To what extent do you agree with Gareth Porter (historian and journalist) who argues that the primary goal of US policy in Asia was NOT to contain communism in Southeast Asia (Vietnam) or stop the "dominoes" from falling? , but rather maintain constant pressure on China. (Porter, A. Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. University of California Press, 2005.) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay I agree to some extent with your contribution regarding US goals in Asia. While his argument has some merit, I don't think containing China was the United States' primary goal in Asia. There may have been some intentions to do so when defining and formulating their foreign policy positions, but there is probably little precedence for them to do so as a primary objective. I would say that the primary goal of any type of involvement in Asia can be attributed to opposing the United States' greatest enemy in the Soviet Union. Many of the proxy wars fought at the time were often aimed at opposing the Soviets and weakening communism in these established regions. For example, many smaller crises, such as the North Yemen civil war and the 1958 Lebanon crisis, were strictly proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union, while China did not even play a significant role in any of them. these conflicts. Furthermore, China did not have an overbearing foreign policy, rather it sought to impose a greater sense of self-dependence and was too busy developing its nation economically. Although China played a role in intervening with Korea and Vietnam, these were simply not as pressing an issue as the Soviet Union was. If the United States really wanted to put pressure on China, there would have been a greater incentive to help the country. The KMT and the Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War. Warren Cohen, a historian and research associate at the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, says: “Although American leaders preferred a nationalist victory, they did not consider China important enough to intervene in its civil war. Furthermore, Marshall, who became secretary of state in 1947, believed that the United States, having limited resources, could not afford to invest large sums of money or use millions of American soldiers in an area of ​​secondary importance in the emerging confrontation with the Soviet Union. "(Cohen). Marshall's feelings and the actions of the U.S. government demonstrated that China was not a big enough problem when the Soviet Union was on the rise. If China had not been a problem then, when the U.S. could have stopped the origins of a communist uprising in China, then it could not have been the main factor in their foreign intervention in Vietnam and Korea Furthermore, there was always the goal of re-establishing relations with China (Kissinger). Pressuring China would have been an even greater burden on the United States when they would have had to exert even greater pressure on the more daunting Soviet Union. Keep in mind: this is just one example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get an essay custom Although Porter's argument may lend some sort of validity, it does not have enough evidence to support his point. There is overwhelming evidence that Vietnam was fought to suppress communism established by many American presidents, such as Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. . Also.