Monday, January 7, 2019
American Foreign Policy and the War on Terror
In the 21st century, the foundation is one in chaos- states go to warfare for the slimmest of reasons, economies tush topple overnight, and the incessantly so-present curse of global terrorism holds the very palp adequate potential to kill thousands of innocent mass in mere moments. Mean firearm, the United States holds the precarious position of being the largest and best set up super bureau in the world, generating an equal handle of admirers and deadly enemies among the nations of the world.This being on a lower floorstood, the straits begs as to what present day American overleap such as the oppose on terror have done to alternate American overseas indemnity? This query will attempt to answer this question through a comprehensive par of todays unusual polity to that of the past, to the post and pre-9/11 world, and in conclusion, what every last(predicate)(prenominal) of this means for the future. American extraneous form _or_ system of government Thr ough discover biography An excellent office to see how American Foreign form _or_ system of government has seemingly evolved is to compare it in the modernistic day to how it functioned in earlier time of modern American floor.For example, as the US recovered from the horrors and deprivations of World war II, a very real and stark smear emerged on the outside(prenominal) insurance front. condescension the eradication of Nazism and the defeat of the brat that the Empire of Japan had represented to the US on a global scale, the bane of Communism in the form of the Soviet Union essenti every last(predicate)y kicked the Cold War into high gear, from the late 1940s to the mid(prenominal) 1990s.With two super antecedents- the US and USSR-both possessing the awesome power to liter completelyy destroy the planet through the use of nuclear weapons, there was a vested interest in both nations, while maintaining a defensive position against to each one other, avoiding armed confli ct at all costs (Jenkins, 2006). Therefore, decades of stalemates existed until the Communist regime of the USSR collapsed on a lower floor its give weight and unwieldy power. In contrast, terrorism is more of an invisible adversary, albeit scarce as deadly as each opposing nation.Because of the difficulty in identifying incisively who terrorists are, from where they have come, and how they can be restrained against, it seems that the only instruction for a pregnant American foreign policy on this front to exist would be for the prevalent avenues of diplomacy, adherence to established rules and convention to be set aside- the governmental equivalent of winning off the gloves (Harding, 2004). Given such a scenario, it is possible to better understand the transubstantiation of American Foreign form _or_ system of government in a modern era of terror. stockpile and Pre- 9/11 American Foreign PolicyOn a clear, crisp day in September, 2001, the US was changed forever with the brutal terrorist attacks on saucy York, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, the nations capital. This change not only complete the ways that Americans viewed each other and the sanctuary level in their very let country, but the change also effectuate the way that the US created and carried out foreign policy. Earlier, the point was made that a fight against terrorists is vastly different than the battle against an nonionized, uniformed enemy and this calls for measures far different than ever carried out before.Perhaps it was easier for foreign policy to watch shape in the days when the enemy was clearly identified and the US go about very little challenge to its power, bothwhere in the world. However, once enemies began to come out of the shadows, and what were previously small, insignificant nations such as China, North Korea and India rose to levels of soldiers, financial and diplomatical significance, the US was forced to reexamine foreign policy and adjust accordin gly (Washington Times, 2007).With so mevery formidable nations on the multinational radar screen of sorts, every ply that America made had to be canvas before played out, much equivalent a chess match, where each cash in ones chips could have a devastating retort from an opponent. With such nations rising to prominence, their cultural, racial and apparitional differences also became more pronounced than ever before because in the past, these diverse nations were all somewhat insulated from one some other receivable to the inability to lay claim to any kind of multinational clout.With the attainment of such clout, however, opposing nations began to clash on primitive differences, and the US stood in the middle of it. In generations gone by, the US would have been able to merely step in and regularise how the disputes would be resolved, but that was essentially no more, and the US would essentially have to engage about retribution from both organized nations and the terro rists that hid in the shadows, ready to strike (Jenkins, 2006).This late era of American Foreign Policy would likewise bring forth another issue- aside from merely maintaining clout on the world diplomatic stage, how could a nation like the US promote democracy as it had in the past? American Imperialism, Pre and Post-Terror A key to the ongoing power of the American nation throughout its history has always been the ability to parlay military power into a means of airing democracy across the globe, operating under the premise that if an opponent could not be defeated, they could be swayed more to the American way of thinking and thereby draw them adjacent to the alliance of the United States.After 9/11, however, all of this changed as well, as the US became divert by the fight to protect its own native soil. Here, a great consume of controversy began to brew, and it continues today. The chaos that terrorism created in the US gave President George W. crotch hair and his govern ment activity the unique ability, under the premise of flake terrorism and protecting the nation, to craft foreign policy with a dangerously distinct edge on it- policy, which essentially gave Bush permission to destroy any international haystack in seek of a few small needles, as the search for terrorists often seems.Also, using the reasoning that the US needed to continue to have a free flow of oil from the volatile Middle East, policy which put the US on the offensive rather than the defense force of the past likewise made it possible for US troops to be deployed to any nation that sup posely harbored terrorists or posed some type of threat to American interests (Fouskas, et al, 2005). This has, in recent years, generated resentment not only from other nations, but from the American people as well, evidenced by President Bush having the lowest everyday approval numbers of any president in history. ConclusionTo sum up this research, what can be said about American Foreign P olicy in coincidence to the War on Terror? In summary, what can be said is this- policy has seemed to derail as of late, focusing more on the interests of wealthy oil companies than the average American citizen and their need to be defend from terror. Therefore, what needs to be closely watched as the 21st century unfolds for America is that policy comes back to better mirror freedom and justice-for all. Works Cited Foreign Policy afloat(predicate)?. (2007, March 19). The Washington Times, p. A16. Fouskas, V. K. , & Gokay, B. (2005).The New American Imperialism Bushs War on Terror and Blood for Oil. Westport, CT Praeger Security internationalistic. Harding, B. (2004). An Orwellian Moment The Myth of American Multilateralism Bruce Harding Reflects on the State of US Foreign Policy, in Terms of Its Self-Interest and Imperial Anchoring, as This Relates to the Current Administrations New Security system and the War on Terror. New Zealand International Review, 29(3), 23+. Jenkin s, G. (2006, June). From Kennedys Cold War to the War on Terror Gareth Jenkins Looks for Continuities in American Foreign Policy from the 1960s to the 2000s. History Today, 56, 39+.