With the election of Donald J. Trump, the United States has met a strong change of position in the international playing field. The Obama years, characterized by periods of soft power playing and reliance on international frameworks with intermittent reliance on military intervention, have been all but cast aside by a President often associated with ideals of isolationism. Foreign policy can change throughout administrations, but the scale at which these two administrations differ in how they see the world is unparalleled. Whether it be the willingness to work with Russia, a state condemned by the previous administration, in the pursuit of defeating ISIS, the hardline approach which Trump and his Defense Secretary General Mattis approach …show more content…
Smart power, this emphasis on a mixture of soft, diplomatic power, while still maintaining US global hard power strength, can be seen as a response to a mismatched foreign policy that resulted in a series of unpopular conflicts. These conflicts however would end up plaguing President Obama’s policies in his later years. As his second term went on, President Obama was faced with crises throughout the Middle East. In Israel, hopes for a two-state solution were being questioned continually by conflicts between the Palestinians and Israelis, in Libya a military intervention created turmoil and opened territory for extremist expansion, in Syria a civil war developed, and in both Syria and the US-supported Iraq, a new terrorist regime under the name ISIS formed filling the voids left by the lack of control in the regions. In handling terrorist issues, President Obama’s policies continually failed, and slowly returned to the focus on hard, at times unilateral, power. This reluctant use of hard power was primarily done under the auspices of drone programs and special forces operations, which Masters describes as having increased throughout Obama’s years in office (Masters 2013). The policy led to momentary victories, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Despite this, the Obama administration continued to falter trying to appease to a diplomatic world.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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.
In "The Paradox of American Power: Why the World 's Only Superpower Can 't Go It Alone," Joseph S. Nye, Jr., dean of Harvard 's Kennedy School of Government, describes the distinction between his self- discovered and established terms “soft” and “hard” power exponentially through a plethora of definitions and occurrences. Soft power represents the actions a nation takes that influences other countries to do as they please without force, “…it co-opts people rather than coerces them.” Instead of remaining consistently focused on how to frighten and threateningly encourage the international military coincidence of following America’s command’s (hard power), there must be an overlapping semi- equivalence of both. This is in order for America to succeed while also avoiding the slow deterioration within the indestructible pessimistic mindset of abrasive foreign policy.
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
The Bush Doctrine proposed a policy of preemptive war as legitimate, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The Obama Doctrine stresses war as a last resort in the face of the threats. Obama asserts “every time there is a problem, we send in our military to impose order” and continues to explain “we just can’t do that” (Goldberg 2016: 14). Respecting the norms of international order set up by the Westphalian system, Obama steers clear of any imperialistic action. The Bush Doctrine introduced a policy, rationalizing imperialism, asserting that the “United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge,” (Bush) indicating the US intends to take unilateral actions to continue its status as the world's sole military
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.
Much of the past decade of the american foreign policy debate has been dominated by the discussion over the merits of counterterrorism. Prior to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, counterterrorism was a theoretical measure at most (Cronin). After America threw its weight behind the ‘war against terror,’ however, the coordinated international campaign quickly overwhelmed multiple militant extremist groups. The main target of the ‘war against terror’ was al-Qaeda, an organization that subscribed to the ideas of Islamic thinker Sayyid Qutb and claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in 2004. The attacks were a double-edged sword for al-Qaeda because the ensuing media storm increased their influence like no other while also drawing a target a mile wide on their back. The ‘war against terror culminated in bin Laden 's assassination in May of 2011 by Navy SEALs (Katulis and Juul). Al-Qaeda has since experienced a steady and significant decline of power and influence after bin Laden’s demise. No matter its past status as the dominant extremist group in the Middle East, al-Qaeda has crumbled after American intervention in killing various key figures.
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
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.