Foreign Policy of the United States Term Paper

Pages: 11 (3373 words)  ·  Style: APA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 5  ·  Level: College Sophomore  ·  Topic: American History

¶ … United States

Digressions with Current American Foreign Policy

Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent," (National Security Council, 2008) the words of President Bush's speech on foreign policy spoken in 2002 reflect the ultimately what our current foreign policy is aiming for. However, it is much debated on how successful those policies are actually proving themselves to be. In the actual implementation of the policies which are structured to convince the public of the administration's best intentions, the real generous and charitable essence of the policy is lost. Under this current presidential administration, we have seen the abolishment of a primary method of waiting until acted upon, the justification of our current military endeavors, and a series of false humanitarian efforts which claim to benefit those who cannot benefit themselves, but essentially only benefit the American economy.

Under the Bush administration, there are several key factors to the overall National Security policies and how those policies are implemented on a global stage. Modern conflicts prove to be much more complicated than wars and fights of the past generations. The United States is not at war with a single nation or country, but rather "The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents," (National Security Council, 2008). When faced with an enemy which can spread through different nations and governments, a country must therefore adjust older ways of dealing with a more well-known and recognizable enemy. According to the identity of our so-called "enemies," United States foreign policy has taken a very strong stance against dealing with any individual who has known to create terror against free and democratic nations, "The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them," (National Security Council, 2008). Modern American policy has turned towards a lack of negotiation with these suspicious individuals, therefore leaving us open to misunderstandings which might even further the conflict.

Another fundamental factor in the United States' policy regarding nation security is our reliance on our allies to help eradicate the world of terrorist groups. As outlined by the National Security Council, America now relies heavily on the strong support of our allies across the globe. Part of the actual plan to defeat terrorism is to strengthen ties with our current and potential allies in order to flush out any threatening terrorists and make the global stage inhospitable to their militant causes, "to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation," (National Security Council, 2008). This policy is also geared towards stopping terrorism in other countries who we have friendly relations with. However, despite the clear language in the policy itself, the United States has only gone after those terrorists groups who have deliberately threatened the safety of American soil, leaving many of our own allies to fend for themselves in time of need when they have to deal with their own forms of terrorism. If we are fighting a global war on terrorism, how do such atrocities in Darfur go unnoticed in terms of actual military action by the United States Government?

The most radical change in terms of foreign policy on the side of national security is the pre-emptive strike the United States has adopted recently into its acceptable military decorum. Since the time of the very creation of this nation, it has been a staunch policy to not act until acted upon by a threatening outside power or body of government. However, recently this has changed in order to fulfill the necessary requirements of the Bush administration's most recent campaign on the nation of Iraq. Although the militant Al Qaeda group, led by the notorious Osama bin Laden, had initially struck U.S. borders first, the nation of Iraq had planned no such attack. Basically, for the first time in American history since the Monroe administration, this nation struck first, "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country," (National Security Council, 2008). The situation with Iraq had been brewing since the Gulf War at the end of the twentieth century, but what was so prominent that the U.S. Government had to throw out two hundred years of successful and fair foreign policy for?

In furthering this dominant stance on the stage of world politics, the United States has adopted a very strong defense when it comes to the so-called weapons of mass destruction. Modern foreign policy is very aggressive in the avoidance of having U.S. enemies getting their hands on potential biological and nuclear threats. This was the main reason for the initial U.S. entrance into Iraq. After the initial end of the tension caused by the Cold War, the government of the United States has claimed to have significantly diminished its supply of nuclear arms in accordance to their agreement with Russia, (Whitehouse.org, 2008). Therefore, the country now takes a very aggressive role in policing certain countries in the nuclear capabilities. Many of the potential threatening nations to the United States have been criticized and even hindered from their nuclear efforts. North Korea, although it currently holds nuclear capabilities, has been ostracized and heavily criticized due to its nonconformist policies and styles of government, leaving relations between the country and the United States damaged. Furthermore, American efforts to stall the potential threat of Iran from obtaining and developing their own nuclear capabilities also serves as an example of the American efforts to take nuclear powers out of the hands of foreign nations. This understandable urgency in which American policy handles nuclear weapons in the hands of potential threats continues to show the United States as a country with much more of an offensive strategy, for "the best offense is a good defense," (National Security Council, 2008).

One of the largest justifications of such an aggressive political stance on world stage politics is the goal of achieving a peaceful world once potential threats are accordingly identified and eliminated. The Bush administration has dedicated itself to pursuing world peace via wars waged in the name of world peace. In accordance with current defense goals aimed at eradicating potential terrorist threats, the current administration is aiming at destroying all threats of public safety world wide, (Whitehouse.org, 2008). However, recent endeavors to produce peace in many turbulent areas of the globe have only offered up more chaos. The United States entered into a war with Iraq in which we were successful in defeating the tyrant Saddam Hussein. However, what resulted was the many years of chaos after the fall of Saddam and the country fell from political power. After his arrest, trail, and execution for the crimes committed against humanity, Saddam Hussein's position opened up a vacuum within the world of tense political and individual aspirations. The nation of Iraq exploded in a series of violent conflicts which involved many smaller organizations who had originally wanted the fall of Hussein in order to try for power within the nation as a whole. Since the beginning of this conflict, after a surprising first attack on the behalf of the American government, the world has seen many holes within the solidified argument of modern foreign policy and how the nation needed to act first in order to act upon a dignified risk of self preservation.

Individual rights and freedoms have always held an important place within the American ideology of government and life. Since the initial founding fathers expressed their interest in pursuing their own natural rights as humans within the context of the then British held Americas, protecting personal rights has always been a top priority in United States policy. However, throughout the generations, and continuing through into this century, foreign conflicts have continued to test the nation's devotion to individual rights. It is one thing to allow these rights within the scope of American borders, but foreign policy has not always reflected the devotion within itself. According to the recent press of this administration, "the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere," (National Security Council, 2008). The statements on the official website of the current presidential administration ensure the public that the life and liberty of all people world wide is at the core of all foreign policies emanating from within the White House itself.… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

?

Compare the Four Ordering Options

  1. 1.Buy this paper with your credit card or cash balance at PayPal.  Within 10 hours, we'll send the Microsoft Word file to the email address on your PayPal account.
  2. 2.Same as #1, but we will also remove the paper from our site for 30 days!
  3. 3.Need this paper immediately?  Want to individually download any of our 175,000+ exclusive, private, non-plagiarized papers for 30 days?  It takes only 2 minutes to subscribe and get instant access!
  4. 4.One of our highly experienced experts will write a brand new, 100% unique paper matching the exact specifications and topic that you provide!  You'll be the only person on the planet to receive the one-of-a-kind paper that we write for you!  Use code "Save10" to save 10% on your 1st order!

1.  Buy the full, 11-page paper:  $24.68

or

2.  Buy & remove for 30 days:  $38.47

or

3.  Monthly access to 175,000 papers

After paying, this link will download any paper(s).

or

4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

U.S. Foreign Policy US Middle East Thesis


Conflict Prevention Theory Essay


American Foreign Policy Since Its Inception Term Paper


U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East Term Paper


Foreign Policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter Essay


View 1,000+ other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

Foreign Policy of the United States.  (2008, May 19).  Retrieved December 11, 2018, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/foreign-policy-united-states/620818

MLA Format

"Foreign Policy of the United States."  19 May 2008.  Web.  11 December 2018. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/foreign-policy-united-states/620818>.

Chicago Format

"Foreign Policy of the United States."  Essaytown.com.  May 19, 2008.  Accessed December 11, 2018.
https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/foreign-policy-united-states/620818.