U.S. Policy Term Paper

Pages: 10 (3807 words)  ·  Style: APA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 4  ·  File: .docx  ·  Topic: Military

U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East

is based Primarily on Securing the Flow of Affordable Oil

A change of policy is needed regarding United States foreign policy

in the Middle East. The current policy is one towards securing oil and

that must change. Oil is not worth American lives and currently American

lives are falling victim to the need for oil. Today, America is deeply

involved politically and militarily in the Middle East. While there are

arguments that terrorism ties in the United States to the Middle East, it

is the need for oil that directly involves the United States. And more

often than not, weapons of mass destruction are an excuse for conflict in

the Middle East and thus excuses for the United States to go to war to

secure oil. There is a great deal of evidence than the United States

trumps up notions of the threat of weapons of mass destruction in order to

go to war. The change in United States foreign policy must be to look for

other alternatives to securing energy, either through alternative energy

sources, collaboration with friendly regimes, and greater energy

efficiency. As of now the United States foreign policy towards the Middle

East is highly contradictory and hypocritical. Securing oil cannot be the

sole motivator in American foreign policy and a change is needed in which

the United States has to be upfront about its relationship towards rogue

regimes in the Middle East. This involves being honest with itself andDownload full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!
understanding the role that weapons of mass destruction play in reality

within United States foreign policy.

A major argument for the United States going to war was that Iraq not

only had the capabilities to build weapons of mass destruction, but that

the program was well under way and that Iraq had connection to terrorist

organizations that were capable of utilizing those weapons on American

soil. This was a lie and this has been proven to be a lie. No weapons of

mass destruction were found and there were no ties between the Iraqi Regime

TOPIC: Term Paper on U.S. Policy Assignment

and Al Qaeda. But before we discuss the current war lets go back a few

years and take a look at America's decisions or perhaps a lack of decisions

to show that the current conflict in Iraq was not because of security risks

inherent to the area, but because of American imperialist tendencies. It

should be noted that foreign policy intended to further America's

acquisition of oil is imperialist as imperialism is defined as: "the policy

of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign

countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies"

(Dictionary.com). And that is exactly what the United States is doing-

extending its rule over the Middle East to acquire oil under the guise of

preventing the development and threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Let us take this issue back to the 1990s when the United States

fought its previous war with Iraq. While this war was justified because of

Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the actions of the United States show the

lack of threat that Saddam had towards the United States. For example the

United States did not dispose of the regime but instead did not risk

further casualties (Lewis 2001). Furthermore, the United States in the

years after the Gulf War did not support Kurdish resistance towards

Saddam's oppressive regime thus "making the position of the Iraqi

democratic opposition increasingly difficult and the government of the

United States increasingly reluctant to become involved" (Lewis 2001).

This means that if the United States today is in Iraq because of the

spreading of democracy, that this reason is obviously a lie. According to

this ideal, the United States intended to protect regime stability, and not

democratic ideology or its own security, because they wanted to send the

following message: "Don't touch Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or in any other way

interfere with the supply of oil" (Lewis 2001). Not only does the United

States not care about what government supports as long as it retains its

supply of oil, but it is willing to alter its notions of what it does

support in order to ensure it has oil.

Then there is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. "The Bush

administration and the US media harped on the likelihood that Iraq's

military would use weapons of mass destruction," reflecting the notion that

the issue of weapons of mass destruction was considered a reason for going

to war with Iraq in the 21st century (not the 20th) (Martin 2003). Yet in

no uncertain terms, "these claims have proven to be lies" (Martin 2003).

Thus the administration has lied to the American people as no weapons of

mass destruction have been found in Iraq. It could be argued indefinitely

how wrong the administration was and how a mistake was made to involve the

United States in such a mess, but none is necessary. The fact that there

have been no major discoveries of weapons of mass destruction and no ties

to terrorist organizations between the previous Iraqi regime and the

current shows the extent of the lies involving weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, it is perhaps evidence that United States actions towards

Iraq at the time suggests to nations in the middle east that conventional

warfare is impossible for them to fight against a superpower like the

United States. The argument is that Iraq, and more recently Iran, "cannot

equal the army of a modern state, and, therefore, that a head-on military

confrontation with such a state or states would inevitably end in defeat"

(Lewis 2001). Thus they need to develop weapons of mass destruction to

counter the United States and its imperial policies, and means that the

United States causes these nations to develop weapons of mass destruction

and not vice versa. Also, weapons of mass destruction are a sign of

prestige in today's world, as for example the nations that were the victors

in World War II and those on the Security Council have weapons of mass

destruction. North Korea once acquiring weapons of mass destruction has

been given greater respect from the international community. This means

that the United States has shown that weapons of mass destruction are a

necessity to evade American imperialism and therefore the United States has

encouraged the development of weapons of mass destruction because its quest

for oil and taking power of other sovereign nations has forced others to

seek alternative means to prevent American invasion. Our imperialist

policy is therefore encouraging other states to seek rogue methods to

counter our invasive policies.

This means that America' foreign policy towards the Middle East is

wrong and that a change is necessary. The United States treats Iraq and

other countries in the Middle East with disrespect and thus receives it in

return. This is because the Iraqi war is part of a larger policy towards

the Middle East, one not only of disrespect, but one that intends to

enforce American imperialism. "The administration sees the invasion as

only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the

entire Middle East," it is argued and this is the truth (Marshall 2003).

Weapons of mass destruction are not the issue. The administration that

went to war with Iraq admitted this. In 2003, the "Undersecretary of State

John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United

States would 'deal with' Iran, Syria, and North Korea," which shows that

the United States has intentions reaching farther than the weapons of mass

destruction lie that was given to the American public (Marshall 2003).

This means that lies are not only being told, but something that is not

right is governing America foreign policy.

What is governing American foreign policy is oil, and America's

foreign policy should not and cannot be dictated by a natural resource.

Oil is used everywhere in America, sure, but it should not influence our

policy towards an entire region. Granted that oil problems can cause an

"economic crisis" and thus risk your administration and those that rely on

the administration, other alternatives need to be sought (Buckley Jr.

2005). Promoting stability, or encouraging instability for a natural

resource and using weapons of mass destruction is a mistake that has and

will continue to be compounded by more mistakes. It is obvious that Iraq

is a center of oil as it has been referred to as the "112 billion-barrel

Iraqi bonanza," and given the inherent excuses to go to war with it, Iraq

is the obvious first stepping stone of American foreign policy in which

weapons of mass destruction are used as an excuse (Vesely 2002).

This is because without a doubt, the Middle East is a region that is

incredibly influential in regards to oil prices. It controls so much of

the oil flow. So therefore much of American foreign policy towards the

region is related to oil. This cannot be told any other… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (10 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

U.S. Federal Policy on Abortion United States Essay

U.S. Latin America Relations State Departments Leading Essay

U.S. Foreign Policy After 911 Term Paper

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

U.S. Foreign Policy US Middle East Thesis

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "U.S. Policy" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

U.S. Policy.  (2007, April 17).  Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/us-policy/3144408

MLA Format

"U.S. Policy."  17 April 2007.  Web.  26 November 2021. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/us-policy/3144408>.

Chicago Style

"U.S. Policy."  Essaytown.com.  April 17, 2007.  Accessed November 26, 2021.