With The Election Of Donald J. Trump, The United States

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has arguably been considered the greatest country in the world. The supposed leader of the free world, strongest and most powerful country in the world. The definition that the United States is the ‘greatest country’ in the world is open to discussion and can be compared at many different levels, however, for the purpose of this essay, the term ‘greatness’ is measured by its economic prowess and its hard power. The term ‘hard power’ is defined as ‘a coercive approach to international political relation, especially one that involves the use of military power’. After eight years of Obama doctrine, is it time to make America great again” must be broken down into two parts. What is Obama Doctrine, does it exist and then compare his Doctrine also tackle the quote of ‘making America great again’. This essay will argue that Obama Doctrine does exist and is linked to his foreign and domestic policies. It will also argue that America is still great but for different reasons. It will provide evidence that with the Obama doctrine it has moved from the historic use of hard power to a soft power footing. ‘Soft power” is defined as ‘a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economical or cultural influence’. However, even with this switch in posture, the United States has remained great. Albeit for

There are striking parallels between the eras of the Cold War and the War on Terror and America’s International Relations. After World War II, the Truman Doctrine became America’s ideology for combating communism throughout the globe. Similarly, after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, America’s philosophy was then succeeded by the Bush Doctrine to battle the new threat, the war on terror. In addition, both the long climatic wars of each era (Vietnam War and War in Iraq) shared comparable lead-ups, beginnings, and endings in their conflicts in each region, their politics and shared resentment by the American public. The final parallel is the common suspicions

After the attacks on 9/11, the “War on Terror” became President Bush’s main focus for his political agenda. After the 2008 presidential election, soon that focus belonged to President Obama. The executive actions, legislation, and controversy that resulted during Bush’s presidency would soon be inherited by President Obama. During President Obama’s campaign in 2008, he promised that he would be very different from President Bush in how he employed executive power to fight terrorism. He stated that he would try and restore the balance between liberty and security. Others have argued that President Obama has continued and expanded the policies set in place by his predecessor. I will be arguing that President Obama has not followed President Bush’s approach to the war on terror. There are two reasons why President Obama has not continued Bush’s approach. The first reason is that President Obama has rejected the inherent and unchecked power under the commander in chief authority that Bush invoked during his administration. The second reason is that President Obama has recognized the need for greater accountability and institutional checks.

n ambassador Dennis Ross’ lecture on the challenges of the US in the Middle East, Ross stressed the challenges that the Trump presidency will faced with. The Trump presidency like many administrations in the past is involved with a crisis or major war. However, this presidency has been lucky enough to already be faced with two issues at the same time. This signals the most difficult presidential position since the Reagan administration. The Trump presidency will be facing two different proxy-wars. With one issue of Yemen and the other being the rising combatant conflict in Syria. Worse yet, the Syria conflict includes several components of enemies that add to its extremity. Terrorist groups such as ISIS involvement, to Assad, to the close Russian

With the US being a leader on the global scale militarily and economically, Trump has come into office with a new vision, a somewhat controversial one. This essay will critique Trump’s controversial foreign policy objectives

Yet, Mr. Pence has expressed that the United States is in full support of the United States’ alliances with European countries. The articles also mention the dispute between the prime minister of Australia and President Trump. Once again, President Trump’s hostility towards Australia did not accurately reflect the United States’ hope of maintaining the alliance between the two countries. This inconsistency does not add credence to the stability of the current United States government and its approach to foreign policy. In terms of pinpointing President Trump’s actions within the deterrence or spiral model theory Jervis suggests, it is rather impossible to categorize the administration to one or another. Neither one adequately explains the motivations behind President Trump’s actions and it is difficult to understand whether President Trump’s inconsistency with others in the White House results from his belief in the U.S.’ threatened security from these alliances or from innate aggressiveness inhabited by these countries. Based on what policies Trump executed so far, his pre-election campaigns, and the great turmoil in the United States’ government, I would analyze that the true motives behind President Trump’s actions primarily focus on sending domestic messages rather than international messages. Yet, it is important to recognize that these domestic-directed actions are interpreted by other states as international messages.

America may be a relatively young nation, turning 240 years old this year, but in its short existence, it has had a powerful influence over world affairs, for better or worse. George Washington once said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” However, since his presidency, the United States’ position in the world has steered from a steely isolationist stance to one open and hungry for involvement in the matters of other countries. America craved land and power to bolster itself and utilized foreign policy to do so, shifting towards an imperialist position. However, this change in foreign policy resulted

United States Foreign Policy has always been in a constant form of metamorphosis. Gradually, since the birth of the United States of America, the country has been slowly evolving it’s policies and relations with other countries. The United States began its history as a insignificant isolated nation. It slowly overtime would change to what the powerhouse that it is today: A Global Superpower.

The development, maintenance, and, if required, the exercise of American power occupied the center of the administration’s vision of a "new world order." National security planning documents argued that the United States should harness its formidable military power to establish a post-Cold War "Pax Americana." This power would reassure America’s allies that their security was in America’s national interest and serve as a clear rationale against their enhancing their own defenses, which they might one day use to challenge U.S. global leadership. For instance, President Bush supported the deepening and widening of the European Union (EU) but looked askance at European efforts to develop an integrated military force that could act outside NATO channels and hence American stewardship. To America’s foes, primacy under Bush made it plain that the United States stood ready to defend the new world order against rogue states, states with aspirations for regional hegemony, and a resurgent Russia. In short, precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor stood as the central objective of the Bush administration’s foreign

For years America has been seen as the world’s hero swooping in and saving the day from foreign bad guys, or at least that’s America sees itself as. To many other countries however America is often seen as the world’s bully or just a nuisance. The United States has had many positive impacts on the world and those seem to over shadow the large number of negative impacts it has imposed as well. The world has been changed by the U.S. in both positive and negative ways, and this is due to the alternating use of internationalism and isolationism. Throughout the United States’ existence both foreign polices have existed, but rarely have them been used at the came time. In the present day the U.S. has mainly focused on internationalism. This has

As Kelly Anderson’s Foreign Policy Analyst, the following memo will address three areas of the United States’ foreign policy. The U.S. has gone through may transition when it comes to its foreign policy. The United States has been an isolationist, neutralist, and internationalist country from the year it was founded to now. The executive branch and the president apply their power to influence and change the nation’s foreign policy. There are specific departments within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) created to assist the president in his or her process. Political context and historical events have occurred to prove why intervening with another country’s issues does not benefit the national interest and why isolationism is a better system for this country. Hopefully, the memo will accomplish informing what the foreign policy is, was, and should be.

This week we read a paper from Joseph S. Nye Jr. an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The paper is titled Soft Power written in 1990. The paper looks at several themes currently affecting the United States; the primary theme is how the United States will lead other nations and how this nation will react. “Thus, the critical question for the United States is not whether it will start the next century as the superpower with the largest supply of recourses, but to what extent it will be able to control the political environment and to get others countries to do what it wants”.

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

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.