The Power Of Millennials : Conflict Between Countries

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

There is not one American identity. There is not a single consistent plan for what American policy is, should, or will be. Sure, this political scientist might present a plan for a specific crisis, but there is always a politician in the wings with another plan to counter the first. Every politician’s opinion is different, just as every citizen’s is. Our experiences shape our identities, as does the information we are fed in school, by our families and friends, as well as the media. The view I have of the United States and its place in the world is quite different than most because I am a first generation American. Moreover, my family comes from Venezuela, where their international policy is starkly different than America’s. The United States of America’s international role has unquestionably shaped my opinions, outlook, and behavior.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

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.

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, the first President declared to avoid “entangling alliances” and engaging internationally to not get drawn into war, which the US had followed unless it fell under certain circumstances. These certain circumstances entailed social demands and outbursts for a transition to an interventionist and almost bellicose ideology that drew in the United States to engage in foreign wars and policies.

Unfortunately indicative of the politics and policies in today’s terms, foreign policy increasingly occurs 150 characters at a time through Twitter, and the unhinged behavior often displayed by our executive leadership damages our national image and ability to effectively manage foreign policy. This fosters a political climate bent on retribution, vilifying dissent, and clear lacks of self-control does not convey an image of national strength and admiration. Unfortunately, this reinforces the stereotypical worldview of American’s and our politics as “the gun toting cowboy” that shoots first and asks questions later. While “the gun toting cowboy” is part of our culture as a nation, an “environment of threat inflation, frenzied overreaction, confusion, complexity, and uncertainty requires cool judgment” (LeVien 16), but cool judgement and detailed planning are not the hallmarks of a shoot-from-the-hip approach. Fulbright spoke to this in The Arrogance of Power in comparing two Americas when he clearly portrayed “the gun toting cowboy” as self righteous, narrowly egotistical, and arrogant in the use of power (Fulbright 245). This only reinforces Fulbright and Bacevich’s

The end of the cold war obligated the United States once again to face the old problems which weren’t based on containment of communism. Like in the aftermath of World War 2 when America’s influence in the world was expanded, the end of the Cold War did much of the same. The problem’s the Soviet Union once had of controlling and influencing smaller countries under its thumb, now were inherited by the last super power standing, which at the time was the United States. Debate began to rise on what path America should take next on foreign policy, should the U.S commit itself to small problems or hold back its fire until a greater threat emerged?

“Back in my day…” Is the pesky quote that has summoned the hands to cover the ears. These words that were conceived from the mouth of about anyone over the age of 40 seems like it could mean nothing, but actually, it is impacting the future of the next generation of citizens inhabiting The United States of America.

Problem: In 1789 George Washington’s Farewell Address contained one major piece of advice to the county regarding relations with other nations: “avoid entangling alliances.” Those words shaped United States foreign policy for more than a century (Policy Making, American Government). Today some Americans think that Washington’s words are still wise ones, and that the United States (U.S.) should withdraw from world affairs whenever possible. In truth, however, the United States has been embroiled in world politics throughout the 20th century, and as a result, foreign policy takes up a great deal of government’s time, energy, and money.

American foreign policy has gradually changed since the birth of our nation. On July 4, 1891, John Quincy Adams addressed the Senate and House of Representatives during a powerful Independence Day speech designed to prevent an alliance with the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire. Although sympathetic to their cause, he warned against involving America in other states’ affairs, stating,” America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to Freedom and independence of all”. This paper seeks to evaluate the implications of John Quincy Adams’ statement, examine the trends of foreign policy and national security from the late nineteenth century to the present, and address current policy issues regarding

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

Rawls’s statesman is intended to find a way to “just and lasting peace among peoples” and Allen’s leader of the polis is foster an environment where we are able to talk to strangers. She wishes to establish, “conditions where diverse citizens can begin to interact once again on the streets and in public spaces,” but this strike shows that Donald Trump does not want to foster that (Allen, 184). Through peace and stability in these nations, the ability to talk to strangers can be fostered. Rawls believes that the statesman should be able to see the connections between the people and how a nation should act. Allen wishes for the polis to, “continually explore the network of complex relationships which bind us together,” and with a statesman who can see that it should be very possible. The strike against Syria just causes more distrust and aggression between the two sides of this argument. To Allen, Donald Trump would be acting like the “police” that she does not want in her “utopian universities,” which she makes analogous to the world, and that is not right because it relies on the “application of force” as communication instead of talking and realizing everything that makes us similar (Allen, 181). All people are more similar than we know, and the United States

“For them, this is a war about the survival of their children and cultures, while for us it is about power, money and natural resources. It is one part of the struggle for world domination and the dream of a few greedy men, global empire.” (prologue)

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.