Foreign Policy And The Current Syrian Conflict

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

The objective of ‘the U.S. foreign policy’ course is to develop personal ability for applying IR theories to the U.S. foreign policy. Then, students will be able to understand the direction as well as the grounds of the U.S. foreign policy. To achieve this objective, I will discuss major the theoretical issues through the brief history of the U.S. foreign policy until the Cold War. After that, I will examine the challenges which the U.S. confronts.

The notion that we do not need foreign policy, or that it is an antiquated concept is greatly misleading. In fact, we need a strong foreign policy now more than ever. We are living at a time when the world’s geographical divides are shrinking due to ever increasing advancements in communication, technology, trade, and a strong global economic interdependence. Even though the notion that we are somehow economically dependent upon other countries is not something new for the US, we still see a strong indifference to foreign policy. In order to understand the problems, let us take a step back and examine the history of US foreign policy.

In the days surrounding president George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations regarding the political climate in Iraq, Washington had become a whirlpool of two different approaches: unilateralism and multilateralism. After an attempt to appeal to both sides in Washington with his initial address to the UN, George Bush’s action of waging an arguably unjustified war against Iraq without assistance from the United Nations can ultimately be explained using realist theory.

Chapter 16 focuses on American foreign policy and what it entails. Foreign policy of the United States determines how we interact with other nations and also the standards or guidelines for these interactions. Foreign policy is designed to protect America and ensure our safety both domestically and globally. There has been an ongoing struggle involving American foreign policy in the Middle East and specifically the war on terrorism. Conflict in the Middle East has been at the top of the American Foreign policy agenda for the past 50 years.

There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has recently avoided interfering militarily in Syria or providing the rebels with direct support, but admitted the presence of the Syrian opposition.

The Debate over the U.S. invasion of Iraq continues to foment dissension among international relation theorists. While the invasion can be evaluated through different IR theories, majority suggest the invasion can be assessed through two popular IR theories: Realism and Marxism. Also, I found another useful theory, which will fit in the case if this invasion is security dilemma. There is always controversial among international politics scholars, which discussed the theories that were most likely providing comprehensive and insights regarding accounting for this invasion.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Syria is a Middle Eastern country bordering the Mediterranean sea, in between Lebanon and Turkey. The population of about 17,000,000 consists of all different religions and languages. Most of the population speaks Arabic. Armenian and Kurdish are also often spoken as well. Syrian government has the influence of Islamic laws. The country’s capital is Damascus.

This study of global politics will define the American Realism as a theoretical international relations approach to the problem of U.S. unilateralism and military intervention throughout the world. An exanimation of the post-9/11 era of the Bush Doctrine will define the premise of “realism” as a valid international relations theory that defines the unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003. This aspect of the Bush Administrations use of military intervention in the 2000s has continued to expand under the Obama Administration. The theory of realism is based on the premise of “self-reliance”, self-interest, and a fear-based form of aggressive policies that have been implemented in unilateral American wars. Realism can provide a foundation for the motivations of the American government to act without global cooperation or diplomacy with other nations, especially due to the massive economic and military power that it wields as the “world’s policeman.” These factors define he conflict-based politics of American military intervention and the unilateral polices that it continues to utilize on a global scale. In essence, an examination of the theory of “realism” in an international relations perspective will define the increasingly problematic American policies of military intervention and unilateralist policies on global politics.

Syria, a land that neighbors Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. Muslim population exceeds 86 percent of the peoples but the ancient language of Aramaic is still used today. Islamic faith is preached throughout the region along with Christianity. The Constitution states that the President and Republic are of Islamic faith. Tension between Syria and the United States have been tensed for a number of years. This paper will discuss the history, religion, social organization, politics and military of Syria.

Foreign interventions are complex events, which have a large degree of subjectivity as to whether or not they are justifiable. Foreign intervention, while usually a result of the loss of sovereignty, can be used to reinforce the sovereignty of a state. Through realist and liberal judgments of sovereignty, both Russian and American intervention in the Syrian civil war can be questioned whether the force used, is justifiable by the contemporary situation in Syria.

International relations (IR) are ‘the diplomatic strategic relations of states, and the characteristic focus of IR is on issues of war and peace, conflict and cooperation’ (Brown and Ainley, 2009). Many different theories exist within IR to define and analyse certain situations. Rationalism is classified as the major in IR analysis theory (Baylis, et al, 2011). The study of IR according to a comprehensive and scientific methodology became a key demand after the First World War, resulting from a desire to clarify international politics. Following the First World War, international relations were initially taught in different fields, such as international

Analyzing foreign policies under the lens of a particular conceptual theory can be useful because it allows us to pinpoint problems and focus on particular solutions in an otherwise complex international environment. Using general theories as predictive models of foreign policy outcomes allows us, as a nation, to unify our beliefs in an otherwise contentious arena, and make decisions for our future that can be weighed and tested. The problems with adhering to a single theory, however, are that we can often entrench ourselves within a certain perspective, oversimplify a situation, and