In Tomas Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map: It explains why we’re going to war and why we’ll keep

In his farewell address to the nation in 1961, President Eisenhower warned the country of the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” (Eisenhower 1961). Despite being a warning from so long ago, time has vindicated Eisenhower’s words. From the time of Eisenhower to present day, the United States has seen an unprecedented growth of the power, size, and influence of the military industrial complex. Today, the military industrial complex exerts great pressure on the foreign policy decision making process of the United States government. This sad state of affairs is the result of a multitude of factors, including iron triangles and issue networks, as well as the foreign policy bureaucracies that serve as actors within these paradigms.

Globalization is the process by which the markets of different countries become integrated due to the exchange of goods, services, technology, and capital. Globalization depends on social, economic, and political factors, and continuously alters the way that the world works. All the vital components of the evolving global, political, economic and social institutions being examined seem to constantly converge and to perpetually intertwine during the day to day administration of global affairs. Diplomacy is employed to keep a measured balance between conflict and cooperation. The global guarantees of international law are placed in sharp contrast to the grim reality of human rights on daily basis and policy is dictated by the scales of political power and the urgent priorities of economic necessity. To understand how the globe functioned in the past and how it wishes to function in the future, we must study each factor separately and observe its inevitable interactivity with the other factors that occur. It is important to note that none of the dynamics can be given greater weight in comparison to the other crucial instrumentalities.

His rosy view of globalization at the beginning of the twentieth century is also naïve in that it downplays the role and the potential strength of nationalism, especially during times of crisis, and refers to military spending and arms buildup as “economically futile” rather than as dangerous but necessary, as they in fact were.

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

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.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

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

United States involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last thirteen years has resulted in much debate over the role of the United States military. This debate is encouraged, as it will sustain conversation of how to best employ an important yet dwindling national resource. The publication of Dominic Tierney’s article “Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars” speaks directly to this debate. The article argues that the US military has lost the capability of winning wars since World War II . Tierney posits that the world is a more peaceful place and the United States is incapable of adapting to the resultant style of low intensity conflict that normally rises with state peace. He believes the U.S. government has a lust for global hegemony. The excessive use of military force is the only way to quench Washington’s thirst He concludes with an implication that American’s victory culture has led to disillusionment of our government’s expectations, and that this culture should be reexamined in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life in the future. Although Tierney makes a valiant effort to question US military strategic efforts over the last 70 years, he fails to realize that America’s emphasis on national security is a major contributing factor for why the world has seen a reduction in state-on-state war.

Through tracing its development over the last few decades, this explores the modern day significance of the military industrial-complex. One such decade is the one following the end of the Cold War and the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War. It is during this time, 1997-2002 that U.S. plans requested $1.6 trillion dollars in military spending, despite having no major military rivals. Moreover, although US military spending has decreased in recent years, this is mainly the result of reduced fewer weapons purchased as opposed to the cancellation of weapons which further speaks to the impact of the military industrial-conflict. It is through the analysis of this and times and events like the war on terrorism, that the article comes to results such as, powerful MIC’s greater the risk of war, in addition to increasing the number of countries that hold access to technologically advanced

The United States, it seems, serves as the unofficial international police. We attempt to impose our views on the world and then correct anyone that strays from our “status quo”. Through our diplomatic actions, America tries to preserve our national beliefs in exchange for the deterioration of another country’s. We were formed by the “global forces” who were attempting to create a global empire, but once we became our own nation, we became one of those forces (197).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

The Bush Doctrine vastly expanded what the United States deems a “vital interest”—dragging preëmptive action, unilateralism, and anti-terrorism under its umbrella. Democratizing nations plays a critical role in the strategy as well. A spirit of liberalism flows through the Doctrine, as it attempts to depose tyrannical dictators to ease relations between nations and foster democracy. It

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.