Bush’s unilateral approach to national security after 9/11 eventually led to gross economic repercussions, the shockwaves of which are still being felt today. In his article, “Smart Money,” which was published in 2003, Jeffrey Sachs muses about these potential repercussions of Americans invading Iraqi soil—hypotheses that in fact turned out to be all too true.
According to Sachs, instead of restoring the perception of the US as a powerhouse as Bush intended, the war in Iraq would create an anti-American sentiment across the globe that had been theretofor unprecedented (Sachs, 2003). By going to war in Iraq, Bush would have liked to see the eminence of a glorified America, strong and virile against its enemies. In reality, his sending troops to Iraq had just the opposite effect. According to Sachs, “antipathy to the
…show more content…
That now infamous protest speaks to not only the International anti-war sentiment, but to the reluctance of much of the American population to their president’s solution to terrorism.
More so than an anti-American feeling, Sachs illuminated the very real dangers that the war may have brought about. If one boils down Bush’s motives to the crux, his decision to go to war was, in essence, a rash one, fuelled by a blow to his patriotic pride. As Sachs points out, he did not consider the very real potentiality that troops would have uncovered nukes—weapons which if launched could be hazardous to not only American troops but to anyone in range (Sachs 2003). Furthermore, the war created enemies for the United States across the
9/11 catalyzed the public’s support of military presence in the Middle East, as the immediate threat to
Baker, Peter and Linzer, Dafina. “U.S. policy on ‘Axis of Evil’ Suffer Spate of Setback.” The Washington Post, Aug. 17, 2005, p.A01
Beneath its cloak, the infamous War on Terror garners striking similarities to WWI. The terror attack on Austria-Hungary ignited the War on Terror…nearly a century later. It was not until 1914 that a terrorist attack was utilized to provoke military response. The attack of September 11 is a modern replay of this attack. George W. Bush leapt into the war against Baghdad in 2003 with the same attitude of Woodrow Wilson in the Great War. One of Wilson’s reasons for going to war against Germany was based on his belief that his
In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.
Following the 9/11 attack in America, Bush declares Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the enemy. Bush clearly states that the 9/11 attacks were an initiative action of war and coins the term, “War on Terror” which has developed and is also adaptable with other terms, such as “War on Drugs”. His speech also educates his people about Islamic terrorism alongside their practices and mentality. Bush seems extremely patriotic and expresses great anger and almost thinks for his citizens by saying, “our grief has turned to anger”. Nonetheless, Bush feels strongly about defending America’s freedom and won’t back down to this violence. Furthermore, Bush’s speech was extremely effective as the crowd was very dense, actively involved through cheers and claps. This however, may have induces a mob mentality as an individual action of support such as a cheer could easily ripple through the crowd and suddenly everyone
President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this
America’s use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities also opened the door to other countries challenging them through their own use of nuclear bombs. Many have criticized that the atomic bomb was an act of “muscle flexing” due to the sheer power and destruction caused by the decision to drop the two bombs. (Nicholls, 67). Not only were these bombs a demonstration of the power that these nuclear weapons had, but they were a testament of power that the United States now held. Never before had a country surrendered in war without first being invaded, so the decision to drop the bomb and Japan's subsequent surrender were extremely significant (Baldwin, 39). These bombings didn’t just impact the Japanese, but the whole world and gave way to
In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks in American history, the September attacks of the world Trade Center in 2001, Americans are obligated to look at the mistakes that were made before and after the attacks, especially in recent lite of increased acts of terror globally. A critical mistake made before the attacks was the neglection of terrorism as a top priority in President George W. Bush’s administration. And after the attacks, inaction would also have been viewed negatively by the public, and so the government acted swiftly in retaliation to the attacks, resulting in the death of many brave American soldiers and a huge cost to the American taxpayer.
The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.
The Bush administration obtained a substantial amount of advantages solely from calling the 911 attacks a “war”. American citizens believed that they were obligated to trust every decision the government made. Primarily because American citizens believed that it was unpatriotic to disagree with government actions concerning the “war” against a perpetrating country.(Denton 2) Bush and his administration created a larger margin of error for themselves considering the American citizens most likely would not question any government decisions pertaining to the “war”.
The last study that will be analyzed however, does not frame their research in that manner, instead, “the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the U.S.A. on the changes in the American public’s views about the war.” There is general consensus among Verba, Brody and Schreiber that the polls did not serve as an adequate metric for determining whether the war was truly out of touch with many. Schreiber referred to the demonstrations, noting that “many members of the public simply do not mentally join together” This could lead to the formation of two conclusions according to Schreiber; one being that demonstrations had no effect in altering public opinion, and the other being that those demonstrations had great effect in communicating with the public. “The major point to be gleaned from this review is that there is no evidence that shows an effect of anti-Vietnam war demonstrations on reducing American public support for the war in Vietnam.” Schreiber then goes on to reiterate the point
A Mischievous Man How can a man let a women do all the work herself and not care anything about it. In the story “Sweat”, Sykes was very mischievous and selfish man. However, Sykes is described as a trifling man who abuses and does trifling things toward his wife. Doing dirt towards others can someday backfire on the one who is causing it.
On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush made a speech on the terrorist attack, which took place on September 11, 2001. The people of America needed support and direction on how to handle what just happen. The American people demanded that the President addresses the Nation after the attacks and guide them. Nine days later, President Bush did just that. Over the next few days, emotions ran high in the country. “Will this happen again?” “Is it safe to leave in my home?” many wondered. Everywhere throughout the Nation, airlines had stopped service, the New York Stock Exchange was temporarily suspended, and every tv channel around the country played the latest news about the attack. The American people understandably asked and asked “What’s next?” from their leaders, so when President Bush gave his
Throughout history, many tragedies and sorrowful situations have occurred having to do with issues such as wealth and money, power, control, and other issues. One of these times in history is during the frightening event of 9/11, also known as the day the World Trade Center collapsed by hijacked planes. This one event alone has impacted and changed the way people live today significantly. The reaction of American people after this infamous event of the September 11, 2001 tragedy was of multiple things including patriotism, pride, and being united. Quickly, the American public wanted to know who was responsible and planned revenge. This usually gives the government the public support it needs to declare war on the enemy and declare a war which never happened.
The term “War on Terror” alone has created a psychological phenomenon that struck fear in the minds of many Americans. The Bush Administration elevated those three words to a national mantra that had impacted the American democracy destructively. It had impacted the American psyche as well as the United States’ standing in the world. In an article by Zibigniew Brzezinski, he explains, “Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.”