Evolution of American Leadership in Wartime

American leadership during times of war has been a critical determinant in shaping the nation’s destiny and its role on the global stage. The complexities inherent in wartime command demand a unique set of skills, encompassing strategic vision, effective communication, and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. Examining the approaches of various American leaders across different conflicts reveals both enduring characteristics and notable shifts in how the nation has been guided through periods of armed conflict. This analysis will explore the leadership of at least four prominent figures who steered the United States through significant wars, focusing on the period since the Korean War and considering earlier pivotal conflicts to identify key changes and continuities in American leadership.

The Cold War Crucible: Truman and the Korean Conflict (1950-1953)

The Korean War erupted in the context of the early Cold War, a period defined by the ideological struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union and the pervasive fear of communist expansion.¹ Following World War II, the US adopted a policy of containment, aimed at preventing the spread of communism beyond its existing borders. The invasion of South Korea by North Korean forces in June 1950, backed by the Soviet Union, was perceived as a direct challenge to this policy and a potential precursor to a wider communist offensive in Asia.¹ President Harry S. Truman’s decision to intervene was thus deeply rooted in the perceived need to halt this expansion, a sentiment amplified by the “loss of China” to communism in 1949.² The Korean War became the first major test of the containment policy in Asia, signaling a significant geographical broadening of this strategic imperative.⁴ This intervention also set the stage for future US involvement in conflicts in the region, based on the same overarching principle.

Truman’s strategic objectives in Korea were carefully calibrated to the precarious realities of the early Cold War. His primary aim was to prevent the communist regime in North Korea from conquering South Korea, thereby containing the spread of communism.⁵ However, he was equally determined to avoid escalating the conflict into a larger war with the Soviet Union or China, a concern that loomed large given the recent development of nuclear weapons.⁵ This cautious approach meant pursuing a limited war, even if it resulted in a stalemate rather than a decisive victory. Initially, the US, under Truman’s direction, aimed to unify the entire Korean peninsula under a non-communist government.⁶ However, the intervention of China in the war dramatically altered these objectives, forcing a shift towards the more pragmatic goal of simply defending South Korea.³ The very description of the conflict as a “police action” under the auspices of the United Nations reflected this limited objective and the absence of a formal declaration of war by the US Congress.² This decision to engage in a limited war, primarily driven by the fear of nuclear escalation, represented a fundamental shift in American warfare, moving away from the total war paradigm that characterized World War II. While this approach averted a potential global catastrophe, it also led to a protracted conflict with an ambiguous outcome, a pattern that would later contribute to domestic discontent during the Vietnam War.

Truman’s leadership during the Korean War was notably marked by a significant clash with General Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the United Nations forces. While initially aligned on the goal of repelling the North Korean invasion, their views diverged sharply on the scope and conduct of the war.⁷ MacArthur advocated for a more aggressive approach, including bombing targets in China and potentially expanding the war beyond the Korean peninsula, believing that Asia was the crucial theater for containing communism.⁷ This directly contradicted Truman’s desire to keep the conflict limited and avoid provoking a wider war. The tension culminated in MacArthur’s public insubordination and his attempts to rally support for his strategy, ultimately leading to Truman’s controversial decision to relieve him of command.⁷ This pivotal episode underscored the fundamental principle of civilian control over the military in the United States, demonstrating Truman’s willingness to assert his constitutional authority even against a highly popular military figure.¹² The Truman-MacArthur conflict established a critical precedent for the relationship between the President and military commanders, firmly reinforcing the President’s ultimate authority in setting strategic direction. The public’s initial support for MacArthur, however, revealed a potential vulnerability in American political culture to charismatic military leaders challenging civilian control, a dynamic that could potentially resurface in future conflicts under different circumstances.

In communicating his administration’s approach to the Korean War, Truman faced the challenge of rallying both domestic and international support for a conflict with limited objectives and increasing casualties. Given the absence of a formal congressional declaration of war, Truman heavily relied on the legitimacy provided by the United Nations.¹ The UN provided a crucial framework for international involvement, with fifteen other nations contributing troops to the effort.³ Truman’s initial portrayal of the conflict as a UN-led “police action” aimed to downplay its scale and potential for escalation.¹ However, as the war dragged on and American casualties mounted, maintaining public support became increasingly difficult.² Truman’s communication strategy reflects the evolving nature of warfare in the Cold War, where international legitimacy and coalition building became increasingly important. Truman’s reliance on the United Nations for legitimizing the Korean War indicated a growing awareness of the significance of international cooperation in the post-World War II era. However, this also created a dependence on the consensus of other nations, potentially limiting the US’s unilateral action and shaping the objectives and conduct of the war in ways that might not have been entirely aligned with purely American interests.

Truman demonstrated a degree of adaptability in responding to the shifting circumstances of the Korean War. Initially optimistic about a swift victory and the reunification of Korea, his administration adjusted its goals after the unexpected intervention of China.³ The Truman administration abandoned its plans for reunification and instead focused on the more limited objective of defending South Korea from communist aggression.³ This pragmatism, while perhaps necessary to avoid a larger conflict, ultimately led to a frustrating stalemate along the 38th parallel. The Korean War highlighted the limitations of American power in the face of determined adversaries and the challenges of achieving decisive victories in a divided world. Truman’s leadership in the Korean War, particularly his emphasis on a limited war and his reliance on executive action under the umbrella of the United Nations, established a precedent that would influence future American interventions in foreign conflicts. This approach, bypassing the need for a formal congressional declaration of war, would have significant implications for the Vietnam War and subsequent military engagements.

The Shadow of Vietnam: Johnson’s Escalation and Domestic Division (1964-1968)

The Vietnam War unfolded within the continuing context of the Cold War and the prevailing domino theory, which posited that the fall of one Southeast Asian nation to communism would inevitably lead to the collapse of its neighbors.¹⁸ President Lyndon B. Johnson inherited a growing American advisory presence in South Vietnam but significantly escalated US involvement, driven by his deep-seated belief in preventing the spread of communism throughout the region.¹⁸ Johnson was determined not to be remembered as the president who “lost” Vietnam to communism, a sentiment that heavily influenced his decisions.¹⁸ Unlike the initial broad support that greeted US intervention in the Korean War ¹⁴, the Vietnam War increasingly faced domestic opposition, signaling a notable shift in public perception regarding American interventionism.²³

Johnson’s strategic objectives in Vietnam were firmly rooted in the domino theory. His primary goal was to maintain an independent, non-communist South Vietnam, believing that its fall would trigger a cascade of communist takeovers across Southeast Asia.¹⁸ For Johnson, “victory” was synonymous with the containment of communism in the region. This objective, consistent with the overarching Cold War policy, proved exceptionally difficult to achieve in the complex political and social environment of Vietnam. The conflict was not a straightforward case of external aggression but involved a deeply entrenched internal insurgency supported by North Vietnam, making the application of traditional military strategies problematic. Johnson’s unwavering commitment to this strategic objective, despite mounting evidence of the war’s intractability and growing domestic dissent, would ultimately define his presidency.

Johnson’s relationship with the military command was marked by a gradual escalation of American involvement. He approved increasing troop deployments and authorized extensive bombing campaigns, such as Operation Rolling Thunder, aimed at crippling North Vietnam’s ability to support the insurgency in the South.¹⁸ The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed by Congress in 1964, provided the Johnson administration with broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia, effectively serving as the legal basis for this escalation.²² However, Johnson’s military decisions were often incremental and influenced by a complex interplay of military advice and domestic political considerations. He attempted to navigate a middle course between those who advocated for a more aggressive military approach (“hawks”) and those who favored a negotiated settlement (“doves”).¹⁸ The Vietnam War starkly illustrated the challenges of applying conventional military power to a counterinsurgency conflict, resulting in a prolonged and increasingly costly war with no clear path to victory.²⁹

Johnson’s communication strategy regarding the Vietnam War faced significant challenges as the conflict grew increasingly unpopular at home. Initially, he utilized the Gulf of Tonkin incident to secure broad congressional support for his policies.¹⁸ However, as the war dragged on and American casualties rose, public opinion began to turn sharply against the intervention.²³ Johnson’s communication often downplayed the scale and the difficulties of the war, contributing to a growing “credibility gap” between the administration’s pronouncements and the reality perceived by the American public.¹⁸ The anti-war movement gained considerable momentum, fueled by media coverage that brought the brutal realities of the conflict into American living rooms.²³ The Tet Offensive in 1968 proved to be a major turning point, significantly eroding public confidence in Johnson’s handling of the war and intensifying calls for de-escalation.¹⁸ The Vietnam War highlighted the profound influence of media and public opinion on the conduct of war, a stark contrast to earlier conflicts where domestic support was more unified. The discrepancies between official narratives and the lived experiences of soldiers and the images broadcast by the media led to a significant erosion of trust between the government and the American people, a consequence that would have lasting implications for future military interventions.

Johnson’s adaptability in responding to the protracted and unpopular nature of the Vietnam War was increasingly tested. Despite initial determination to “stay the course,” the growing domestic opposition and the lack of a clear military victory placed immense pressure on his leadership.¹⁸ The war became a quagmire, deeply dividing the nation and severely damaging Johnson’s political standing. Ultimately, facing mounting pressure and recognizing the deep divisions within the country, Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek re-election.¹⁸ The Vietnam War serves as a stark reminder of the limitations of military power in achieving political objectives and the critical importance of maintaining public support for sustained conflicts. The experience of the Vietnam War led to a period of significant introspection within the United States regarding foreign policy and military intervention, fostering a greater reluctance to engage in large-scale foreign interventions without clearly defined objectives and broad public backing. This experience would likely shape the leadership approaches of subsequent presidents in future conflicts, emphasizing the need for clearer exit strategies and more transparent public communication.

The End of the Cold War and a New World Order: Bush Sr. and the Gulf War (1990-1991)

The Persian Gulf War occurred in the aftermath of the Cold War, a period marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ascendance of the United States as the sole global superpower.³⁹ Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 presented an early challenge to the envisioned “new world order” and provided an opportunity for the US to assert international law and its leadership in a unipolar world.³⁹ The Gulf War demonstrated a potential shift towards a more multilateral approach to international crises compared to the more unilateral actions that characterized the Vietnam War.

President George H.W. Bush’s strategic objectives in the Gulf War were clearly defined and focused: the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government, and the protection of American interests in the Persian Gulf region, particularly access to oil resources.³⁹ Bush Sr. prioritized international legitimacy, working diligently through the United Nations to build a broad coalition and secure resolutions condemning Iraq’s aggression and authorizing the use of force.⁴⁰ This emphasis on clear objectives and international legitimacy stood in stark contrast to the more ambiguous goals and unilateral actions that had marked the Vietnam War.

Bush Sr. successfully forged an unprecedented international coalition of 42 countries to oppose Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.⁴⁰ His diplomatic efforts were crucial in assembling this diverse alliance, which included both NATO allies and Arab states, showcasing a strong commitment to multilateralism in addressing international aggression.⁴⁶ The success of this coalition demonstrated the potential for collective security action in the post-Cold War era, with the United States playing a central leadership role. This emphasis on shared responsibility and legitimacy contrasted sharply with the more isolated stance the US sometimes found itself in during the Vietnam War.

Bush Sr.’s communication style during the Gulf War was characterized by a clear articulation of objectives and an ability to project a sense of resolve and international consensus.³⁹ His rhetoric consistently emphasized the defense of international law and the restoration of Kuwait’s sovereignty, effectively garnering both domestic and international support for the military intervention. This communication strategy stood in notable contrast to the often hesitant and contradictory messaging during the Vietnam War. Bush Sr.’s ability to project strength and purpose, coupled with the broad international condemnation of Iraq’s actions, contributed significantly to the widespread support for the intervention.

The military campaign, Operation Desert Storm, was relatively swift and decisive, rapidly expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait.⁴⁹ This quick success validated the strategy of employing overwhelming force and highlighted the significant advancements in American military technology.⁵² The decisive victory in the Gulf War contrasted sharply with the protracted and inconclusive nature of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, potentially shaping expectations for future conflicts. While the Gulf War demonstrated the effectiveness of multilateralism and clearly defined objectives, subsequent US interventions, such as in Iraq in 2003, adopted a more unilateral approach, suggesting that the “model” of the Gulf War was not consistently replicated. The unique circumstances of the Gulf War, including broad international consensus and a clear case of aggression, may have made it difficult to emulate in other, more complex geopolitical contexts. Despite the clear military success of the Gulf War and Bush Sr.’s high approval ratings at the time ⁴¹, his failure to translate this victory into sustained domestic political capital highlights the complex interplay between foreign policy achievements and domestic concerns. The subsequent economic recession overshadowed his foreign policy successes, demonstrating that public support for leadership is often contingent on economic well-being. The swift and decisive nature of the Gulf War, achieved through overwhelming military force and technological superiority, may have inadvertently fostered a perception of American military invincibility, potentially leading to an underestimation of the challenges inherent in future, more intricate interventions against non-state actors or in situations lacking clear international consensus.

The Age of Terror: George W. Bush and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-2009)

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy, ushering in the era of the “War on Terror” and leading to military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.⁶⁴ These wars marked a significant departure from the Cold War focus on containing state-sponsored communism, shifting instead to combating non-state terrorist organizations and rogue regimes. The attacks on 9/11 prompted a decisive response from President George W. Bush, with military action taken in Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.⁶⁴

George W. Bush’s strategic objectives in Afghanistan initially focused on dismantling al-Qaeda, capturing Osama bin Laden, and removing the Taliban regime that harbored the terrorist group.⁶⁴ In Iraq, the primary aims were to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to eliminate Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.⁶⁴ Over time, however, these objectives expanded to include nation-building efforts and the promotion of democracy in both countries.⁶⁴ The definition of victory in the “War on Terror” proved to be elusive and subject to change, with initial, clear goals evolving into more ambitious and complex objectives like establishing stable democracies. This shifting and expanding set of objectives contributed to the prolonged nature of these conflicts and the persistent challenges in achieving a clear and sustainable end state. Bush Jr.’s leadership in the “War on Terror” signaled a notable shift towards a doctrine of pre-emptive action, advocating for intervention before threats fully materialized.⁶⁸ While intended to safeguard national security in the post-9/11 environment, this approach generated considerable debate regarding its legitimacy under international law and its long-term efficacy in promoting global stability.

The Bush administration exerted a strong degree of centralized control over military decision-making, particularly in the early stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.⁶⁶ Key decisions regarding the initial military responses and the overarching strategy were largely driven from the White House. While Bush Jr. presented himself as a resolute wartime leader who worked closely with his national security team and military advisors, some critics contended that strategic planning for the post-invasion phases was inadequate.⁷⁴ The experience of these wars raised questions about the effectiveness of highly centralized control in addressing the intricate challenges of protracted counterinsurgency operations.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush’s communication style was initially highly effective in rallying both national and international support for the military responses in Afghanistan and later in Iraq.⁶⁶ His rhetoric often framed the conflicts in stark moral terms, emphasizing the fight against evil and the defense of freedom.⁶⁷ However, maintaining this level of support proved increasingly difficult as the wars dragged on, costs escalated, and casualties mounted.⁷⁸ The absence of clearly defined exit strategies and the evolving justifications for the continued military presence contributed to a decline in public approval over time.⁷⁸ The “War on Terror” highlighted the significant challenges inherent in sustaining public support for prolonged conflicts characterized by ambiguous enemies and shifting objectives. The initial high levels of public support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fueled by fear and a desire for retribution after 9/11, gradually diminished as the conflicts became protracted and costly, with no clear resolution in sight.⁸² This underscores the fluctuating nature of public opinion during wartime and the difficulties in maintaining support for long-term engagements, particularly when the initial justifications are questioned or fail to yield the anticipated outcomes.

The US military encountered considerable challenges in adapting to the asymmetric warfare and insurgency tactics employed by adversaries in both Afghanistan and Iraq.⁵² While the Bush administration initially focused on conventional military responses, it later implemented adaptations to address the complexities of counterinsurgency, including strategies such as the troop surge in Iraq.⁷³ However, the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of these adaptations remain subjects of ongoing debate. The reliance on advanced military technology, while providing tactical advantages, did not guarantee strategic success against determined insurgents employing unconventional warfare tactics.⁵⁴ The experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq underscored the limitations of relying solely on traditional military power in addressing asymmetric threats and the imperative for more nuanced and adaptable strategies that incorporate political, economic, and social dimensions of conflict. The extensive use of advanced military technology in Afghanistan and Iraq, while offering tactical advantages, did not ensure strategic success against insurgents employing asymmetric warfare.⁵² This highlights the crucial role of understanding the human and political aspects of conflict, which cannot be solely addressed through technological superiority.

The “War on Terror” and the leadership of George W. Bush represented a significant transformation in American wartime leadership compared to earlier conflicts. The shift in focus to non-state actors, the emphasis on pre-emptive action, and the protracted nature of the engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq marked a departure from previous wars. The role of domestic politics and public opinion continued to be critical factors shaping the conduct and duration of these conflicts.⁸² The era of the “War on Terror” raised fundamental questions about the evolving nature of warfare in the 21st century, the appropriate role of American power in a globalized world, and the long-term consequences for US leadership and international relations.

Changes and Continuities in American Leadership Across Wars

Examining the leadership of Truman, Johnson, and both Presidents Bush reveals a complex tapestry of changes and continuities in American wartime leadership. A significant continuity lies in the underlying motivation to protect American interests and project American power on the global stage, albeit the specific articulation of these interests and the perceived threats have evolved with the changing geopolitical landscape. The Cold War era, exemplified by Truman and Johnson, was largely defined by the ideological struggle against communism, shaping their strategic objectives and their approaches to military intervention. In contrast, the leadership of both Bush presidents was framed by the post-Cold War era and, particularly for George W. Bush, by the rise of non-state terrorism as a primary threat.

A key change observed is the increasing importance of international legitimacy and coalition building. While Truman relied on the UN for the Korean War, George H.W. Bush made multilateralism a cornerstone of his Gulf War strategy, building a broad international coalition. This contrasted with the more unilateral approach sometimes evident in the Vietnam War under Johnson and, to a degree, in the initial phases of the Iraq War under George W. Bush. However, even in cases where international support was sought, the ultimate decision-making authority and the bulk of the military power often remained with the United States.

Communication styles have also adapted to the evolving media landscape and domestic political climate. Truman faced the nascent challenges of maintaining public support for a limited war in the early days of television. Johnson struggled with the increasingly critical and immediate coverage of the Vietnam War, contributing to a “credibility gap.” Bush Sr. effectively used televised addresses to articulate clear objectives for the Gulf War. George W. Bush initially benefited from a surge of national unity after 9/11 but later faced challenges in sustaining support for prolonged and complex conflicts.

Adaptability has been a crucial factor for all these leaders, though its effectiveness varied. Truman adjusted his objectives in Korea after the Chinese intervention. Johnson’s attempts to adapt to the challenges of counterinsurgency in Vietnam were ultimately unsuccessful in achieving a decisive victory or maintaining domestic support. Bush Sr. led a swift and decisive campaign in the Gulf War. George W. Bush’s administration adapted to the complexities of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the shift to counterinsurgency strategies, but these adaptations faced significant challenges and ultimately did not lead to the desired outcomes.

Factors such as the nature of the conflict, technological advancements, domestic political climate, and global power dynamics have profoundly influenced American wartime leadership. The limited nature of the Korean War, the rise of television during Vietnam, the end of the Cold War before the Gulf War, and the shock of 9/11 preceding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq each presented unique challenges and opportunities for American leaders. Technological advancements in weaponry, communication, and surveillance have also shaped how wars are fought and how leaders make strategic and tactical decisions. The domestic political climate, including public opinion and the level of partisan division, has consistently played a significant role in shaping the scope and duration of American military engagements. Finally, shifts in global power dynamics, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, have altered the context in which American leadership operates on the world stage.

In synthesis, American wartime leadership has demonstrated a continuity in the pursuit of national interests and a willingness to project power. However, the strategies and styles employed have evolved significantly in response to changing global circumstances, the nature of the threats faced, and the domestic political landscape. The increasing emphasis on international legitimacy, the challenges of maintaining public support in prolonged and complex conflicts, and the constant need to adapt to evolving forms of warfare are recurring themes that underscore the enduring complexities of American leadership in times of war.

American Military in the Revolutionary War

Comparison of Leadership Styles

Works cited

1. The United Nations in Korea | Harry S. Truman, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/united-nations-korea
2. Truman intervenes in Korea, Korean War, U.S. history, Cold War, military intervention, foreign policy, presidential decision-making – Bill of Rights Institute, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/truman-intervenes-in-korea
3. US Enters the Korean Conflict – National Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict
4. From Korea to Vietnam: The Evolution of U.S. Interventionism in Asia Mel Gurtov Portland State University ABSTRACT The wars in K – Columbia International Affairs Online, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/ijoks/v14i2/f_0019551_16697.pdf
5. www.trumanlibrary.gov, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/united-nations-korea#:~:text=Truman%20wanted%20to%20keep%20Korea,that%20other%20presidents%20have%20followed.
6. Korean War | Eisenhower Presidential Library, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/korean-war
7. The Firing of MacArthur | Harry S. Truman, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur
8. The Korean War 101: Causes, Course, and Conclusion of the Conflict, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-korean-war-101-causes-course-and-conclusion-of-the-conflict/
9. www.trumanlibrary.gov, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/united-nations-korea#:~:text=Truman’s%20decisions%20during%20the%20Korean,war%20became%20a%20lengthy%20stalemate.
10. BRIA 17 3 b Truman, MacArthur, and the Korean War – Online Lessons – Bill of Rights in Action – Teach Democracy, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://teachdemocracy.org/online-lessons/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-3-b-4
11. www.ebsco.com, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/truman-macarthur-confrontation#:~:text=MacArthur%20believed%20that%20Asia%E2%80%94not,forces%20in%20Korea.
12. Truman-MacArthur Confrontation | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/truman-macarthur-confrontation
13. Harry S. Truman – Korean War, 33rd US President, Cold War | Britannica, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Harry-S-Truman/Outbreak-of-the-Korean-War
14. The Korean War and American Politics – SURFACE at Syracuse University, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=chronos
15. Why was Harry S. Truman viewed so negatively back then, with a 22% approval rate, to alot more highly ranked and beloved today? : r/Presidents – Reddit, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1b2d9g8/why_was_harry_s_truman_viewed_so_negatively_back/
16. Harry S. Truman: Impact and Legacy – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/truman/impact-and-legacy
17. The Korean War and US Public Opinion: June 1950 to January 1951 – American University, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://aura.american.edu/ndownloader/files/41814870
18. Lyndon B. Johnson: Foreign Affairs – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/foreign-affairs
19. Foreign policy of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration – Wikipedia, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Lyndon_B._Johnson_administration
20. The Johnson transition | Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/johnson-transition
21. Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War – Presidential Recordings Digital Edition, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/content/Vietnam
22. Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam | United States History II – Lumen Learning, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-ushistory2/chapter/lyndon-johnson-and-vietnam/
23. A guide to Vietnam War resources: Government documents, oral histories, antiwar movements | Kershner, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/9387/10562
24. The Vietnam War at home and abroad: soldiers, military leadership, and the antiwar movement – UTC Scholar, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://scholar.utc.edu/honors-theses/180/
25. Primary Sources: Vietnam War: Anti-War – LibGuides at Florida Atlantic University, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://libguides.fau.edu/vietnam-war/anti-war
26. The US Anti-Vietnam War Movement (1964-1973) | ICNC, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-anti-vietnam-war-movement-1964-1973/
27. Lyndon B. Johnson – Vietnam War, Civil Rights, Presidency | Britannica, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lyndon-B-Johnson/Election-and-the-Vietnam-War
28. U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War: the Gulf of Tonkin and Escalation, 1964, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin
29. Analyzing U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War – DocsTeach, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.docsteach.org/activities/printactivity/us-involvement-in-the-vietnam-war
30. The Vietnam War (article) | 1960s America | Khan Academy, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1960s-america/a/the-vietnam-war
31. HOTA: Changing nature of the US involvement in Vietnam Flashcards | Quizlet, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://quizlet.com/23754254/hota-changing-nature-of-the-us-involvement-in-vietnam-flash-cards/
32. America’s Involvement | More Than Self: Living the Vietnam War …, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/exhibitions/more-than-self-living-the-vietnam-war/americas-involvement/
33. United States in the Vietnam War – Wikipedia, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War
34. www.atlantahistorycenter.com, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/exhibitions/more-than-self-living-the-vietnam-war/americas-involvement/#:~:text=Over%20the%20course%20of%20the,canals%3B%20mined%20North%20Vietnamese%20ports%3B
35. Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam, and Public Opinion: Rethinking Realist Theory of Leadership, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229492863_Lyndon_Johnson_Vietnam_and_Public_Opinion_Rethinking_Realist_Theory_of_Leadership
36. LBJ’s Conduct of Limited War in Vietnam – Air Force Academy, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/Harmon33.pdf
37. President Lyndon B. Johnson and His Role in the Vietnam War – 0500HRS.COM, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://0500hrs.com/home/f/president-lyndon-b-johnson-and-his-role-in-the-vietnam-war
38. Vietnam War: Domestic Impact – CQ Almanac Online Edition, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal70-1292128
39. Persian Gulf War | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-658
40. The Presidency of George H. W. Bush and the Gulf War | Honors US History Class Notes, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/hs-honors-us-history/unit-14/presidency-george-h-w-bush-gulf-war/study-guide/ycanzOX39FqRZg52
41. The Rhetorical Strategy of George H. W. Bush during the Persian Gulf Crisis 1990–91 – universityofleeds.github.io, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://universityofleeds.github.io/philtaylorpapers/pmt/exhibits/2348/Hurst.pdf
42. The Gulf War | Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/statecraftmovie/gulf-war
43. Milestones: 1989-1992. The Gulf War, 1991 – Office of the Historian, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/gulf-war
44. 30 years later: the enduring lessons for success from Operation Desert Storm – Marines.mil, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2548450/30-years-later-the-enduring-lessons-for-success-from-operation-desert-storm/
45. George H. W. Bush: Foreign Affairs – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/bush/foreign-affairs
46. The First Gulf War – Short History – Office of the Historian, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf
47. President George H.W. Bush orders Operation Desert Shield | August 7, 1990 | HISTORY, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/august-7/bush-orders-operation-desert-shield
48. George H. W. Bush: Impact and Legacy – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/bush/impact-and-legacy
49. Gulf War – Wikipedia, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
50. Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Persian-Gulf-War
51. The Gulf War 1990-1991 (Operation Desert Shield – Naval History and Heritage Command, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/art/exhibits/conflicts-and-operations/the-gulf-war-1990-1991–operation-desert-shield–desert-storm-.html
52. War Machines of Afghanistan – Army Technology, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.army-technology.com/features/feature50591/
53. Winning the War of Words: Information Warfare in Afghanistan – Brookings Institution, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/winning-the-war-of-words-information-warfare-in-afghanistan/
54. Iraq wars and the American economy | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/iraq-wars-and-american-economy
55. Technology and the Nature of War – Marine Corps Association, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/technology-and-the-nature-of-war/
56. Technology Empowers Information Operations in Afghanistan | AFCEA International, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.afcea.org/signal-media/technology/technology-empowers-information-operations-afghanistan
57. The Secret History of Iraq’s Invisible War – Brookings Institution, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-secret-history-of-iraqs-invisible-war/
58. 2001 – Operation Enduring Freedom > Air Force Historical Support Division > Fact Sheets, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458975/2001-operation-enduring-freedom/
59. Technology a dependable ally in Iraq war – Nextgov/FCW, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.nextgov.com/modernization/2004/03/technology-a-dependable-ally-in-iraq-war/236138/
60. Persian Gulf War | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-658?p=emailAAkvNYr0fxmX2&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-658
61. www.britannica.com, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Persian-Gulf-War#:~:text=Allied%20forces%20had%20three%20main,to%20degrade%20Iraqi%20ground%20forces.
62. How did George HW Bush go from having an 89% approval rating to losing reelection in 1992? : r/PoliticalDiscussion – Reddit, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/16awqcq/how_did_george_hw_bush_go_from_having_an_89/
63. George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War: Victory, with Tragedy | Cato Institute, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.cato.org/commentary/george-hw-bushs-persian-gulf-war-victory-tragedy
64. U.S. Military Intervention in Afghanistan – Bill of Rights Institute, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/us-military-intervention-in-afghanistan
65. Chapter 3 | National-Level Coordination and Implementation: How System Attributes Trumped Leadership, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/915848/chapter-3-national-level-coordination-and-implementation-how-system-attributes/
66. George W. Bush: Foreign Affairs – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/foreign-affairs
67. Global War on Terror | George W. Bush Library, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror
68. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America – George W. Bush White House Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nssall.html
69. Revitalizing National Defense – George W. Bush White House Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/defense/
70. Poliheuristic Decision-Making Analysis: President George W. Bush and the Decision to Invade Iraq > Air University (AU) > Wild Blue Yonder, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/3534259/poliheuristic-decision-making-analysis-president-george-w-bush-and-the-decision/
71. National Strategy for Victory in Iraq – George W. Bush White House Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
72. Why Did the United States Invade Iraq? The Debate at 20 Years, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://tnsr.org/2023/06/why-did-the-united-states-invade-iraq-the-debate-at-20-years/
73. The Bush Record – George W. Bush White House Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/index.html
74. The First MBA President: George W. Bush as Public Administrator – James P. Pfiffner, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://pfiffner.gmu.edu/files/pdfs/Articles/Bush%20as%20MBA,%20PAR%202007.pdf
75. Waging and Winning the War on Terror – George W. Bush White House Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap1-nrn.html
76. Remarks on the War on Terror | The American Presidency Project, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-war-terror
77. Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric – Shana Kushner Gadarian, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://sgadaria.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Iraq-article_Gershkoff_Kushner.pdf
78. Americans Split on Whether Afghanistan War Was a Mistake – Gallup News, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://news.gallup.com/poll/352793/americans-split-whether-afghanistan-war-mistake.aspx
79. A year later, a look back at public opinion about the U.S. military exit from Afghanistan, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/17/a-year-later-a-look-back-at-public-opinion-about-the-u-s-military-exit-from-afghanistan/
80. US Public Supports Withdrawal From Afghanistan | Chicago Council on Global Affairs, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://globalaffairs.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/us-public-supports-withdrawal-afghanistan
81. American Public Opinion and the Afghanistan Situation – Gallup News, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/354182/american-public-opinion-afghanistan-situation.aspx
82. Rally ‘Round the Flag: Opinion in the United States before and after the Iraq War, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rally-round-the-flag-opinion-in-the-united-states-before-and-after-the-iraq-war/
83. A Look Back at How Fear and False Beliefs Bolstered U.S. Public Support for War in Iraq, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look-back-at-how-fear-and-false-beliefs-bolstered-u-s-public-support-for-war-in-iraq/
84. Bush 43 advisors on the war in Iraq – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/americas-war-in-iraq/bush-43-advisors-war-iraq
85. Bush and Public Opinion | Pew Research Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/12/18/bush-and-public-opinion/
86. (PDF) The Deployment of U.S. Drones in Afghanistan: Deadly Sky and Unmanned Injustice, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370230151_The_Deployment_of_US_Drones_in_Afghanistan_Deadly_Sky_and_Unmanned_Injustice
87. Raven Sentry: Employing AI for Indications and Warnings in Afghanistan, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3789950/raven-sentry-employing-ai-for-indications-and-warnings-in-afghanistan/
88. Drones in Afghanistan: Not a Technological “Silver Bullet” – AutoNorms, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.autonorms.eu/drones-in-afghanistan-not-a-technological-silver-bullet/
89. The Afghan Sigs (Part 1) – Armada International, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.armadainternational.com/2021/10/talibantacticalradio/
90. Communications in Afghanistan – Wikipedia, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Afghanistan
91. Drone usage in the ‘Global War on Terror’: The need for Justice and Accountability for Afghans – By Kaitlin Kaye – United Against Inhumanity, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.against-inhumanity.org/2022/01/19/drone-usage-in-the-global-war-on-terror-the-need-for-justice-and-accountability-for-afghans/
92. These machines were supposed to help win the war in Afghanistan. What happened?, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.popsci.com/technology/timeline-us-airborne-tools-of-war-afghanistan/
93. Message to the Force – One Year Since the Conclusion of the …, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3144082/message-to-the-force-one-year-since-the-conclusion-of-the-afghanistan-war/
94. “I Saw Pieces of Bodies”: Afghan Civilians Describe Terrorization by US Drones | Truthout, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/i-saw-pieces-of-bodies-afghan-civilians-describe-terrorization-by-us-drones/
95. Afghanistan War Exposures – Public Health, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/wars-operations/oef.asp
96. News – Communications system connects Afghanistan with neighboring countries – DVIDS, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/news/28057/communications-system-connects-afghanistan-with-neighboring-countries
97. Biden Announces Full U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan by Sept. 11, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/2573268/biden-announces-full-us-troop-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-by-sept-11/
98. Weapons in Afghanistan: The Taliban’s Spoils of War – International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://icct.nl/sites/default/files/2022-12/The-Spoils-of-War-final-1.pdf
99. Afghanistan War | National Air and Space Museum, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://airandspace.si.edu/explore/topics/war-and-conflict/afghanistan-war
100. George W. Bush – Key Events – Miller Center, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/george-w-bush/key-events
101. accomplishments and results – George W. Bush White House Archives, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/legacybooklet.pdf
102. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND WARFARE – Department of Defense, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/29/2001329779/-1/-1/0/science_technology_and_warfare.pdf
103. Strategic Analysis: Impact of Technology on Conduct of Warfare, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/sa/sa_99anv02.html
104. Ghost in the Machine: Coming to Terms with the Human Core of Unmanned War, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://tnsr.org/2025/03/ghost-in-the-machine-coming-to-terms-with-the-human-core-of-unmanned-war/
105. During the 2003 Iraq Invasion, was there any technology used by either side changing for shifting needs, similar to how in WW1 the Germans stopped using Pickelhaube partly because of Calvary no longer being a thing? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed on April 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/16qk5tl/during_the_2003_iraq_invasion_was_there_any/