”. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 87 (4). Kegley, W. & E, Wittkopf., 1999. World Politics: Trends and Transformation. Macmillan Press Ltd, London. Kennedy, R., 1969. 13 Days: The Cuban Missile Crisis. Heron Books, London. Levi, A. & G. White., 1994. “The Origins and Function of the Reference Point in Risky Group Decision Making: The Case of the Cuban Missile Crisis”. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, Vol. 7. McKeown, T., 2001. “Plans and Routines, Bureaucratic, and the Cuban Missile Crisis”. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 63 (4). Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O & T. Woodhouse. 2005. Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Polity Press, Cambridge. Paret, P., 1986. Makers of Modern Strategy., Princeton University Press, USA. Pious, R., 2001. “The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Limits of Crisis Management”. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 116 (1). Thakur, R., 1988. International Conflict Resolution., Westview Press, Colorado.