Essay On Prescient Dissenters

Foreign Policy has long been at the center of heated international and domestic debates. Statements that serve as the catalyst for these debates are often labeled as blatant lies. For example, President George W. Bush believed the Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. When President Bush’ claim could not be substantiated opponents suggested the President was a liar. Henry R. Nau asserts this label may be an oversimplification. Nau separates the existence of facts and the interpretation of said facts. People from different cultures interpret the same facts differently (1). It is human nature to simplify the world into black and white terms. In “Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy” Nau explores the common bases of interpretation

The Vietnam War is widely regarded as the lowest point in the history of U.S. foreign affairs. It mercilessly dragged an unwilling country on a fatal ride for twenty years, all while receiving low approval ratings and high funding. The Vietnam conflict served as an optimum environment for the virus of controversy. No one has more experience with controversy than Heinz Alfred Kissinger. He is the ultimate pragmatist, as embodying his philosophy of realpolitik, a diplomatic ideology based on utilitarianism rather than international ethical standards. When one’s political calling card downplays the role of ethics in diplomacy, that individual is bound to garner a high profile reputation. Kissinger himself has lamented the national predicament during this conflict—squeezed between the ultimate rock, his duty to keep peace, and hard place, his duty to act with the approval of the American people. This predicament was rooted in an omnipresent opposition to Communism, as was America’s role in the entire Cold War. Cold War politics were politics of fear. That fear drove competition, which bred a certain variety of leader – a logical, calculating politician with regard for nothing but his country’s success. To avoid an uncontrollable spread of Communism through the westernized world, some moral casualties were strewn about the wayside. However, the American public had no trouble rolling up their collective sleeves to back this forward-thinking activist. In more recent years, some

A world where slavery is still widespread, genocide is an everyday occurrence, and the voices of the common citizen is silenced. This would have happened if we only disagreed over such matters and not dissented. In the Decline of Radicalism, by Daniel J. Boorstin, he asserts that “disagreement is the life blood of democracy, dissension is its cancer” and that dissent is negative word. Boorstin also claims that “disagreement produces debate”, which is true, but could have all conflicts been solved with diplomacy? Dissent is the life blood of democracy and it is not negative; it is vital to how our nation came to be.

In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation, he warned the United States to strive for continuous balance so that the power of the military and industrial complex would not harm the democratic process. The goal was to maintain agreement and compromise on issues existing in the current moment, as well as the solutions that would help to shape the nation in the coming future. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment (Eisenhower, II).

The realization, however, came with a stark reality: in order to obtain access to overseas markets, the US would need to devise clever strategies to validate and facilitate these aims. So, while power-hungry business moguls were busy conjuring up plans as to how to bring this about, government and military officials like Theodore Roosevelt, Senator Henry Lodge, President McKinley and Captain A. T. Mahan sought to extend the political and military presence of US forces around the world. The plan was to gain a foothold, and eventually be positioned to control leaders and policies of overseas nations. Naturally, it was a plan that would require the careful construction of outwardly logical

Thus the imperial presidency was born from foreign affairs, from “faith and duty and the right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world” at any moment without the approval of congress (Schlesinger). Past presidents have dealt with national emergencies, this pressure is responsibility that he “must take unto himself” and act accordingly (Schlesinger). Good government starts with the appearance of our leader, and the entire executive office. The president should be representative of the all people in the United States, an exceptional role model who takes the people’s needs into account. The best time for a strong imperialistic president is when faction, anarchy, and excessive ambitions threaten it. The energy put forth by the president “generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree” than that of a weaker and more dispersed power system (Hamilton). The importance of this energy highlights the respect our government continues to have for the constitution because of the importance it maintains in this day and age.

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

Examined in the film was the event when Bush was to appoint his foreign policy team. All the advisors he selected were viewed as major contributors in the political picture. It was observed that all but one of these advisors were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based organization that is a well-renowned exponent of America’s Insider establishment. This was a common method used in an attempt to make the United States a one-world government ruled by the elite class. The CFR has made close to every decision in the past regarding foreign policy, no matter what the political party of the current president. Therefore, when President Bush joined forces with this council, it became practically impossible for a change in policy while the Bush Administration is in power (www.thenewamerican.com).

Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

In “Questing for Monsters to Destroy,” John Mueller, an American political scientist, says American policymakers put “a truly massive emphasis on exquisite theorizing and on defense expenditures,” because these policymakers, “became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort,” of actual military action (p 117). He argues that American decision makers constantly saw Russia’s actions as bigger threats than they really were and acted accordingly, which resulted in the U.S. spending money and troops to fight wars they should have never been involved in.

The Arrogance of Power by Senator J. William Fulbright, provides an insightful analysis of America’s national identity, politics, and international relations through the context of the Vietnam War that is still relevant today. Fulbright’s analysis is perceptive and prognosticative. His predictions regarding the War and future relations with the east were often times proven correct. By the same token, his arguments were also rhetorically effective. Throughout the book, Fulbright skillfully uses logos and ethos to transmit his ideas. Moreover, the book has added to the class by providing additional context and insight into the Vietnam War and by providing examples of leadership. Despite the merits of the book, there are instances where I agree

To conclude, it is rare both in American and World History to find presidencies and administrations that can go down in history as periods of great innovation on foreign policy. International relations are very complex and volatile and thus difficult to adjust and manage. Therefore, the only way for policymakers and politicians to acquire the necessary intuition in order to deal with the complex nature of international politics, is via the detailed comprehension of their predecessors foreign policy failures and achievement. Thus, the next American government in order to achieve its main goals must learn for Obama’s mistakes while at the same time to continue his successful political

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.