United States And The Middle East

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

“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

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

Ever since the tragic events that took place on September 11th the government has tightened its reins on public safety and possible terrorist activities. The article compares different wars in America and how they have shaped many of America's philosophies. For example during World War II Roosevelt enforced rationing and a military draft. When people think of democracy they think of power to the people and freedom. However, the article discusses the fact that since 9/11 there has been a lack of trust between the government and the citizens of America. The government has heightened law enforcement and surveillance of citizens, cracking down on immigration and terrorist activities. The article say, “Our wars are no longer engines of freedom

After losing 2,977 lives one fateful September morning, we realized we left the doors to our country wide open to attack. As a result, we ramped up our security and instituted new programs to combat terrorism to make ourselves invulnerable to similar attacks. But as the government began to develop programs within the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to prevent such an attack from ever happening again, the government began to infringe on the rights which were laid down in the Constitution by our founding fathers. Although the American government protected its people from another possible attack, the government itself attacked its own people by denying the rights which it formerly recognized.

This paper will focus on the background, purpose, implementation, major criticisms, and current standing of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (hereafter referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act). The USA PATRIOT Act is currently one of the most controversial and divisive political doctrines that exist in modern day America supported and vexed by the entire political spectrum for various reasoning. Although in its inception it was met with staggering approval and support, over time skepticism and fear of an ever-increasing strain on civil rights

Every year people from all over the world come to the United States for a myriad of reasons. Some to seek employment, some education, and others to seek safe haven from violence and oppression from foreign governments. Regardless of the reason, the beauty of the United States is that the protections afforded by the constitution apply to anyone within its territory. However, since the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, the protections of the constitution have since become a blurred line. Legislation such as the Patriot Act, and methods in which law enforcement conduct operations to combat terrorism have pushed the limits of the constitution. Finding the balance of working within the confines of the constitution is a constant challenge. The growing challenge elicits the potential for legal, policy and ethical issues, which ultimately undermine the very purpose of what the constitution is intended to protect.

The great and free country of America, with the world’s most powerful military, has long imposed its governmental values on other

Following September 11, 2001, there seemed to be a sense of fear towards Arabs and Muslims in America. Since then, the tension between the United States and the Middle East has escalated. Based on the attention terrorist attacks receive, stereotypes tend to arise toward Muslims. Terrorists can be any ethnicity or religion, but typically jihadist terrorists’ gain the most attention in the media and the press. In America, Arabs, Muslims, and Jihadists tend to all get grouped together, even though they are not synonymous terms (Amble, 2012, pp. 340, 342). Not every Arab is a Muslim and not every Muslim is a terrorist. In fact, only a small portion of Muslims partake in terrorist activities and the Islam religion actually prohibits deliberate murder of unarmed individuals in battle and suicide (Pratt, 2013). If many stereotypes of Muslims seem to be incorrect, then it is crucial that Christians become educated on what Muslims actually believe. Critiques of the Islam faith that the Christian makes cannot be rooted in the actions of a few radicals. Just as certain people do evil things in the name of Christianity, without truly knowing Christ, I believe terrorists do the same. By targeting the aspects of violence in Islam I believe the Christian can close doors to witnessing. Instead, I think there are two core criticisms between the Islam religion and Christianity that can be analyzed to persuade a Muslim, law and logic. These two categories would allow us to meet with Muslims at

The United States government has always played an important role in safeguarding Americans' civil liberties since its inception, with the methods always being, according to the government, in the best interest of the American people, aways in the best interest, but not always constitutional. In the entire span of the United States history, the commitment of the protection of Americans civil liberties have frequently been tested and strained. National security has always been an important part of the livelihood of American citizens, it has been ingrained as not only a law but as a right as well.

Baxter, K. and Akbarzadeh, Shahram, _US foreign policy in the Middle East_, Routledge, London, 2008.

When looking at the history between the United States and Latin America, you see many interactions between them, all that aided the relationship that they have today. Despite that the United States and Latin America are in the same part of the world, the beliefs in which they govern may differ. This difference has often been seen playing a major role in the disputes that have occurred in past. The United States and Latin America have faced many social, economical and governing barriers in forming a strong and positive relationship in the early twentieth century, this is due to the differences that the two had between cultures and the constant demand for power. However, the two countries have found ways to meet in the middle of their cultural differences, to form an equally fair relationship.

This research paper examined the issue pertaining to the question of National Defense versus American’s civil rights. In this paper I examined the conflict that often occurs between citizens’ rights and national security in the United States (US). I realized through my courses in homeland security, there is often tension between citizens’ rights and US national security. I discovered that many civil liberties have been violated, as they relate to national security. Even though these liberties have been infringed upon before September 11, 2001, it has become a highly debated topic after the events that took place on that date. I used sources, such as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

September 11, 2001 marks the day of a horrific event that had changed America’s foreign policies and outlook on national security protocol. The response that the U.S. government had towards this act of terror was a response involving the pursuit of justice against those who committed the heinous actions that killed thousands of innocent Americans. The U.S. government wanted to combat our enemies by pursuing national interests in an attempt to stop the occurrences of terrorism that were occurring from the Middle East region. The government would do this by first demanding the surrender of Al-Qaeda leaders including Osama Bin Laden and those that were involved with the planning of the attack. Ground forces were later sent to search for Al-Qaeda members when they did not comply with the demands. The U.S. government had goals of developing a peaceful relation with Middle Eastern governments to help combat Al-Qaeda forces; but, while the U.S. government had intentions of containing a global threat of terrorism, I believe that U.S. government actions have unintentionally unleashed a terrorism outbreak within the Middle East. With intention to stop terrorist acts from taking place, the interests of the U.S. have undoubtedly caused anger among the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and may have caused terrorist organizations to benefit from actions made by the mistakes of our U.S. military.