Answer

1. Weinberger and Powell Doctrines

   The Weinberger and Powell Doctrines are tests that should be answered in the affirmative before the US military is committed in a war. The tests were designed for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of what is called the “Vietnam Syndrome”.  In Vietnam in the 1970’s, the US military was engaged in a war which led to devastating consequences to the American people as over 58,000 American combatants lost their lives and the public support for the expedition was very low.  Military strategists argued that the US military was engaged in a war it was not allowed to win as politicians in Washington put a lot of restrictions on the military such that it was impossible to win the war. For example, there were places the military was not allowed to bomb among other restrictions. The Weinberger and Powell Doctrines set out various tests that must be satisfied before going to war which is hoped would avert a recurrence of a “Vietnam Syndrome” situation.

   Analysis on whether the Tests are Straightforward

               One of the tests is that US vital national interests must be threatened before committing US military to war. Analysts argue that it is difficult to define what these interest are as the subject area is very broad. It may be virtually impossible to draw a boundary on what these interests include and what they do not.  The other test is that a clear attainable objective must be identified before engaging in war. Some opponents of these tests argue that it is difficult to identify all the objectives of a war since war is dynamic and objectives change as a war progresses. The other test is that there must be a clear exit strategy which may not be possible. For instance, in Somalia the US military was initially involved in a humanitarian mission to ensure food supplies reached the population but eventually it ended up being involved in a long term nation building mission with no defined exit strategy in place.

    The other test is that the risks and costs should be analyzed and clearly taken into account before engaging in war.  Those who oppose these tests argue that it would be impossible to fully identify all the risks and costs of a futuristic event such as a war. In addition, these tests will only serve to limit US involvement in small conflicts. The US will only be engaged in big international conflicts arguing that one of the purposes of military interventions is to threaten opponents as a way of passing a message to deter certain possible actions. With these tests it may be difficult to engage in such events.  Some commentators also argue that going into a war with the sole goal of winning would risk raising the possibility of a nuclear war which would be very disastrous.  The possibility of engaging in a war with guaranteed public and congressional support which is also one of the tests has been viewed as impossible to achieve. This is because this support is not cast on stone as could change after a certain period of time.

   How these Tests might be Understood in Order to be useful

               To understand these tests in order to be useful, the use of military force must be matched with the nation’s economic and political objectives. The nation’s specific strategic national interests must be under serious threat before engaging in armed conflict. Once the threat has been neutralized the military intervention should be withdrawn immediately. The objectives for military engagement should be clear and the national leaders must be well appraised on the risks and costs of an expedition before embarking on it.  Reasonable public and congressional support is crucial before engaging in a mission and no mission should be undertaken before all other options for resolving a conflict have been exhausted.