American National Security Policy
Kennan and Gaddis are great American historians and political analysts having written books that contain historical accounts of major events of the globe. Though Kennan and Gaddis differ in opinions about certain political philosophies, both play an essential role in changing political views of the majority of people who utilize their literature (Boot, 2014). They both have contents that speak about the cold war and grand strategies that might have helped America escape Russia, but their political opinions are different, and they speak different philosophies based on their beliefs and experience.
Comparison between Kennan's Book on American Diplomacy And Surprise, Security, And The American Experience By Gaddis
They both believed that America had to renew its foreign policy. Readers of books from both authors assert that there is a wide difference in position each holds concerning political power and state protection. In his book, Kennan believed that America had lost its confidence at that time and was succumbing to fear, hence, leading to self-destruction. Gaddis wrote his book during George Bush's administration in support of the upcoming Bush Grand Strategy. Gaddis also struggles to explain how the strategy could normalize foreign policy. He writes how the Bush Grand strategy would finish what had initially been started.
They Both Have Mixed Ideologies
Though some of his sentiments contradict one another, Kennan oscillated between optimism and despair. He wrote in his book that, when America was secure it had exaggerated security standards and confidence in its strength, but as days went, it started sinking by exaggerating the dangers it faced and continuously underestimating their abilities (Why Kennan Matters, 2016). The mixed doubt that Kennan has about America pervades its diplomacy. Gaddis, on the other hand, is not certain if the Bush Strategy will be sufficient to protect the American citizens as he had foreseen cracks in it. He has questions whether the stipulated order, justice and prosperity and justice will establish stable democracies in other parts of the world.
They Both Agree That American State Might Lead To Its Self Destruction
On the issue of American diplomacy, Kennan has a divided opinion about how it is exercised. He criticizes that the failure of the American foreign policy is tied to policy maker's deference to popular opinions, and he terms this "Diplomacy by dilettantism." He notes that if a political state does not have strong foreign policies, it might become a victim of its propaganda. According to Boot, Gaddis also sees cracks in American first principles, and he warns that if it continues to exchange its reputation as a stabilizer for an international system for the others to destabilize, the country might eventually fall (2004).
They Both Have Hopes for a Better Future for America
Kennan also hopes that a democratic system would continue being used to conduct America's foreign policy. Though he believed that emotions and subjectivity drove public opinions; hence, leading to poor judgment of situations, he still ought for it to be considered (Boot, 2004). Gaddis also believes that America can learn to wield power, while they minimize arrogance, as a solution for transport of America federalism.
Both Are Realists
Kennan was not dogmatic about his democratic opinions, but dogmatic about slight issues for ideologies and theories occupied his mind. He was a realist, and he maintained a fruitful correspondence with the godfather of American realism. He preserved national interests, as he believed that America would go far if it maintained the interest of its people. According to Boot, Gaddis is also a realist that stands by what he beliefs in. He also wants to live in a real world and ensure that interests of the people are maintained (2004).
Kennan and Gaddis Differ In the Following Ways
While Kennan based his opinions mostly on theoretical ideologies, Gaddis based his ideologies on practical experiences and occurrences; for instance, when he was explaining the Bush security strategy. He had analyzed numerous historical phenomena, he based his ideas, and predictions on what had occurred.
Kennan's ideologies of Russia's embracement to Marxist ideologies and ambitions for greater powers makes it a dominant dogma in Soviets affairs and; hence, he concluded that Marxist ideologies must simply not be underestimated (Why Kennan Matters, 2016). He did not acknowledge the power of nationalism fully because it causes nations such as Germany and Rome to lose identity when they thought they were super powers. Gaddis on the other hand strongly believes in nationalism and the communist state that America is. He believes that only communism will give it an advantage over Russia.
Kennan bases security strategies that America should learn from Cold War, World War II, and the Korean War. These wears might have affected the Americans from outside, and thus; fewer lessons on security strategies can be learned from the occurrences (Foreign Affairs, 2016). Gaddis on the other hand bases his security concerns on what happened on the American soil quoting the al Qaeda's attack on September 11 and burning of Washington D.C. by the British army (Foreign Affairs, 2016). These catastrophes affected the Americans in their soil, and hence, he tries to come up with practical strategies, including revision of a foreign policy that will be essential to enhancing security threats facing the country.
Kennan also does not offer solutions to real time issues. According to Why Kennan Matters, he only discusses them based on ideologies and different strategies that he borrows from the countries he visits (2016). Gaddis offers real-time solutions to security issues, and he even contributes to the formulation of the Bush Security Strategy.
Gaddis does things differently from Kennan in the way he applies practical experiences in the real time problems, his political analysis of issues, participation in the actual security debates and even the way he structures his opinions. He presents flexibility in the way he handles issues and he relates the situations well with what had happened in the past (Boot, 2004). Kennan's ideologies are based on conservatism's point of view; hence, they may tend to be biased while Gaddis's ideologies are liberal, and he is flexible over a wide range of situations. Kennan's concerns are valid, but they might not be so relevant to the current situations considering that security strategies and war tactics have changed over time.
References
Boot, M. (2004). Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis - Commentary Magazine.Commentary Magazine. Retrieved 26 March 2016, from https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/surprise-security-and-the-american-experience-by-john-lewis-gaddis/
Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. (2009). Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 26 March 2016, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2004-05-01/surprise-security-and-american-experience
Why Kennan Matters. (2016). The American Conservative. Retrieved 26 March 2016, from http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-kennan-matters/
