Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
post war policies that the U.S. And the world have adopted towards Iraq. It has 8 sources.
The war in Iraq and the protests of people around the world has given a clear signal to the American government and policy makers that the world has become a different place. That every attempt of American expansionism and corporate imperialism will be opposed, the unilateral policies of United States has to change and being a superpower it has to realize its responsibilities. The opposition from the European countries, the Arab community and China should be a great concern to America. The American foreign policies clearly show that the goal of its leader is to expand the American empire with the method of progressive imperialism. The United States because of its policies has become isolated in the world and has become an object of hatred around the world. If the unilateral and expansionism policies are continued the fate of American empire will not be different from Roman Empire.
It has been more than a year since the devastating attacks took place on September 11th in United States, which shook the American society to the core and brought about far reaching changes to the U.S. policies both home and abroad. The attacks exposed Americans to threats and challenges never faced before and proved that even the most powerful country in the world is not immune to such threats. In addition astronomical defense budgets and expensive security measures are insufficient to buy peace and security for the American People. More than anything else the attacks indicated to American government that how small the world has become and how vital it is for a superpower like America to cooperate and acquire support in order to guarantee the security for its people and to eliminate terrorism. Instead from learning from its past mistakes and its unbalanced foreign policies especially in the Middle East, the United States has embarked on a unilateralism and expansionism.
At this point of time:
The American troops in Iraq now hold almost 80% of the country, the Iraqi regime posed little resistance and all the media hype about the strong resistance from Iraqi regime were proved to be false. Though Saddam Hussein and the top leaders of the regime are not caught yet, there is strong tension and opposition inside Iraq on the U.S. led invasion. The American troops saw that the situation in Iraq is completely different, only after the first day of little celebrations, when the statues of Saddam Hussein were destroyed; there were rallies and protests in the country against the U.S. troops. The Iraqi people cam out with banners saying we want the invaders out, it is obvious that they don't see the troops as liberators but as invaders. The Bush administrations on the other hand has taken a sigh of relief as most of the political and war analysts predicted that the war could go on too long and if that would have happened it would have been very difficult for the administration to handle the situation back home. The average Americans are satisfied with the war and its results, more than 60% of the Americans supported the war, but the numbers would have change drastically had the war prolonged [Louis, 2003].
On the other hand the issue of United Nations involvement in the post-war Iraq is strongly debated and stressed by Germany, France, Russia and China. The European nations including the United Kingdom want a UN led government and reconstruction in Iraq. The European nations like France, Germany and Russia already have a view that the war is being waged without the United Nations authority and in violation of the UN Charter. They argue that because the war is illegal the post-war U.S. occupation will be illegal too. The U.S. is determined that its military will rule Iraq when the war has ended. The Arab nations who were against the war in the first place are also against any U.S. military rule in Iraq and they see it as U.S. expansion in the Middle East and a method to control oil of Iraq. China and other Islamic countries are also stressing a UN-based government, but it seems that U.S. will not withdraw from its position. Thus there is an overwhelming opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq and the military rule after the war, the United States is proceeding in its unilateral methods and even British Prime Minister is against the U.S. military control of Iraq. There is a very strong opinion among the people of the world of the U.S. policies and a majority of people in the world today see U.S. war in Iraq as a method to control the resources of the country and to expand American imperialism [Phyllis, 2003]. The opposition is gradually growing, the European Union has refused to donate anything in a post-war Iraq without United Nations, and the Arabs are criticizing the bias and unbalanced policies of U.S. And its support of Israel. Though in the U.S. It seems alright and that the war has been won with great power the ramification of these policies can prove to be very dangerous in the long run, The U.S. has to bring a change in its foreign policy.
The Bush doctrine:
President George Walker Bush in his June 1 address gave away the future strategy of U.S. foreign policy and which is been famously termed as "The Bush doctrine." President Bush in his address warned that in this new complex world the United States faced a threat with no precedent, through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the emergence of global terrorism, Bush said that the traditional strategies of deterrence and containment could not work and were not longer sufficient. Deterrence meant nothing "against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend" and containment could not work "when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies" [Dworkin, 2002]. Under these circumstances, he concluded, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long." This doctrine according to Bush is necessary to protect the United States from any further attacks and threats from dictators, and terrorists. It is this doctrine after the September 11 which has gone in its way to tear up the international agreements and undermine international institutions. The doctrine basically says that American government can do anything, can bypass every institution and laws to fulfill its interests. The Bush administration has committed this nation to a course it has never in its history taken before. Preventive wars against possible threats will now be official U.S. foreign policy. War with Iraq, in other words, is only the debut of a program whose goal is permanent U.S. global military dominance. This is not hyperbole; it is now enshrined, codified, in U.S. national security doctrine. The real goals of the war are American expansion, the expansion of American military and economic power [Pemberton, 2003].
Just as Osama Bin Laden was a creation of American CIA in Afghanistan in the Russian war, Saddam Hussein had been a strong ally and friend of White House for more than 12 years of his regime. Just as Osama Bin Laden was created by the CIA to fight against Russia for the American interest Saddam Hussein was getting weapons on a regular basis from America in the 11-year Iran-Iraq war which virtually destroyed Iran. It is no mystery that United States and Russia supported different dictators and fascists in the Cold-War, both supplied weapons to different countries and even supported some of the regimes in Africa and Middle East. Saddam Hussein was a close ally of the United States in the Iran-Iraq war and the U.S. provided weapons to Iraq in its war against Iraq. It is when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait another Islamic country on its borders that U.S. attacked Iraq in Gulf War but after the war left the Saddam regime enact. Just like after the Russian wars the Taliban's and Osama Bin Laden were left abruptly, as soon as U.S. interest was over, the Saddam regime was left too. After September 11 and Afghanistan war the U.S. claimed that Iraq have weapon of mass destruction which are potential threat to United States and that it wanted to restore the democracy in the country. Iraq had been under U.S. And U.N. sanctions for almost 10 years, the population had little food and there were shortage of water and medicine in the country. The country was barely surviving, and it is hard to say it could have developed chemical weapons. Saddam a dictator ruling for over 25 years had plunged the country into three wars; the U.S. had supported him in one of the wars and left him in office after the Gulf War. It is difficult to comprehend the U.S. [Barry & Lobe, 2003]. foreign policy regarding Iraq as U.S. suddenly decided that…[continue]
"U S Foreign Policy After The War" (2003, April 25) Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/us-foreign-policy-after-the-war-148645
"U S Foreign Policy After The War" 25 April 2003. Web.2 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/us-foreign-policy-after-the-war-148645>
"U S Foreign Policy After The War", 25 April 2003, Accessed.2 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/us-foreign-policy-after-the-war-148645
S. Congress - show that as of 7:20 A.M. On November 19, 2006, the dollar cost for Iraq alone stood at $343,505,966,000. That's over $343 billion dollars spent on the war effort since Bush launched the American invasion on March 19 of 2003. The National Priorities Project breaks down the cost of the war per state; for example, the war has cost California $43,514,789,000; it has cost the state of Nebraska
The international community can obviously respond by seeking to marginalize the Taliban and similar movements as extremists. However, it has become clear following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that western governments have not been effective in infiltrating terrorist networks and pre-empting attacks. It has also become clear that there will be no shortage of people in the Islamic world who are willing to
8 billion. The Occupation authorities also helped the Japanese government overcome postwar economic chaos, especially rampant inflation, by balancing the government budget, raising taxes and imposing price and wage freezes, and resuming limited foreign trade" (Kesselman et al., 203). The U.S. aid not only helped to rebuild the country, but also ensured that Japan was stable enough so that renegade seedlings of Communism or comparable institutions didn't suddenly flourish. The
They however fail to see the strategic linkage in the U.S. foreign policy. Israel is the most trusted ally of United States in the region. It has the same strategic interest as the United States and has a firm foundation of democratic support. The Arab governments on the other hand are unpopular, non-democratic and are in power due to the western interest in maintaining the status quo. Overthrow of the
However, the prerogatives of the presidential office give him this possibility. In this sense, his quality as commander in chef of the armed forces enables him to wage war without the approval of the Congress. Also, the first war in Iraq represented a good precedent for the authority of the President to go to war. Finally, another element that were used as justification for the intervention in Iraq without
Similar ambitions of Mao and Stalin to establish pro-communist Korean state, which was divided into two spheres of influences Soviet, with communist regime of Kim Il Sung and pro-American nationalist authoritarian regime of Syngman Rhee. But according to authors Offner and Gaddis we can say that the role played by North Korean authorities was the main in this conflict. The war started North Korean in 1950 was over three
Weapons of mass destruction are just an excuse. But is known that "President George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were both oil company executives before entering politics, as was half the present US administration," which means that not only do you have friends in the oil business but that they dictate your policy (Vesely 2002). Having such deceptive and underhanded policies and engaging an entire nation in a war that not only kills Amerians,