Intellectual roots of our modern thinking have been turbulent changes in order to adapt to the contemporary world, especially the special relationship between historical events and different schools of the political theories. Modern history from the twentieth century to our current decade of the twenty-first century since the World War I (1914-1918) to the World War II (1939-1945), the role of the US foreign policy has widely, historically and politically influenced onto the study of history and politics. From the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine (coined by US President James Monroe) and inherited to build by President Teddy Roosevelt’s realism named Roosevelt Corollary, and Wilsonian idealism/Wilsonianism in the very beginning of the twentieth century to the end of the Cold War 1991 with George W. Bush’s idealism, US’s foreign policy resources and objectives have vastly recognised its self-interest of administration in each of the presidency. In this following analyses, the US foreign policy since 1945 will be investigated through which ideological framework had been used to proclaim the effectiveness of realism in the exercise of the international political arena and power.
At glance, ideological perspectives on foreign policy in American history have had certain influences on international relations and international order. From which, amongst three core schools of thought of the International Relations (IR), the deep-seated tendency to the think-in-spectrum of US foreign policy after WWII (ended in 1945) was Realism. However, this may be contested because of the fluctuation between domestic and international agenda, which this of political ideology employed by different presidencies and purposely pursuits. According to Cambridge Dictionary (2019), Realism is defined as “a way of thinking and acting based on facts and what is possible, rather than on hopes for things that are unlikely to happen.”[1] Realism or political realism, this is also known to stress “its competitive and conflictual side where the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power.”[2] (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2019)
In the early twentieth century, this school of thought was used by US President Teddy Roosevelt, who believed the US, should focus on two political spectrums by the preservation of the balance of power and the national interests.[3] After historical upheavals by the end of the WWII, the US under Franklin Delano Roosevelt had responded to the world life by “remaining a neutral nation”, and played the role of trading with allies, followed by the Lend-Lease Act (1941).[4] However, this is controversial. In 1939, during WWII, the US Army included 180,00 soldiers and had been funded less than $US 500 million. It was, nonetheless, funded up to %US 100 billion on military equipment with 15 million men and 216,000 women enlisted the armed forces in 1942.[5] This is understandably not diplomatic but the feasibility of being more realistic to international politics. Historically the US military thereafter directly engaged the Pacific War (1931-1941) with two historic warfares of the 1937-1938 Nanking Massacre and the Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941.
Internationally, the spending on military forces embodies a clear foreign policy, which is highly interpreted to the protection of sovereignty and national interest. It justifies the precondition of the US foreign policy afterwards redeemed to the school of political Realism. This document continues to trace three cases in order to fortify the argument of the US foreign policy of Realism, comprising of the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Dirty Wars across Latin America.
Firstly, in the Korean War, the military spending was calculated as 20% of the total GDP, which the US implemented as the NSC 68 – United States Objectives and Programs for National Security, and provided for the militarization from 1950 to the collapse of the Soviet Union.[6] In the excerpts submitted to President Truman on 14 April 1950, a top-secret did set out two factors that was “basically altered the historic distribution of power”, including the defeat of Germany and Japan and the decline of the British and French-influenced to “the development of the United States” and the Soviet’s aspirant hegemony being “a new fanatic faith and antithetical to our own… to the absolute authority over the rest of the world.”[7] Therefore it led to the Korean War (1950-1953) and the separation of this country to two sides, which is North Korea allied with the USSR and South Korea allied with the US, at the 38th Parallel as known in the current history of the Two Koreas. In terms of ideology, the distinction between MacArthur and President Truman was that MacArthur supposed to make the expansion of war with China while Truman really did want to avoid this to become larger.[8] MacArthur was dismissed but the war continued. The Truman Doctrine came before to explain this clearly. In the doctrine, Mr Acheson (US Ambassador to the UN) stated that the President addressed “some of the basic facts of life with which we are primarily concerned today in the conduct of foreign relations that most of the countries of Europe and Asia were in a state of physical destruction or economic dislocation…”[9] Also, Truman said to Congress that “the United States earnestly desires peace and is willing to make a vigorous effort to help create conditions of peace.”[10] The result of the Korean War is the ramifications which are shown the world a very unreasonable number. At least 4 million were killed including 54,000 Americans; the huge military build-up bypassed the Congress with spending of $US 100 billion and huge budget deficits.[11] Consequently, it led the US to a negative involvement in Asia after the ideological conflicts with the Communist bloc (led by the USSR) because of fighting with Communist China during the Korean War. In other words, the self-interest is very clear since this event.
Moving to the Vietnam War (1946 – 1963, until 1975), the national self-interest continued to heavily introduce in a very historiographical way. US’s alliance with the French preconditioned this war. In details, by 1954, 80% of France’s war was financed by the US with approximately $US 1.2 billion aided per year.[12] Then following the Geneva Accords 1954, the French officially withdrew after being defeated in the Dien Bien Phu. However, Vietnam now set into a similar demarcation with the Korean War’s 38th Parallel, the 17th Parallel that was a temporary partition into South Vietnam (under the capitalist US) and North Vietnam (under the communist).[13] Under Eisenhower’s administration, he wrote to Ngo Dinh Diem in 1954 that the US Government offered assistance to the Government of Vietnam (Diem’s own government) in order for needed reforms to develop and maintain “a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means” (to the North’s communist government).[14] Also, in 1965, in answering a woman’s letter to him, President Johnson stated, “I do not want to speculate on the reactions of other people. This Nation is prepared, and will always be prepared, to protect its national interest.”[15] Questions must come right after this: did the Vietnam political ideology want to attack the US Foreign Policy or the US government itself? Eventually, the answer was right at the speech of Johnson that it was because of “national interest.”
Lately, Latin America’s Dirty Wars during the 1970s played a continuing role in the US foreign policy because of its national interest. Answering Argentine Foreign Minister Guzzetti who stated to Kissinger “The terrorist organizations have been dismantled. If this direction continues, by the end of the year the danger will have been set aside. There will always be isolated attempts, of course.”[16] However, Kissinger seemed not to agree with this statement and he supposed the Latin America issue was “civil war” and the US thought that it was” a human right problem”.[17] Notwithstanding, during 1970 the US plans fortified the military relations with “an outwardly cool posture” to the Chilean political matters.[18] Typically, in a secret memorandum letter, President Kissinger affirmed dimension of the problem with Allende Government in Chile that “the election of Allende as President of Chile poses for us one of the most serious challenges ever faced in this hemisphere… and including our relations with the USSR.”[19] Therefore, in the election of 1970, Salvador Allende won 36.6% the voting and defeated Jorge Alessandri with 35.3% and Radomiro Tomic with 28.1%; but his struggle for the leadership was toppled by the US because of his communist government “democratically elected”, throughout his nationalization reforms till his suicide on 11 September 1973 before the end of his presidential term.[20] Historical truths and values are difficult to uncover. However, the intervention of the US to Latin America political issues can likely demonstrate the political intervention at least since the dissent with Chile and the unclear death of Allende. That was the time of communism influencing around the world and in 1970 the US still involved in the Vietnam War too.
Eventually, referring to the definition of Realism and based on the political realism and in accordance with the aforementioned analyses about the US Foreign Policy since 1945, notwithstanding the sovereignty, the national interest and self-interest were highly prioritized to the warzones in Asia and Latin America, at which it desired to defeat against Communism and its bloc, which is ended up the wars between the US and the USSR because of ideologically divergent perspectives on setting the world power or dominion. Where the facts of Realism is being able to interpret as wherever the appearance of Communist USSR or even China, Vietnam, Korea, or Latin America, it surely does embrace the business of America’s own facts and without effectively and fully having an outstanding observes. Overall it opposes to what George Washington said in his Farewell Address in 1796:[21]
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course [than Europe].”
[1] “Realism”, assessed June 6, 2019, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/realism
[2] “Political Realism in International Relations”, assessed June 6, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
[3] “World War I – Wilsonianism and the Inter-War Years,”
[4] “World War II – Getting In,”
[5] Ibid.
[6] “The Korean War,”
[7] “Excerpts from “NSC-68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security”, a Top Secret report outlining U.S. national security concerns for the Cold War submitted to President Truman on 14 April 1950”, assessed June 7, 2019, http://users.clas.ufl.edu/mjacobs/Amh2020Fall02/NSC-68.html
[8] Ibid (6).
[9] “The Truman Doctrine”, assessed June 7, 2019, https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/doctrine/large/documents/index.php?documentid=5-3&pagenumber=4
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid (6).
[12] “Origins of The Vietnam War (1946 – 1963),”
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] “President Johnson, Statement at White House News Conference, “We Will Stand in Vietnam,” 28 July 1965” assessed June 7, 2019, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-28-1965-press-conference
[16] “The US and Chile,”
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] “Memo for the President – NSC Meeting, November 6 with Chile”, assessed June 7, 2019, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/chile02.pdf
[20] Ibid (16).
[21] “The Origins of US Foreign Policy,”
The Digerati Politics 