MLA SAMPLE Using Structural Theory To Explain US Behavior

Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor

Course

Date

Using Structural Theory to Explain US Behavior

Since independence, the United States has engaged in various battles such as civil wars,

world wars, and revolution wars. Apparently, its warfare policies and treatment of its soldiers in

such excursions have dominated a number of international relations forums. Besides America,

most countries have foreign policies that guide their combatants in securing victories at the

battlefield. However, political analysts observe that countries participate in warfare to achieve

personal interests as opposed to mediating peace. Particularly, the structural theory best describes

the involvement of American soldiers in ground combats. In a way, the framework highlights the

commitment of the state to the wars. Despite being demoralized by the wars, it highlights how

the soldiers, fought for a course larger than themselves.

Initially, since the First World War, America practiced isolation in wars but later

collaborated with Allied powers. The increased casualties caused by the unrestricted warfare of

the German Navy at the Atlantic Ocean were the primary reason for its strategic alliance with

like-minded powers (Kindsvatter 34). Despite various diplomatic talks, Berlin was reluctant to

end the bombardments. In effect, a telegram sent from Germany to Mexico prompting the attack

of US fuelled its impetus to indulge in war. During the 1920s, the economic and diplomatic ties

between Germany and the US were positive. However, the establishment of the Nazi era between

1933 and 1941 resulted in friction between the two countries (Bodnar 254).

Surname 2

America criticized Hitler’s regime and policies in Nazi Germany, which increased

tension and created entanglement in European politics. Before the onset of the second world war

in 1939, US was neutral. Later on, the state declared war on Germany in 1941. One of the

reasons for the tension was that Roosevelt’s foreign policies supported Britain and France. As a

result, the relationship between Berlin and Washington DC deteriorated (Kindsvatter 69). Nazi

Germany spread propaganda concerning America's involvement referring them as monstrous war

machines aiming to destroy European culture. The allegations were to be the subject of warfare

policies adopted by America in most of the ground combats. Ideally, the core purpose of US

involvement in the war was to exert its power and influence.

Incorporating the bargaining model of war is an important aspect of the structural theory

that guarantees victory and sustainability of most battles. Examples of successful application

include the unification of Germany and the survival of English parliaments between 1588 and

1688 (Lecture, August 17, 2016). Ideally, the bargaining hypothesis of wars offers a platform for

perceiving battles from a political perspective rather than a social or economic front. The

bargaining hypothesis asserts that no party in any battle can be victorious without inflicting

massive losses to other parties. As a result, it portrays the outbreak of violence as an undesired

outcome between two parties.

One of the core assumptions of this theory is that an increase in the costs of war prompts

rulers to generalize the entire expenses to the overall population (Lecture, August 17, 2016). The

rulers responded through the development of strategies that ensured the state was self-sufficient

in funding its military operations. An example included an increase in the taxes, which allowed

the American soldiers to obtain revenues to finance their activities in the world war and security

Surname 3

missions in Vietnam and Korea (Kindsvatter 36). Engaging the public aligned their interests with

security and peace objectives of the state, which minimized resistance and bolstered cooperation.

Kindsvatter reiterated that the American soldiers in the world wars and the battles in

Korea and Vietnam had unreal perceptions of the battlefield (97). As a result, this opinion was

important since it allowed them to memorialize conflicts through functionalization. However, the

unreal images of war impaired their attempts in acclimatizing to the adverse implications they

encountered in the battlefield (Millett and Murray 79). In a way, it interfered with their combat

compliance as some of them opted to surrender. Maximum compliance was an important

characteristic of America’s warfare policies (Lecture, August 22, 2016). Ideally, the soldiers

were required to maintain their commitment to the foreign policies of the nation. This aspect was

common in America’s involvement in civil wars and both world wars.

Moreover, the military training that they received was inadequate in enabling them to

cope with the physical brutalities and the emotional stress advanced by the modern battlefield.

The structural theory considers training as an automatic technique of ensuring combat

compliance (Lecture, August 22, 2016). Indeed, an effective training process is supposed to

reinforce the views and values of an organization. On the contrary, the training offered to the

American soldiers focused on transformation. Its main purpose ensured the force was superior to

other allied powers and rivals to maintain their authority and influence (Kindsvatter 111). For

this purpose, most soldiers were confused in the transition process from the naïve trainees to

deployment in war-torn regions, which hindered their compliance to the combat course.

However, during these trying moments, comradeship was an important aspect in bolstering

cohesion within the troops (Bodnar 260). It strengthened their beliefs in America and increased

their commitment to the fighting course. Their commitment to the battle was useful such that

Surname 4

their disappearance as ideals could not be replaced at all costs. Moreover, the overall aspect of

engaging in the battle was exciting. It allowed the soldiers to feel a sense of pride in helping

divided nations realize tranquility (McManus 62). In such a way, defeating the rivals was a

remarkable challenge since it allowed the soldiers to boast of a job well done.

According to Kindsvatter, the American soldiers deployed to war-torn regions such as

Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not afraid of killing (138). Moreover, the soldiers that

participated in the world war did not feel a sense of guilt after murdering their enemies. Their

courage and outstanding bravery encompassed how the American warfare policies and ruthless

training had managed to rip their sense of humanity. While some soldiers were reluctant to pull

the trigger, some relished the challenge and killed without hesitation. The success of the

American soldiers on the battlefield depended entirely on their ability to make critical decisions

when it mattered the most (Kindsvatter 159). Eventually, tragic scenes and horrific encounters in

the battlegrounds affected some combat veterans.

The events in the war culminated in physical exhaustion, trauma, and nervous collapse. In

some cases, improved therapeutic techniques bolstered the recuperation of some soldiers.

However, some succumbed to the physical brutalities and breakdown conditions caused by the

wars (Millett and Murray 81). One of the essential constructs of fostering the success at the

battlegrounds employed by rulers entailed mobilization through nationalism. According to the

structural theory, this aspect involved executing responsibilities with the greatest sense of

fulfillment and pride to the nation. The American soldiers did not fear to encounter risks in the

battlefields (Kennedy 99). They were willing to tackle uncertainties in the line of their duties as

long as they were serving then interests of their country and that of the war victims. Political

collectivity and shared historical sentiments are the central tenets of nationalism (Lecture,

Surname 5

August 22, 2016). In effect, it best describes the paradox of domestic commitment advanced by

the bargaining model of war.

Over the years, the rapid increase in war costs has led to the growing commitment by the

public members to incur those expenses. In a way, they have agreed to the high taxes to offer

adequate resources to the soldiers. Such behavior by the domestic population allowed the state to

align the interests of the public with its warfare and security policies (McManus 76). Moreover,

nationalism facilitated cohesion among the American soldiers in ground combats since it ensured

they fought together towards a common goal.

Kindsvatter suggested that the American soldiers experienced a variety of commonalities

while resolving conflicts in the battlefield (69). Some of the factors that caused such variations in

commonalities included the essence of comradeship, fear, physical brutality, and emotional

privations. In perspective, these factors were identical in most generations of the twentieth

century American soldiers. A majority of the differences in the battlefield experiences were

manifested between the world wars and the Korean and Vietnamese battles on the other hand

(Kindsvatter 181). Precisely, the world wars were massive battles that involved the collective

effort of the entire nation. However, the wars in Korea and Vietnam were incomparable to this

struggle since they were aligned with personal interest. In particular, the fighting in these regions

had a limited scope and objective (Kindsvatter 178). They occurred in remote Asian regions

within the broad context of confrontation by superpowers.

Moreover, the Korean and Vietnamese wars had no victory as compared to the world

wars. In effect, American soldiers in these battles acted as agents in expanding then influence

and power of the nation. In contrast, the world wars had winners, which is contrary to the

propositions of the structural theory (Kennedy 102). As earlier reviewed, the bargaining model

Surname 6

analyzed the consequence of battle. Similarly, the framework ascertained that it was impossible

for a party to attain gains in a war without causing massive losses to another party. From this

scenario, America was successful in spreading its ideology and policies to warring factions,

which was critical in expanding its superpower status. However, this process occurred at the

expense of soldiers that risked their lives in battling grounds. Some of them died while some

experienced physical and psychological conditions that impaired their health and social welfare.

Another core issue that affected the American soldiers was the level of their experience

and technology compared with their allied forces (Kindsvatter 220). According to the bargaining

model of warfare, it is important for rulers to allocate adequate resources towards equipping its

force with latest weapons and fighting tactics (Lecture, August 15, 2016). Surprisingly, the

American soldiers in the troubled regions of Korea and Vietnam lacked the sophisticated

technology to match the artillery of allied forces such as France and Britain. During this period,

there was a gradual shift from mass warfare tactics to the adoption of capital-intensive methods

of engaging in wars (Kindsvatter 124). As a result, the American government increased taxes to

obtain enough revenues that could transform its troops and guarantee success at the battlefield.

The American fighters in these wars missed the ugly side of the trench warfare. For instance, by

the time they flocked the battlegrounds in large numbers, the French troops had been in the war

for approximately three years. As a result, it gave them an upper hand in solving conflicts and

outweighing their enemies.

Furthermore, the level of communication between the rulers and the subordinates was

vital for cooperation (Kennedy 115). However, the tyranny of troop leaders reduced the

efficiency of the American soldiers in most of the ground combats. From the perspective of war

and bargaining, tyrant rulers acquire domestic resources by using threats and violence (Lecture,

Surname 7

August 17, 2016). Some of their approaches employed by combat leaders did not resonate with

the values and beliefs of some of the American soldiers. Some of them felt coerced into

participating in atrocities that affected the social welfare of the war victims. However, the

soldiers executed their commands with the fear of jeopardizing their combat contracts (Bodnar

288). A majority of states utilize coercion to reinforce its warfare policies. Contrarily, an

increased use of force minimizes combat compliance, which culminates into reduced domestic

commitment and instability in wars as evident the ground experience of the American soldiers.

To sum it up, the structural theory is critical in describing the behavior of US during the

Second World War. Modern battlefields embrace the bargaining model of warfare to increase

stability, provide ample resources to the soldiers, and bolster peace. According to this

framework, there is no loser or winner in a war. Despite the successful activities of the American

ground troops in fostering national interests, their excursions resulted in extreme casualties.

Additionally, this theory illustrates the extreme environmental conditions of war hindered the

soldiers’ preparation for war. Regardless, of such extremities, they maintained their cohesion and

conquered various uncertainties. In conclusion, through nationalism, the structural theory of war

helps to bolster domestic commitment towards peace and security initiatives.

Surname 8

Works Cited

Bodnar, John E. The "Good War" in American Memory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 2010. Kindle File.

Kennedy, David M. The Modern American Military. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Print.

Kindsvatter, Peter S. American Soldiers: Ground Combat in the World Wars, Korea, and

Vietnam. Lawrence, Kan: Univ. Press of Kansas, 2003. Print.

McManus, John C. U.S. Military History for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Pub, 2008. Kindle

File.

Millett, Allan R, and Williamson Murray. Military Effectiveness: Volume 2. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

MLA SAMPLE Using Structural Theory to Explain US Behavior

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams