U.s. Foreign Policy During The Middle East

“The United States recognizes the provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.” These are the words of President Harry Truman from a speech he gave shortly after Israel became a recognized nation in 1948. Consequently, the political leaders of the United States have brought America on a rough journey to the current state of foreign policy and relationship with Israel. Since 1948, the United States’ active position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen very little change or progress towards achieving settlement between these two nationalistic states. In the last 65 years, the majority of U.S. presidents repeated mistakes made by their predecessors in office, and this in turn has had little

After World War 2, the United States took over Britain’s job of overseeing the Middle East. The United States tried to avoid conflict while preventing the spread of communism. They successfully stopped the spread of communism, but couldn’t have done much worse trying to prevent conflict and stabilize the Middle East. The United States policy destabilized the Middle East, Iraq in particular, by overthrowing the Hussein regime at a poor time and deepening the anti-Western attitude in the Middle East.

Events of the new millennium irreversibly changed the direction of American foreign policy. During the 1990s, Anti-American sentiments burgeoned in the Middle East within growing radical Islamist groups that perceived America as empirical and expansionist after the prolonged US occupation of Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia after the end of the first gulf war. The September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, once representative of American military and economic hegemony, symbolized to many a political failure that would change the focus of American national interest for years to come.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

Between 1918 and 1953 there was a major change regarding the foreign policy of the United States. At the end of the First World War, we practiced a foreign policy that was first established by George Washington in his Farewell Address back in 1796, which set a precedent of isolationism that was adopted until the beginning of World War II. Following Washington 's Neutrality Proclamation, the US did not engage in many global affairs such as the French Revolution and remained neutral through all foreign affairs. At the end of World War I, we continued to practice isolationism by not engaging in foreign affairs and limiting military spending believing that by pursuing this policy we could maintain peace and avoid war. Unfortunately, this

The government’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was quick and decisive. Government officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” (National Security Strategy, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html].) Given the potential consequences of terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction, government decision makers felt that the nation could not afford to sit back, wait for attacks to occur, and then respond. The nation was mobilized; combating terrorism and crippling Al Qaeda became top national priorities. The use of military force against different terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Government policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html] gave more emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism.

Following the events of September 11th, President Bush was looked to as a leader to lead the country out of chaos. “In the weeks after the attack, Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent—the highest recorded job-approval rating in U.S. presidential history” ( millercenter). Nowadays however, Bush is often criticized for the actions he took during the invasions. “The Bush administration’s strategy had been to reduce the U.S. military presence as Iraq’s stability improved. Yet the goal proved unattainable, owing in part to the power vacuum left by the dismantling of the Iraqi army and the rise of sectarian violence within the two dominant strains of Islam in Iraq” (millercenter). Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but many blame the Bush Administration for the power vacuum created in the Middle East. Bush’s foreign policy typically surrounded a strong use of force and led to increase in terrorism surveillance creating a discussion that is hotly debated today Following the end of Bush’s second term, Barack Obama had won the presidency and the work in the Middle East was far from over. Obama proved to have a different ideology from Bush, wanting to remove troops from the Middle East, something he

The Middle East region has been seeing and absorbing the effects of war and poverty for decades. The United States (U.S.) has provided support in the past to assist the Middle East, and that has been quite successful. For this reason, the U.S., a world superpower, should be directly involved in ending conflict in the Middle East because they possess a capable military, the global economy is directly affected by the Middle East, and the U.S. is capable of peaceful mediation between conflicted areas in the Middle East. The Middle East is a region that has constantly been involved in warfare, and the U.S. has taken appropriate measures to ensure that peace was possible, even in this war-stricken area. The U.S. has also provided aid in regard to the oil reserves in the Middle East, which are significant to global development. This protection allows the industry to continue, and it benefits nations around the world. Lastly, the U.S. has successfully mediated discussion between conflicted nations, like Egypt and Israel, to achieve a common goal that set them on a path for peace. While there are many reasons the U.S. should be involved, one of the most direct reasons is military capability.

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

“BOOM” was the noise that thundered across New York City on the morning of September 11th, 2001. A noise that would forever change the lives of many people. Terrorists associated with Al Qaeda, a group that was founded by Osama Bin Laden, hijacked four airplanes and flew two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The third plane collided with the side of the Pentagon, the country’s military headquarters, coming in close contact with Washington D.C. The last plane, United Airlines flight 93, was crash landed in an open field in the middle of Pennsylvania. Such a devastating act of terrorism led to public outrage across the nation. It came as no surprise that the government had to respond to its people's distress

Any discussion of U.S. Middle East policy is integral to the national political discourse. A presidential or congressional candidate has to prove her/his foreign policy knowledge on the campaign trail, but unfortunately the electorate is generally not informed enough to critically assess a candidate’s understanding, which risks giving our leaders virtually unchecked power to make policy in our name. An important part of educating young citizens in a democracy is to teach them the tools they will need to understand their nation’s foreign policy, past and present.

governments? Has United States policy failed the region? While current policy is not a complete

Specifically, President Trump has inherited a policy in the Middle East that, despite its clear goal of defeating the so-called Islamic State, is probably unattainable. Humanitarian intervention has, and continues to occur in the region, but with varying degrees of success and almost always in response to events. This is problematic for one fundamental reason: American actions in the Middle East, since the Bush 43 administration, have not been linked to an overarching grand strategy and intermediate strategic objectives. Pape’s article, which uses the Obama administration’s 2011 use of air power to enact Ghaddafi’s removal from power, provides

Our initial response to the 2011 revolution was appropriate. You suggested Mubarak to resign and declared U.S. support for the revolutionists. The decision reversed our long-time Middle East policy favoring stability over democracy, but it served our national interest. It forestalled a Syria-style civil war as we dissuaded the Egyptian Army from suppression. Such a war can jeopardize our use of the Suez Canal as a crucial route to deploy our naval forces.