US Foreign Policy

The role of the Middle East has been very crucial to the United States, especially after WWII. The U.S. had three strategic goals in the Middle East and consistently followed them throughout various events that unfolded in the region. First, with the emergence of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.S., policymakers began to recognize the importance of the Middle East as a strategic area in containing Soviet influence. This also coincides with the U.S. becoming increasingly wary of Arab nationalism and the threat it posed to U.S. influence. Secondly, the emergence of the new Israeli state in 1948 further deepened U.S. policy and involvement in the region while also creating friction between the U.S. and Arab states which were

Prior to World War I, the United States generally chose to follow Washington’s farewell address and stay out of “foreign entanglements”. The United States foreign policy from 1918 to 1953 shifted from isolationism or independent internationalism to a more involved internationalism and containment of communism due to various international events, economic conditions, and US public opinion.

Throughout the mid to late twentieth century the United States was extremely concerned with their foreign policy due to mishaps that surfaced as a result of lazy administration when dealing with communism. As an example, one mishap was how the Truman Administration dealt with China after the KMT surfaced following WWII. Instead of immediately defending the People’s Republic of China, the United States stayed mostly secluded and independent and let China slip into the favor of the KMT. This was an example of the United States’ being too moderate in their foreign policy. However, on the other hand, there were examples where the United States was too aggressive in their foreign policy. An example of this was how the US chose to dealt with North

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.

Foreign policy is how one nation deals with many other nations. The book talks about Ronald Regan trying to create foreign policy and then here you have congress like a bunch of ants floating on a log down river each ant thinking there in charge. Foreign policy from the way “How Congress Works’” says is set up by the president and not really. Having congress get involved makes foreign policy way more complicated then needed. Harry Truman was one man who was asked a question. A random person wanted to know who created foreign policy? His answer was that he did. Now this leads to a important example of foreign policy. This leads to John F. Kennedy and we all know what major foreign policy deal he had to deal with. It was the Cuban missile crisis.

The U.S. foreign policy has always been linked to the domestic policy since the U.S. never feared of expanding its national interests over the national boarders. Isolation for the U.S. usually implied slow economic growth and the large number of destructive conflicts within, while impudent foreign policy always guaranteed an abrupt economic growth for the U.S. economy. After the U.S. intervened in the WWI and the WWII, the U.S. economy witnessed a tremendous economic growth, nearly elimination of the unemployment, rapid urbanization and overall growth of the standards of living across the country. Decisive foreign policy has always been providing the U.S. economy with the sustainable and rapid economic growth, unlike the policy aimed at isolation of the U.S.

As was laid out in the previous section, the United-States always had a ‘hegemonic presumption’, the conception that Latin America was inferior, a supposition that gave the right to Washington to intervene in the region’s political and economic affairs (LeoGrande, 2007:384). This second chapter will explore how the U.S. intervened in Latin America, more specifically after the World War II. Indeed, the U.S. benefitted greatly from the aftermath of the war. A subsection will be dedicated to the Pink Tide in Latin America, with a focus on the U.S. foreign policy under President GW Bush and President Obama. The overthrown Presidents of Honduras and Paraguay were part of this movement and their outset signals a reversal in the region.

Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the

Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks transformed America’s outlook on foreign policy. The attacks redirected the policy from containment of the Soviets during the Cold War about a decade prior, to one against terrorism, a so-called “war on terrorism.” The U.S. government attacked and overthrew the Talib government in return, destroying Al Qaeda’s Afghan bases. They turned their attention to Iraq and invaded it to remove any threat of weapons of mass destruction in spite of opposition from France, Germany, and Russia. The supporters and opposers of the war created new strains within the members of the NATO alliance.

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.

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

The Current U.S foreign policy in the Middle East has a goal to advance peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East. The Current foreign Policy is also supposed to defeat Al-Qa’ida and its extremist affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States Foreign policy protects the U.S citizens by governing international relations, but the current U.S. foreign policy undermines our national security in the Middle East, through drone strikes, the war in Afghanistan, and using a “hands-off” approach in Syria which has created the U.S. to becoming a target to Middle Eastern Countries.

Many say that the USA foreign policy is questionable because in most cases war is not chosen as a first resort. China and Russia, and international community tried to oust United States from two important US commissions. These new rift opened in 2001 when United States was blamed about inserting their dominance on weaker countries. The US the international community came together to stop this predominance in world affairs (). Is America only intervening when it suits to their self-interest? That is still a question which baffles many minds. President Clinton addressed a financial crisis in Mexico, after a down fall of the Mexican Peso in late December 1994. In an effort to prevent Mexican default on billions of dollars’ worth of debt

The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.