Humanitarian Intervention In The Middle East

One of the security challenges facing the United States (US) is the US and North Korea relations. The US policy toward North Korea is diplomatic yet firm. North Korea is our longest standing adversary. Policy toward North Korea is one of the most enduring foreign policy challenges. In this essay I will discuss the security challenge of U.S. and North Korea, the theory of international relation, realism, how it illuminates this challenge and how the instruments of

Since the 1950’s North Korea has posed as dangerous threat to The United States and its allies. With North Korea development of Nuclear arms and its consistent hostile rhetoric and actions towards the United States. With the North Korea’s development of a long range ICBM, more now than ever the United States has been put into a position where its and many of its

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.

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

Following the events of September 11th, President Bush was looked to as a leader to lead the country out of chaos. “In the weeks after the attack, Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent—the highest recorded job-approval rating in U.S. presidential history” ( millercenter). Nowadays however, Bush is often criticized for the actions he took during the invasions. “The Bush administration’s strategy had been to reduce the U.S. military presence as Iraq’s stability improved. Yet the goal proved unattainable, owing in part to the power vacuum left by the dismantling of the Iraqi army and the rise of sectarian violence within the two dominant strains of Islam in Iraq” (millercenter). Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but many blame the Bush Administration for the power vacuum created in the Middle East. Bush’s foreign policy typically surrounded a strong use of force and led to increase in terrorism surveillance creating a discussion that is hotly debated today Following the end of Bush’s second term, Barack Obama had won the presidency and the work in the Middle East was far from over. Obama proved to have a different ideology from Bush, wanting to remove troops from the Middle East, something he

Pyongyang and Beijing have been having a rough time especially after China arrested Zhou Yongkang, who was China’s third most powerful politician and when Jang Song-thaek, who was the second powerful man in North Korea, was executed. Since these men were both in charge of relations between Pyongyang and Beijing, North Korea and China were left with no way to calm the rising tensions between them. Now that Russia and China are focusing on their own struggles, they aren’t able to continue protecting Pyongyang. With North Korea fearing attack, there was a need to gain a new political relationship that could help North Korea’s economic recovery and guarantee survival---this being the United States.

When there is darkness there is light on the horizon. People may believe that President Trump will be somewhat of a war hawk when it comes to maintaining or even growing the United States nuclear arsenal. However, history has shown us that presidents may not be as hawkish as they are perceived to be. “United States President Ronald Regan became the unlikely champion of the nuclear disbarment agenda.” (Futter 176) Some say that Regan took a risky and aggressive posture towards the Soviet Union a few years back.

Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.

In the years leading up to and during the Iraq War, the United States pursued a neo-conservative agenda that aimed to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime, eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and install a democratic government in Iraq. To do so, U.S. policymakers deployed military forces and diplomatic ambassadors to intervene. This strategy, clearly seen during the early invasion in 2003 and the surge of 2007, produced mixed reactions. Indeed, more than a decade after the U.S. decision to mediate, the question remains: Can intervention actually work?

The President of the United States (U.S.) as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the head of Government as well, has an enormous responsibility to maintain the balance between politics and security matters. In this regard, the role of advisors and counselors, responsible for directing sensitive security agencies and organizations, is fundamental to the success of the decision-making process, especially when the eyes of the world are expectant of the behavior of such a leading nation. However, nations and organizations are led by imperfect human beings who in turn translate their strengths and weaknesses to such structures. The National Security environment is not strange to this phenomenon and some administrations have had a more prominent

President Trump is not the first to go back on his words when it comes to foreign affairs and he is definitely not the first to attempt something new when it comes to this topic where everything has been tried. Trump put forth on Monday a long awaited decision and strategy for America’s disentanglement from a nearly 16-year-old conflict with Afghanistan. It has almost been 16 years since the grueling war in Afghanistan has begun. This Friday Trump gathered top security officials to discuss possible solutions on the matter at hand. The Trump administration had already promised a new plan towards these matters. After many discussions the US president will “provide the path forward for America’s engagement in Afghanistan and South Asia”. This

Alternatively, his serial provocations could incite a South Korean or US military response that creates an unstoppable escalation spiral. The logic of Trump’s ‘America First’ policy contains the rationale for preventing North Korea from acquiring the capacity to strike the US mainland, regardless of the scale and gravity of the harm inflicted on South Koreans, Japanese and others in the region. The Kim dynasty has outwitted the United States with more tenacity, resourcefulness and single-minded determination. There is nothing the world can offer Kim that he would value more than his prized bomb. More sanctions suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Any country is exposed to the threat of sanctions when it is fully integrated into

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

Humanitarian intervention is the act when states intervene in the affairs of another state because that state is violating the basic human rights of its civilians or because it is in the intervening state’s self interest to get involved. (Humanitarian, 2008) These interventions are not specifically aimed at violating the sovereignty of a state, but rather their purpose is to protect the basic human rights of civilians during civil wars and during crime against humanity. (Humanitarian, 2008) Realism explains that humanitarian intervention came about during the genocide in Bosnia but not in Rwanda because even though it might have been the correct moral action to take, intervention in Rwanda was not in the national interest of other

It can be said that in the case of the USA and North Korea, the current tensions developed further because of the start of nuclear weapons programmes in North Korea which created panic in US government (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2017, p. 31). Realism highlights how this shift in the balance of power threatens US security as they are no longer a more