My research question as expressed for small-n study is:
“What explains the difference in success and failure in the US’ intervention in West Berlin in the Berlin airlift (1948-1949), in Korea in the Korean War (1950-1953), and in Vietnam in the Vietnam War (1955-1975)?
The dependent variable as articulated here would be the outcome of these interventions and will be assigned values of “success”, “mixed success”, and “failure”. Taking inspiration from Howard, I operationalize “success” as both the achievement of the objective of intervention (in my cases deposing/preventing a communist government) as well as whether the intervention resulted in positive peace/improvement in the state of the country that experienced intervention.[1]For example, I would look at whether, say, the Berlin airlift was successful according to whether it a) did or did not prevent a communist government and b) whether the state of West Berlin experienced positive peace/improvement as a result of the airlift or not. For a case to be a failure, it must not meet either requirement. Meeting one requirement but not the other would be a mixed success (ie: preventing a communist government but not improving the conditions of the state). Additionally, partial fulfilment of both requirements would also constitute a mixed success. To inform the assignment of success/mixed success/failure values, I must consult primary document sources including US Presidential Papers, local and international media coverage, and UN reports/documents.
For my first case of West Berlin, I consulted declassified records from the National Security Council. Specifically, the source is called “Remarks by Mr. Lovett at 12/16/48 NSC meeting on the significance of the Berlin airlift”.[2]This source argued that the US’ intervention was successful in that it attained its objective, seeing as the airlift “had now become a vital part of our foreign policy…. [as it] had the effect of wielding the western Germans into a unity that we had been unable to get otherwise…” and because it began deterring communism as evident by the fact that “one old-time Communist in the Ruhr area had recently been beaten by an 82.6% of the vote”.[3]According to this source, one can label this intervention as a success insofar as it prevented a communist government. The second source, the declassified document “A New Start for the Alliance”, recognized that the condition of West Berlin has improved because of the airlift, resulting in “the comparative calm of Europe in recent years [which] has been one of the fruits of the policy expressed in the Berlin airlift”.[4]Seeing as both sources demonstrate the intervention a) deterred communism and prevented a communist government, and b) resulted in the improvement in the country’s condition, the outcome of the US intervention in West Berlin can be understood to be “successful”.[5]It should be recognized that I must interrogate my primary sources by “triangulating them” or corroborating them with other kinds of documents such as media, UN reports, etc. Triangulation is, of course, important to ensure the validity of my research. I would have to do the same for my other cases.
For the sake for concision, I will expand upon the other two cases very briefly. In a research design, they will follow the same operationalization and primary source process as that of my first case. I have defined Vietnam as a failure for failing to prevent a communist government and for failing to produce positive peace as a result of the intervention, and have defined Korea as a mixed success because it resulted in a partitioning of North and South (allowing the rise of communist government in one of two partitioned states) and because the conflict between North and South was never resolved.
[1]Howard Lise Morjé. UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Page 7.
[2]United States National Security Council. Remarks by Mr. Lovett at 12/16/48 NSC meeting on the significance of the Berlin airlift. United States: 1948. U.S. Declassified Documents.Page 2(Accessed October 27, 2019).
[3]Ibid.
[4]United States Department Of State.A New Start for the Alliance. United States: 1996. U.S. Declassified Documents. Page 1(Accessed October 27, 2019).
[5]United States National Security Council. Remarks by Mr. Lovett at 12/16/48 NSC meeting on the significance of the Berlin airlift. United States: 1948. U.S. Declassified Documents.Page 2(Accessed October 27, 2019).
United States Department Of State.A New Start for the Alliance. United States: 1996. U.S. Declassified Documents. Page 1(Accessed October 27, 2019).
Mohammad — you are off to a good start here in thinking about your DV and in discussing good primary sources that are relevant to your project. You will need to keep thinking about case selection, though. The Berlin Airlift is a very different situation or event (not a full-scale war at all) than either Vietnam or Korea (both full-scale wars, though one was internationalized via a UN coalition and the other was the US alone). The major differences between the Berlin airlift and the wars would place it in an entirely separate category or class of events. Even the two wars are quite different. In short, this means thinking some more about the concept of control as you identify potential cases for research. Keep reading and researching and let me know if you have any questions.