Military Involvement around the World Essay

In Paul Johnson’s “American Idealism and Realpolitik Critique” about American involvement in political battles in foreign countries, he brings forth the idea that the American government plays a vital role when it comes to mediating and facilitating conflict. Their importance can often be overshadowed by some opinions that the government, specifically the army, has over stepped its boundaries by intruding on countries and excessively becoming involved in hostility. Johnson notes that without American intervention, there would be cause for a considerable diminish in aid and possibly a rise in disputes. Johnson compares to America’s duties to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in which the lack of control over the discord between countries results in an anarchy that would leave the world’s population to “‘continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (Johnson 387) Although he does put a stress on the significance of the American government, he does not ignore the obvious moral flaws that sometimes tarnish this reputation. When adding up the pros and cons of the United States authority, Johnson’s writing favours the positive aspects but also has hints of neutrality; this attitude is quite fitting considering America’s actions.

When problems arise people step up and take responsibility. Like in the quote from Elie Wiesel, human suffering really is everyone’s problem. In war and times of conflict, America has intervened because they believe that it is their problem to try and solve. This is evident through speeches in World War I, propaganda in World War II, letters during Vietnam, biographies concerning the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and speeches from the War on Terror.

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

President Obama stated in his Anti-Terror Strategy address, "We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today” (Obama).The Middle East today is composed of very complicated religious tensions, unstable states, and rising terrorist organizations. The collapse of central governments and the rise of powerful non-state actors breed problems that foreign powers and the world’s only superpower, simply should begin to address. Many argue that the involvement in the Middle East is not our problem and that it will only cause our national debt to increase. As human beings we must began to realize the crimes against humanity occurring in the region and ask ourselves one question, can we truly turn a blind eye to the hundreds of innocent people dying and at what cost? The United States of America must get involved in the Middle East to ensure justice is achieved and maintained. Our interference will decrease the chances of terrorist attacking U.S. soil, and our military involvement will save the lives of many innocent citizens caught up in the turmoil. The United States must protect its interests and allies in the region. America stands for freedom, justice, and dignity; we must take a stand to defend ourselves and those in need, if we truly want to uphold the

America may be a relatively young nation, turning 240 years old this year, but in its short existence, it has had a powerful influence over world affairs, for better or worse. George Washington once said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” However, since his presidency, the United States’ position in the world has steered from a steely isolationist stance to one open and hungry for involvement in the matters of other countries. America craved land and power to bolster itself and utilized foreign policy to do so, shifting towards an imperialist position. However, this change in foreign policy resulted

The evolution of U.S. Foreign policy following the Civil War is continually evolving. During the Civil War years, America had an economy that was based on agriculture. Farmers were growing cotton, tobacco and sugarcane. Slaves from Africa worked on these enormous plantations. . At the time, America was in an election year with Lincoln as the candidate of the Republican Party claiming he was going to abolish slavery. When Lincoln won the election he did just that, immediately there after 7 states declared their independence from the US, they were then known as Confederate States. After a few years 4 more states

1. How does public opinion affect foreign policy? Is public opinion permissive or constraining? Does the U.S. public support the use of force? Under what conditions?

[2] When determining US policy, diplomatic and economic tools of statecraft should be more readily deployed than military intervention for the purpose of genocide prevention and mitigation. As interventionist Samantha Power notes in her book, A Problem From Hell, “[t]he United States should not frame its policy options in terms of doing nothing or unilaterally sending in the marines.” The period of time pre-genocide, which may be characterized by internal unrest or civil war, is a key period of time for U.S. policymakers interested in preserving human life and a nation’s stability. If policymakers fear the development of genocide, they can take steps such as threatening legal consequences, enacting economic sanctions, or “calling on countries aligned with perpetrators to ask them to use their influence.” All of these and similar options are far less risky to the U.S. than a military intervention and can be readily applied in order to prevent violence escalating into genocide or in the case of a suspected, but unconfirmed, genocide.

In the late 19th to early 20th century of the United States, America was thriving to acquire new land in expansion of natural resource and territory. Some of these actions and events in this time period can be categorized by imperialistic acts. Imperialism is when a countries power is influence through diplomacy or military force. With America’s very powerful military and intimidating reputation, I will be discussing some of the events that occurred when the United States took it upon themselves to have there way with foreign regimes. In less than a century the United States played a decisive role in the overthrow of fourteen foreign governments. Hawaii, the Philippine islands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduran, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq have all been affected by United States involvement. Why would we be so concerned with other countries? Why do we have to spark up confrontations with other societies and groups around the world? Why can’t we just let things be? In my opinion I think the answer is simple. What the Elite want most for this country is power, money, wealth, land and most importantly natural resources. Because all of these a sense of entitlements the United States may feel brings about a rain for imperialistic movements. Not to mention the mindset of “who is going to stop us”. Through out this essay I will be stating various examples and stories that conclude my argument of why the United States have such a

The United States has been involved in many wars throughout history. Americans have fought and died in many wars such as the war for independence in World War I to Desert Storm.

Interventionism is a strategic policy applied by a powerful country to influence other state’s affairs. It might be economic, political as well as military. Explicitly, interventionism often aims to rebuild the destroyed countries and to help them to stabilize again, but; supposedly, there are implicit reasons. The United States is a best example of an interventionist country. Throughout its history, particularly after the Pearl Harbor attack 1941, the United States became strongly an interventionist state. This is very obvious when examining the American interventions in the Islamic countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The case of Iraq as the focal interest of the study is very intricate.

Policing the world is expensive. Not just in terms of money but potentially in terms of lives of our soldiers. For example, the United States adopted a containment policy during the Cold War where we would try to stop Communism from spreading, even if it meant that we would physically step in. For the most part, we propped up right-wing dictators but, a good example of action sending in soldiers would be Vietnam. It is because that we decided to police the world that we ended up losing about 550,000 men. Other estimates include that what would be a trillion dollars today was spent on the Vietnam war. This skepticism to getting foreign intervention has been deemed “Vietnam Syndrome” by former President Ronald Reagan. I present this case as an example as how attempting to police the world and getting involved in military conflicts proves to be a burden on our nation. If the US were to intervene in genocide, it would have to be through military force. Theoretically, this could be done without sending ground troops, suggested by some as a resolution the our Syria woes, without sending in ground troops. However, the cost of intervening is more than I’d like to spend of the taxpayer’s dollar, especially since using the taxpayer’s dollar in this case would not be used in his/hers best interest but rather in the best interest of the victims of the genocide.

Through much of our time as a nation, there has been a major question asked when our people and allies are faced with evil. That major question is “do we go to war or do we engage in diplomatic solutions?”. This is has been a point of contention that varies depending upon where a person was raised, what the person’s basic belief structure is, and even what demographic they fall into. One thing is for certain, partisan affiliation in America has a great deal to do with how a person will answer an affront to the United States. Since most women tend to go the Democrat route due to the standard beliefs of women versus men, I will be highlighting women’s roles; but mostly leave the discussion as one between Democrats and Republicans.

Humanitarian intervention is often seen as positive and compassionate rather than an aggressive intervention based on the self-interest of the intervening state, as it aims to protect human rights from grave violations, therefore it is seen as an exception to the general belief that a state shouldn’t interfere in the affairs of another state. However, it still compromises the sovereignty of the state being interfered in. Moreover, it is impossible to ensure that states will intervene solely for humanitarian reasons. Many would argue that any act of intervention or interference, whatever the motive, is determined by the interests of the powerful states initiating it. The reality of power politics is that only the powerful can intervene, and only the weak can be subject to intervention. In practice, for example, there would be no chance that China, the USA or