Rhetorical Analysis

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 United States invasion and subsequent military occupation of Iraq in 2003 is one of the most debated and highly controversial war in U.S. history. The Bush Administration had made claims that the Iraqi Government was complying weapons of mass destruction which posed a consequential threat to the United States national security; the administration also argued that the Iraqi government was violating human rights of their citizen and launch a responsibility to protect against the president at the time; Saddam Hussein. This paper strives to understand the rationality behind the war from an analytical standpoint by using two theories of international relations: Realism and Liberalism. Both theoretical arguments aided in analyzing the reasoning

George W Bush’s presidency can be associated with an infamous term that stood out from the State of the Union address, that term being ‘Axis of Evil’. In this context, Bush categorised the countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being ‘evil’ states. This neoconservative comment left little doubt as to what Bush’s foreign policy towards these states was going be (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008). This comment would then define George W Bush’s presidency, due to the controversy over this phrase and the results that it would have on US foreign policy as “rarely had such a rhetorical device had such devastating consequences” (Ansari, 2006:186). This paper will argue how the use of the word ‘evil’, and the categorisation of these ‘evil’ countries, had a large impact on US-Iran relations.

During the annual graduation ceremony of the West Point Military Academy, President Obama delivered a speech highlighting the current and future plans of America’s army. The speech was delivered during a period where U.S. troops were being recalled from Iraq and Afghanistan. For over a decade, America’s military involvement in these countries has led to a series of unanswered questions that the world demanded. This essay focuses on three International Relations theories, which are Realism, Liberalism and Marxism. President Obama’s speech will be analysed from each of these perspectives. Moreover, a stance would be asserted on the predominant notion.

Another example of the “language of power” and the “dictates of realist logic” is provided by United States’ catastrophic invasion of Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, admitted that the Carter administration lied to the American people and the world when it claimed that the US only became involved in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion of December 1979(North, 2002). The Carter administration at that time portrayed the American ‘s involving as the defense of “human rights”, but indeed Carter signed a secret directive on July 3, 1979 ,nearly six months before Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, to support radical Islamic opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, which was intended to tempt the Russians into the afghan trap and thus provoke a violent soviet response as exactly what the carter administration wanted.

Unfortunately, the hawks’ views and previous actions in which they prevented the U.S. from agreeing with or joining multilateral groups triggered a firestorm among foreign and domestic critics. To differentiate, the pragmatists, or ‘constructive realists,’ believed that the U.S. goals would be better achieved by working within the “post 1945 institutional framework” that they had helped to build. They knew that a unilateral military campaign would do irreparable damage to U.S. long-term interests, and that the results would be problematic. The United States would be in a stronger position to deal with Iraq if it had carefully built up international support – the pragmatists accepted that institutions such as the United Nations, if combined

In 2003, the United States saw the Iraqi government for what it was: an oppressive dictatorship. The U.S., at the time, was a neoconservative actor that believed democratic values should be shared with the world. Using this rationale, the Bush administration invaded Iraq. Ultimately the intervention failed, proving neoconservatism is unsound. This failure suggests that the U.S. must unsubscribe from the usage of neoconservative strategy and look to a realist approach for foreign policy. Neoconservative strategy works to “spread democracy everywhere” , which fails to recognize the problems with fighting cultural identity. It is for this reason that neoconservative strategy fails. A realist approach can achieve neoconservative goals without

Since the end of the Cold War, a large number of neoconservatives had risen in influence in Washington. With a very hawkish, realist outlook, these “neocons” advocated America using its full military might to preserve its role as the sole hegemon in the international system.

The lead policy maker in the United States of America is President Barack Obama. In his recent speech at the commencement of the United States Air Force Academy, President Obama shared four related to America’s foreign policy and role in international politics. In his four lessons, the President emphasized themes of power and security, which are the basis for the traditions of liberalism and realism - received emphasis. The writing that follows will analyze President Obama’s themes of intellectual pluralism with an emphasis on liberalism and realism, as evident in his address to the Air Force Academy. Firstly, this analysis will discuss liberal perspectives conveyed in President Obama’s speech, beginning with the economic superiority and dominance by the United States. Secondly, this analysis will address neo-liberal institutionalism, followed by an analysis of the United States’ acceptance of Kantian liberalism. Finally, this writing will examine realism. President Obama referenced numerous realist ideals but had a special focus on neo-realism.

The ‘mass ideologies must exist to legitimize the roles played by foreign policy makers,’ such as Bush, and the ‘ideologies help constitute decision makers as separate actors.’ Ideology within foreign policy is linked closely to the idea of ‘war on terror’ and the idea of ‘mass destruction’, which is intrinsically linked, to the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Furthermore as Dodge states ‘Neo-conservatism may have provided the momentum to invade Iraq, but neo-liberalism shaped the reform agenda applied in the aftermath of regime

The Bush administration was straightforward enough about its mission of global hegemony-an inconceivable power that is hardly challenging. Bush’s (2002a) West Point speech announced that “America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge.” Having said this strategic objective, increase of US reputational and emblematic power beyond challenge can be used to explain the endeavor behind overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s government. Especially, this became of much more importance after the September 11, 2001, attacks which made the US come out vulnerable.

Three of bushes assumptions changed as a result of 9/11, his administration moved to a more universal approach. It moved from narrowing American national interests to broadening to combat international terrorism. Second, it moved away from narrow defined unilateralism to a greater multilateralism. President Bush threatened to act unilaterally, if multilateral support did not come, much as the war against Iraq would demonstrate. Third, the administration moved from its reliance on a stark realism in foreign policy to a version of idealism that was clearly concerned with the internal dynamics of some states. The Bush administration’s foreign policy identified its emphasis by three focuses. First it would defend the peace against terrorists. Second,

Specifically aiming to predict and prescribe foreign policies, each theory offers useful elements to creating a multifaceted, effective foreign policy. In “One World, Rival Theories”, we see that the argument that “Policymakers and public commentators invoke elements of all the theories when articulating solutions to global security dilemmas” (Snyder 54). For Snyder, each decision does not often fit into a single theory, but rather draws upon the most useful pieces of a theory to use in combination with the other theories. Looking firstly to realism, we see the theory that arguably offers the most obvious example of power as an end goal of foreign policy. Realism centrally finds that international affairs involve self-interested states attempting to gain power, advocating for what many term “ruthless pragmatism” in hopes of creating a more peaceful global community (Snyder 55). Realism, by its dependence on strength through military power, proves itself most useful in its aid to the shortcomings of international organizations and laws to keeping peace. However, as Snyder argues, its own tendencies to depend on an unstable and unpredictable balance of military and political power that simply does not consistently exist greatly limit the theories application for real

The proper role of the United States will have in the international order over the next 20 years will need to be a liberal realist role. Although, the U.S. remains the world’s most powerful country, international peace and prosperity cannot be maintained and/or accomplished alone. The U.S. will need to maintain old alliances and develop new ones with emerging powers such as China, India, Russia, Japan, and Brazil. The U.S. will need to adopt a liberal realist strategy and take some necessary steps that would emphasize the importance of developing an integrated grand strategy with the combination of hard power and soft power.

There are three main realms of political theory: realism, liberalism, and constructivism (Snyder 53). Realism is essentially the shifting of power between nation-states as they gain or lose military might in the international arena. It assumes that peace comes from a balance between states as they seek what is in their self-interest, and that less powerful states will coalesce against the more powerful hegemony (Snyder 55). Realism falls short in that it fails to be able to adapt to changing international norms in what qualifies as a nation-state, such as explaining why the U.S. would go to war with a group like Al Qaeda. Additionally, it tends to ignore the strong ideological focus in the U.S. on creating democracies, or to explain why other nation-states have not joined together to combat the U.S.’s hegemony (Snyder 59). However, it does tend to explain the nation’s strong military response to terrorist attacks and shows of military strength such as Pearl