Q. 1
The preparations by the American forces in anticipation of the Spanish-American war revealed many weaknesses about the US military organization during this time in history. It also showed how unprepared America was for the war. This is notwithstanding the victory that the US registered in the war through the final liberation of Cuba and Philippines. The American civil war had rendered the US Navy weak and lacking in many critical military machines and weapons of war. Most good troops had also been lost in the previous war hence the need by President McKinley to prepare an active Army before fighting the Spanish insurrection. There were several inefficiencies and confusions within the American War Department at the time. Moreover, most of the people who were enlisted as volunteers in the war lacked the requisite naval experience. Further, there was weakness regarding military logistics, mobilization and other material impediments that confronted the US army and Presidency in the wake of the war. Moreover, according to Millet, Maslowski, and Feis, there were shortcomings regarding the lack of intellectual, military preparedness that had characterized the approach by the American forces to the World War I (125). The US army lacked enough number of infantrymen and proper rations that were necessary to meet the required number of troops to annihilate the Spanish forces. Additionally, there was a shortcoming of bureaucratic inefficiency due to the military leadership’s reluctance to send soldiers to the war.
Q.2
After World War I, the US developed a policy doctrine of isolationism and neutrality. These were meant to ensure that Americans do not go to yet another war in future following the devastating nature of WWI. However, in spite of this national stance, President Roosevelt was convinced that another major war was in the offing and hence the need for the US to prepare militarily. Thus, though doctrinally unprepared, the US was prepared to some extent regarding military organization and equipment. To this extent, some measures were taken by the US government that indicated the knowledge that another war was inevitable. These actions include the push for the approval of a peacetime military draft requiring registration and enlistment of young men into the army, authorization of the proposal to double the size of the US Navy and the enactment of the Lend-Lease Act. It could also be argued that the nation was simply not modernized regarding military equipment. According to Weigley, the US still had the inferior material that it had used during the WWI, and very few efforts were made to modernize the US military equipment (86). For example, when the Japanese bombed the Pearl Harbor, it took some time before the US could make a decision to go to war. Most of its military resources had been spent in providing support to Allies in Europe and Asia.
Q. 3
The decision by President Truman to have a bomb dropped on the Japanese Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities in August 1945 is one that has raised legal, ethical and military questions since the WWII. While some scholars argue that the decision was inevitable and that the US was left with no choice after the provocation by Japan on US Pearl Harbor attack, others believe it was not necessary. This is due to the collateral damage or destruction that the bombs had in the Japanese population. From a strategic standpoint, it may be argued that the decision was necessary to bring the war to a swift close. Further, given the contingencies of the time, it could have been the best strategy to annihilate Japan. Additionally, the strategic context of the decision to drop the nuclear weapons on twin Japanese cities could have been that due to the military, moral and financial exhaustion of states that resulted from the WWI, the only effective strategy in ensuring Japanese surrender was to drop the bomb. Also, given that the US military and economy was in shambles.
On the other hand, the political context of the dropping of these bombs is that having taken over political power after Roosevelt’s death to lead the US out of the bloody war, Truman may have wished to create an impression of a tough, no-nonsense President, who would do anything to protect American interests. Truman, however, defended his action and stated that the decision had been informed purely by military necessary and the need to bring the war to an end. Moreover, yes, given the context of the times, I think this was a proper decision. This is because had Truman not made such a decision, the US would not have succeeded in sending a message to the Axis about its military and technological prowess. Moreover, given the experience from the WWI, this decision, though morally deplorable, was the proper one to make to save more American lives and costs of yet another destructive war. Also, since the US policy after WWI had always been to remain neutral, avoid conflicts and only intervene in foreign affairs if its national security was threatened, the Japanese provocation justified this decision.
Works Cited
Allan R Millett, Peter Maslowski and William B Feis. For the common defense: A military history of the United States from 1607 to n2012. London: Simon and Schuster, 2012. Print.
Weigley, Russell F. American way of war: A history of the United States military strategy and policy. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1977. Print.
