Talk:Kennedy Doctrine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kennedy Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514235348/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/kennedy.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/kennedy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514235348/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/kennedy.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/kennedy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfocused and missing information

This article is wrong. The Kennedy Doctrine was a specific doctrine prepared in 1963 by NSC staff. Kennedy revealed the controversial new policy in a speech on 18 November, but the issue was "blanketed almost immediately by his death". The article needs to be rewritten. See Rabe, Stephen G. (1999). The Most Dangerous Area in the World: John F. Kennedy Confronts Communist Revolution in Latin America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 080784764X. Uglemat (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There may be some sources which use the term "Kennedy Doctrine" in the more general sense of Kennedy's policy towards Latin America, but the NSC staff prepared what was actually known internally as the "Kennedy Doctrine" — although Kennedy did not use the term in his 18 November speech. This article should be about the actual term itself and its uses, not about the Kennedy administration's policy towards Latin America. Uglemat (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the term "Kennedy Doctrine" was used with reference to Kennedy's policies towards Latin America during his administration, but it seems to have been defined by people outside the administration. Time magazine wrote on 5 October 1962, "What is this Kennedy Doctrine? An analysis of the President's hard-core position on Cuba shows it to be this.... The 'Kennedy Doctrine' proves to be...".[1] Really vague stuff. Uglemat (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A book called The Kennedy Doctrine was released in 1972. I don't have access to it, but this description by another author is important: "It was left to Louise Fitzsimons and Richard Walton, however, to challenge the bulk of the assertions made by Kennedy apologists. In their view, Kennedy epitomized the Cold Warrior. He forsook diplomacy for confrontation during the Berlin and Cuban missile crises, heightened the arms race, brought the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust, and, on the basis of what Fitzsimons called the "Kennedy Doctrine" (the right to intervene[page cut off]".[2] It seems to me that the "Kennedy Doctrine" is just a vague and unhelpful term. People use it like it is something specific, but it is not — with the exception of the doctrine revealed in Kennedy's speech on 18 November. Uglemat (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A book called The Doctrines of US Security Policy: An Evaluation under International Law: "Neither the Johnson Doctrine nor the Kennedy Doctrine are doctrines of US security policy in the mind of the US Government. .... these terms are [...] merely attempts to label principles of US foreign policy" (order reversed, pp. 141, 134)

Kennedy seems to have been accused by critics of supplanting the Monroe Doctrine with a more cowardly "Kennedy Doctrine". [3] The critics seems to have thought that the Monroe Doctrine justified an attack on Cuba, whereas Kennedy didn't attack (properly). Uglemat (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have renamed this section from "Original research" to "Unfocused and missing information". Uglemat (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is WP:OR, "more cowardly" and opinion: Louise Fitzsimons and Richard Walton should be balanced by other RS historians, who do not share that conclusion or how they interpret the meaning and use of the term, "He forsook diplomacy for confrontation during the Berlin and Cuban missile crises, heightened the arms race, brought the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust." With that said, the article can use work as I do think there is an argument that it is a term used for general JFK policy and more RS cites would be helpful. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think most of the information in this article which does not actually deal with the term itself should be moved somewhere else, or deleted. Fitzsimons/Walton and the conservative critics seems to have used the same term—"Kennedy Doctrine"—yet critiquing Kennedy from totally different angles. Either he is a coward, or he is reckless. Compounding the confusion, the Kennedy administration actually launched its own official "Kennedy Doctrine", but Kennedy died right afterwards, and did not specifically use the term in his speech (see Rabe above). So writing that "The Kennedy Doctrine was essentially an expansion of the foreign policy prerogatives of the previous administrations" is just unintelligible nonsense, as far as I can see. Uglemat (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You know how the media and writers like to "pigeon-hole" items, timeframes and events by using "terms" for description, whether official or not and they can be vague, such as how this term has been used. I don't know who wrote it was "essentially an expansion...of previous administrations". Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)