Discuss in 1500-2000 words the historical birth of the concept of Foreign Policy.
Specifically address the role of American Foreign Policy since its inception as a birthed nation and which specific historical time period since then has the US had greatest influence on the global world and in what area?
Cite specific examples (ie:war/conflict, humanitarian aid, environment, nation-state building etc.).


Two sources other than text book which is "Fundamental Principles of International Relations by J. Martin Rochester"

Four Essay Questions in total. Each response should be about 400 words and answer all parts of the question

First Question:


How did American foreign policy change from the 1940s to the present (2010s)?
Things to consider:
? Fighting (and winning) the Cold War?
? The War on Terror, its costs, and whether the U.S. is winning it or not today
? America?s major wars? discuss them all at least briefly
? The negative and positive results of American foreign policy?


Second Question:


Reflecting back on American history from the Civil War through the twentieth century, how did life change for middle class whites, African Americans, and immigrants?
Things to consider:
? Did the quality of life (opportunities, the economy, civil rights, and gender rights) improve or decline?
? What role did politicians (the government) and activists (reformers) play in changing society?
? How did technology improve the standard of living?


Third Question:


How did the American economy change from the industrial and market revolutions (1820s) through the Civil War (1865)?
Things to consider:
? Internal improvements (roads, canals, trains)
? Factories and machines
? Workers? rights and changes in the workplace, immigration
? The growth of Southern slavery
? Civil War economic growth and changes

Fourth Question:
(Please write an agreeing argument)

Agree or disagree with this statement: From the start of the English colonies in the early 1600s through the end of the Civil War, democracy and social freedom expanded for all Americans.
Your response should address the following issues:
? Native American rights
? Voting rights, democracy, and government power
? Free labor, slavery, and indentured servitude
? Women?s rights
? Reform movements and social experiments

Remember to divide the questions up. Remember to include in the answer all of the different topics listed.

What to do:
Select any three articles from Annual Edition''s American Foreign Policy (I will fax the three articles). Read the articles carefully and identify and respond to the questions below in a 5 page, typed and double-spaced paper.
1.What is the overall foreign policy issue/theme/problem that links the articles together? Briefly explain and discuss.
2.What are the central arguments of each article? Discuss these noting if they agree, complement, or conflict.
3.Which articles or authors do you tend to support and why? What persuaded you?
4.What should be the final foreign policy responses and solutions to the problem(s)?
5.If you like, you can conclude with any personal reactions to the articles.

Be careful to cite all direct quotes, statistics, and data that you use from any source (textbook, internet, etc...) Use an accepted academic citation style. Be sure to cite the specific author, article, and page(s) as well as the entire book when referencing materials.
There are faxes for this order.

Write a 600 word essay discussing American foreign policy in the period between 1890 and 1930. Do you think that our foreign policy was driven primarily by considerations of morality and high-minded ideology (i.e. the desire to help others and spread democracy and freedom) or by pragmatic economic and strategic considerations based on American self-interest? Use specific examples regarding American policy in Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:
(IS THE HISTOY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY MAINLY ISOLATIONIST OR EXPANSIONIST OR BOTH? DEMOCRATIC OR IMPERIALIST OR BOTH? GIVE EXAMPLES.)

NEEDS ONLY TO BE ONE PAGE< FOLLOW OUT LINE BELOW.




Should consists of the equivalent of 1 page, single-spaced, website font 2 writing, addressing in three separate and coherent statements three critical aspects, which I would like you to identify, of the lecture I will provide to you.

The lecture is below,
Please:
1) study and take into account the complete lecture thrust,
2)Concepts of American foreign relations, foreign policy,
and diplomatic history



Foreign relations and foreign policy



Sovereign peoples, peoples organized in politically independent nation states in the contemporary system of international relations, relate to each other through the formal interactions of their governments. The most basic instruments of these formal interactions are mutual diplomatic recognition, exchange of representatives to each other ?ministers, ambassadors, diplomats- and agreements or treaties concerning common frontiers, peaceful relations, commerce, and transit and status of their citizens whenever present in each other?s territories.



Governments of sovereign nation states conduct their governance activity through public policy. Public policy is the contents of authoritative decisions in the fields of government?s action, those in the common interests domains of public order and civil liberties, public welfare and the economy, education, the preservation of the nation?s resources, and security and defense. Public policy may be defined as government?s action aiming at the fulfillment of public interest values. Foreign policy is government?s public policy in the domain of international relations. The public interest values underlying foreign policy have often been identified as national interest values. Foreign policy has therefore a functional, public policy dimension, and a strategic dimension related to the perceptions and projections of the national interest.



Foreign policy and foreign relations history



The action of the government in the foreign domain over time is roughly equivalent to the foreign policy history of the nation. In the formal, institutional sense, the foreign policy history of the United States is the result of the cumulative patterns of its external relations and interactions in its trajectory as an independent nation. In a substantive, deeper dimension, the foreign policy history of the United States is the course of its strategic choices and necessities in a changing context of geopolitical imperatives. To a significant extent, such context is shaped by the interrelationships between the domestic components of the American national interests ?the texture and characteristics of the American society and fabric? and the forces and configurations of the international conditions. Thus, viewed over time, the foreign policy of the United States is the rail network of the American international history. A critical question in this context, perhaps the most critical, is that which concerns the patterns of change and continuity in the international interests and foreign policy patterns of the United States, especially as these patterns interact with those of other nations in the constantly evolving contexts of world politics.



------------------------------------------------------------

SHORT LECTURE TO START OUT WITH:

Foreign policy patterns and modalities
American foreign policy choices and interactions are shaped by three structural patterns, which are in tension and yet interrelate with each other, namely:



. complementarity and competitiveness

. unilateralism, bilateralism. multilateralism

. independence, dependence, interdependence



Competitive interactions provide the general context of the dynamics of conflict in American international relations, from moderate trade and cultural conflicts to militarized disputes. Complementary interactions are generally the result of, and in turn the instrument for the foreign policy of cooperation, bilateral and multilateral, in American international relations. We examine in this course the extent to which the prevalence of one or other of these policy frameworks is determined by the configurative patterns of three sets of competing values and interests:



. grand design and constant adaptation.

. particularism ?exceptionalism? and universalism, isolationism and expansionism, republican principles and imperialism.

. frontier, democracy, and capitalism.



American foreign policy is strongly interrelated with the characteristics of the society and the institutions of its system of government. Four aspects of this interrelationship are the recurrent subjects of this course study and understanding of the actual practice of American international relations:



. the characteristics of the American fabric, the contradictory interests of the capitalist system, and the difficulties for the persistence of an informed public opinion,

. the problems of leadership socialization and continuity,

. the conditions of separation of powers and divided government, and

. the mix of positive and negative foreign policy externalities of American nationalism, especially in terms of the dimensions of rationality and irrationality in the conduct of international relations.



Please use the above lecture and the ADDITIONAL READINGS below for you source.



. AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE, Glenn P. Hastedt (2002). Library: E183.7.H27 2003.

. Americanism versus Imperialism, Andrew Carnegie, 168 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 506 (January 1899), Cornell MOA

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0168-3

. America?s Mission, William Jennings Bryan (Washington, D. C., February 22, 1899) http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/bryan990222.html

. IDEOLOGY AND U. S. FOREIGN POLICY, Michael H. Hunt (1987). Library: E183.7.H86 1986.

. Isolation and Expansion, Walter Lippman, ISOLATION AND ALLIANCES: AN AMERICAN SPEAKS TO THE BRITISH (1952) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lipp.htm

. THE AMERICAN AGE: UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY AT HOME AND ABROAD SINCE 1750, Walter LaFeber (1994). Library: E183.7. L27 1994.

. The Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism, William Jennings Bryan, Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention Held in Kansas City, Mo., July 4, 5 and 6, 1900, Chicago, 1900, pp. 205-227 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bryan.htm

Here are some questions to consider when writing the paper.

What should the US role in the world be in 2013 and beyond? What are the biggest challenges US foreign policy-makers face today?
Is there an Obama strategy for foreign relations?
How would you assess the Posen argument versus that of Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth?
Which president, or event, would you present to the current administration as having critical importance for our understanding of American foreign policy priorities today?

I would like to order a mini proposal that covers all the main areas of a research about American Foreign Policy towards Persian Gulf P States from 1988-present( Includes those as hypothesis- the Iraqi Iranian war, Kuwait Invasion -Gulf war 1991, Iraq war 2003, and Bahrain Crisis 2011) . The format of the paper should be as follows:
1. Introduction-1 page
2. Literature of similar studies -1 1/2 pages
2. Research Question and Hypothesis-1 Page
3. Theory that might be used to test the hypothesis-1 1/2page
4.. Methodology to use for the research- 1 Page
5. Conclusion- 1 page

I am requesting writer: amber111#
Reference my earlier order #: A2098441

Instructions:
Overview:
Using only the course material that I have provided (see attached files). No other material is allowed. Analyze the provided Opinion Editorial (OpEd) from the perspective of the President of the United States, and in the mindset of his national decision making process.

Requirements:
1. Take the role of the President of the United States and analyze the authors premise in the Opinion Editorial (OpEd). The analysis should be delivered in first-person (not third person).

2. Provide Courses of Action (COA) (the What) the US should take to address issues identified in the article and in that region of the world.

3. Show how each suggested Courses of Action would support specific US National Interests (Security, Values, Prosperity, and International Order) [the reason why we are taking the actions]. Your COAs should cover all four US National Interests.

4. Your Courses of Action should show how the Instruments of National Power (IOP) (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, or Economic) would be employed (the How, limit your discussion to the most important one or two IOPs per COA).

5. Your Courses of Action should be something the President can implement. (i.e. show how he will enforce, enact, encourage, and/or recommend your courses of action for implementation in the National Decision Making Process, the Who)

6. Include an analysis/discussion of the issues for the entire region of the Middle East and any neighboring relations in the context of the OpEds issues. (How would your courses of action affect other countries in the region? What about neighboring countries? the Where)

7. The essay should be a focused analysis using relevant concepts and specific examples from the provided course material (no other material is allowed) to support your Courses of Action.

Specifics:
1. 13 page - double-space, single-sided, 1 inch margins, Times New Roman 12 point font.

2. Use at least 17 course material references. At least 10 should be separate/different.

3. For course material references, include bracketed authors name and page number at the end of the statement [Brown, pg 167].

4. Include a reference page at the end of the essay (not to be counted as part of your essay for page count/length). The reference for course material should identify the author, lesson, reading number, and page number. Example:

Brown, L. Lesson 3, Reading 5 of 8.
Brown, Lestor R., The New Geopolitics of Food, Foreign Policy, 2011, 167, pps. 166 to 172.

5. Please DO NOT use direct quotations like you did in the first assignment.

6. In the intro, please tell me what the essay is going to talk about and highlight the Courses of Action and the key points to read for throughout the document?

7. Please take a position and made a statement. Please use words like compare, analyze, evaluate, show, prove; and then follow through in the essay to accomplish just that. Avoid words like discuss or consider.

8. In the conclusion, recap the major points (the Courses of Action and the Who, What, When, Where, and Hows) and a re-statement of your thesis, having been proved or defended.


Opinion Editorial (OpEd)
Reprinted from Early Bird, 30 March 2012. Published by Current News Service. Originally published in Wall Street Journal, 30 March 2012.
Helping Arab Democrats
By Wall Street Journal
The U.S. has a chance to aid pro-American reformers in Tunisia.
The Obama Administrations response to the past years Middle East convulsions wont make any Best of American Foreign Policy lists. It was slow to recognize popular uprisings against authoritarian rulers and reluctant to lead. Which makes Thursdays decision to give Tunisias new government a helping hand notable and welcome.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Administration wants to give Tunisia $100 million this year. This isnt a standard assistance package that funds U.S. consultants, but a direct injection of cash into the governments coffers. The U.S. would also set aside $30 million to guarantee Tunisian government bonds, which will ease its access to international capital markets.
In tight fiscal times, Congress is rightly skeptical about foreign aid and would need to sign off. But this is an easy call.
Tunisia matters beyond its size. The so-called Arab Spring started in this North African state of 10 million in December 2010, after a fruit vendor set himself on fire to protest unaccountable government. The next month, Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali was the first Arab dictator forced out of power; rulers in Egypt, Libya and Yemen followed.
Tunisias post-revolutionary experience is exceptional. While Libya and Syria descended into civil war, and Egypt was misruled by the military and saw radical Islamists empowered in the last year, Tunisias path has been smoother. In October elections, the Islamist Nahda party won the most votes, but other groups did well too.
Nahda formed a broad coalition government, pledged to honor Tunisias secular traditions, and reached out to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood, the dominant force in Egypt after recent elections, has done none of these things. Nahda has kept its word, announcing this week that the new constitution wouldnt mention Islamic law, or Shariah, as a source of legislation.
During Mrs. Clintons visit to Tunis last month, Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali told her that Tunisia wanted a close, strategic relationship with the U.S. By coming through yesterday, Mrs. Clinton has shown Tunisians??"and people across the Arab world??"that the U.S. helps its friends.
While the political transition has gone well, Tunisias economic problems have deepened. The tourism industry has shrunk by a third, driving down economic growth (by 1.8%) and raising joblessness. Investment and visitors remain wary, though economic growth has started to revive. The U.S. aid would cover urgent needs and encourage economic reform. Americas support might prod the dilatory European Union and oil-rich Arab states to pitch in as well. Tunis is seeking $1 billion in outside support this year.
With its good public works and a skilled work force, Tunisia wont need handouts indefinitely. Longer-term relationships will be built on trade and investment. In his speech on the Middle East last May, President Obama promised to pursue bilateral free trade agreements with the regions budding democracies, but he then dropped the subject.
The Administration could revive the idea by striking a trade deal with the easiest case first, Tunisia. Heres another idea: Designate Tunisia a strategic and economic partner, as the U.S. did with Georgia and similarly strategic countries.
Todays Tunisia offers an antidote to the pessimism about the Arab world. With American help, it has a chance to show the rest of the Middle East that political pluralism can result in new prosperity.






Please e-mail me that you have received and fully understand these instructions.
The turn around time is 5 calendar days; the 8th of July by 3PM EST.
Thanks,
Mr. Duck
[email protected]

There are faxes for this order.

I Need 2 essays (each about 1 page)
First essay topic: "How and why did American Foreign policy change in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? what were the result of those change?"

Second essay topic: "What were the effects of world War I on American society?"
Source : Book "The American Nation, 12th edition, writen by Carnes and Garraty, Chapter 22, 23 and 24.

Remember essay include both main ideas and specific historical details and examples.

Which president do you think conducted American Foreign policy more skillfully in the 1890's, Mckinley or Clevelend? WHy? Use pertinent examples.

Analyze the article below and tell me how the author defines realism and idealism and then how these differ from his concept of progressive realism. Bear in mind that there are THREE parts (realism, idealism and progressive realism) to this essay, so be sure to define each completely before beginning your analysis. The best way to approach this project is to make sure you define idealism and realism comprehensively according to the author's use of the terms, and then clearly show how he has related them to progressive realism.



An American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With
By ROBERT WRIGHT
Princeton, N.J.

As liberals try to articulate a post-Bush foreign policy, some are feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance. They have always thought of themselves as idealistic, concerned with the welfare of humankind. Not for them the ruthlessly narrow focus on national self-interest of the realist foreign policy school. That schools most famous practitioner, Henry Kissinger, is for many liberals a reminder of how easily the ostensible amorality of classic realism slides into immorality.
Yet idealism has lost some of its luster. Neoconservatism, whose ascendancy has scared liberals into a new round of soul-searching, seems plenty idealistic, bent on spreading democracy and human rights. Indeed, a shared idealism is what led many liberals to join neocons in supporting the Iraq war, which hasnt turned out ideally. In retrospect, realists who were skeptical of the invasion, like Brent Scowcroft and Samuel Huntington, are looking pretty wise.
Its an unappealing choice: chillingly clinical self-interest or dangerously nave altruism? Fortunately, its a false choice. During the post-cold-war era, the security landscape has changed a lot, in some ways for the worse; witness the role of nonstate actors last week in India, Israel and Iraq. But this changing environment has a rarely noted upside: Its now possible to build a foreign policy paradigm that comes close to squaring the circle ??" reconciling the humanitarian aims of idealists with the powerful logic of realists. And adopting this paradigm could make the chaos of the last week less common in the future.
Every paradigm needs a name, and the best name for this one is progressive realism. The label has a nice ring (Who is against progress?) and it aptly suggests bipartisan appeal. This is a realism that could attract many liberals and a progressivism that could attract some conservatives.
With such crossover potential, this paradigm might even help Democrats win a presidential election. But Democrats can embrace it only if theyre willing to annoy an interest group or two and also reject a premise common in Democratic policy circles lately: that the key to a winning foreign policy is to recalibrate the partys manhood ??" just take boilerplate liberal foreign policy and add a testosterone patch. Even if that prescription did help win an election, it wouldnt succeed in protecting America.
I.
Progressive realism begins with a cardinal doctrine of traditional realism: the purpose of American foreign policy is to serve American interests. But these days serving American interests means abandoning another traditional belief of realists ??" that so long as foreign governments dont endanger American interests on the geopolitical chess board, their domestic affairs dont concern us. In an age when Americans are threatened by overseas bioweapons labs and outbreaks of flu, by Chinese pollution that enters lungs in Oregon, by imploding African states that could turn into terrorist havens, by authoritarian Arab governments that push young men toward radicalism, the classic realist indifference to the interiors of nations is untenable.
In that sense progressive realists look a lot like neoconservatives and traditional liberals: concerned about the well-being of foreigners, albeit out of strict national interest. But progressive realism has two core themes that make it clearly distinctive, and theyre reflected in two different meanings of the word progressive.
First, the word signifies a belief in, well, progress. Free markets are spreading across the world on the strength of their productivity, and economic liberty tends to foster political liberty. Yes, the Chinese government could probably reverse the growth in popular expression of the past two decades, but only by severely restricting information technologies that are prerequisites for prosperity. Meanwhile, notwithstanding dogged efforts at repression, political pluralism in China is growing.
Oddly, this progressive realist faith in markets seems to be stronger than the vaunted neoconservative faith in markets. After all, if you believe that history is on the side of political freedom ??" and that this technological era is giving freedom an especially strong push ??" your approach to fostering democracy isnt to invade countries and impose it. And if you believe that the tentacles of capitalism help spread freedom, you dont threaten to disrupt economic engagement with China for such small gains as the release of a few political prisoners.
A strong Democratic emphasis on economic engagement always threatens to alienate liberal human rights activists, as well as union leaders concerned about cheap labor abroad. But the losses can be minimized, thanks to the second meaning of the word progressive.
II.
The American progressives of a century ago saw that as economic activity moved from a regional to a national level, some parts of governance needed to reside at the national level as well. Hence federal antitrust enforcement and the Pure Food and Drug Act. Analogously, problems that today accompany globalization call for institutionalized international responses.
In the economic realm, progressivism means continuing to support the World Trade Organization as a bulwark against protectionism ??" but also giving it the authority to address labor issues, as union leaders have long advocated. Environmental issues, too, should be addressed at the W.T.O. and through other bodies of regional and global governance.
Nowhere does this emphasis on international governance contrast more clearly with recent Republican ideology than in arms control. The default neoconservative approach to weapons of mass destruction seems to be that when you suspect a nation has them, you invade it. The Iraq experience suggests that repeated reliance on this policy could grow wearying. The president, to judge by his late-May overture toward Iran and his subdued tone toward North Korea, may be sensing as much. Still, he is nowhere near embracing the necessary alternative: arms control accords that would impose highly intrusive inspections on all parties. Neoconservatives, along with the Buchananite nationalist right, see in this approach an unacceptable sacrifice of national sovereignty.
But such sacrifices can strengthen America. One reason international weapons inspectors havent gotten a good fix on Irans nuclear program is that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives them access only to declared sites. Wouldnt Americans be willing to change that and let inspectors examine America more broadly ??" we have nothing to hide, after all ??" if that made it harder for other nations to cheat on the treaty?
There is a principle here that goes beyond arms control: the national interest can be served by constraints on Americas behavior when they constrain other nations as well. This logic covers the spectrum of international governance, from global warming (well cut carbon dioxide emissions if you will) to war (well refrain from it if you will).
This doesnt mean joining the deepest devotees of international law and vowing never to fight a war that lacks backing by the United Nations Security Council. But it does mean that, in the case of Iraq, ignoring the Security Council and international opinion had excessive costs: (1) eroding the norm against invasions not justified by self-defense or imminent threat; (2) throwing away a golden post-9/11 oppotunity to strengthen the United Nations power as a weapons inspector. The last message we needed to send is the one President Bush sent: countries that succumb to pressure to admit weapons inspectors will be invaded anyway. Peacefully blunting the threats posed by nuclear technologies in North Korea and Iran would be tricky in any event, but this message has made it trickier. (Ever wonder why Iran wants security guarantees?)
The administrations misjudgment in Iraq highlights the distinction ??" sometimes glossed over by neoconservatives ??" between transparency and regime change. Had we held off on invasion, demanding in return that United Nations inspections be expanded and extended, we could have rendered Iraq transparent, confirming that it posed no near-term threat. Regime change wasnt essential.
To be sure, authoritarianisms demise is a key long-term goal. Authoritarian states never have the natural transparency of free-market democracies, and the evolution of biotechnology will make an increasingly fine-grained transparency vital to security. But this degree of transparency will only slowly become a strict prerequisite for national security, because the bioweapons most plausibly available to terrorists in the near term arent effective weapons of truly mass destruction. (Anthrax isnt contagious, for example, and there is a vaccine for smallpox.) For now we can be patient and nurture regime change through economic engagement and other forms of peaceful, above-board influence.
The result will be more indigenous, more culturally authentic paths to democracy than flow from invasion or American-backed coups dtat ??" and more conducive to Americas security than, say, the current situation in Iraq. Democrats can join President Bush in proclaiming that freedom is on the march without buying his formula for assisting it.
III.
When expressing disdain for international governance, the Bush administration morphs from visionary neocon idealist into coolly rational realist. Foreign policy, were told, is not for nave, Kumbaya-singing liberals who are seduced by illusions of international cooperation. Yet the president, in his aversion to multilateralism, flunks Realism 101. He has let America fall prey to what economists call the free rider problem. Even if we grant the mistaken premise that the Iraq war would make the whole world safer from terrorism, why should America pay so much blood and treasure? Why let the rest of civilization be a free rider?
The high cost of free riders matters all the more in light of how many problems beyond Americas borders threaten Americas interests. The slaughter in Darfur, though a humanitarian crisis, is also a security issue, given how hospitable collapsed states can be to terrorists. But if addressing the Darfur problem will indeed help thwart terrorism internationally, then the costs of the mission should be shared.
President Bushs belated diplomatic involvement in Darfur suggests growing enlightenment, but sluggish ad hoc multilateralism isnt enough. We need multilateral structures capable of decisively forceful intervention and nation building ??" ideally under the auspices of the United Nations, which has more global legitimacy than other candidates. America should lead in building these structures and thereafter contribute its share, but only its share. To some extent, the nurturing of international institutions and solid international law is simple thrift.
And the accounting rules are subtle. As weve seen lately, the cost of military action can go not just beyond dollars and cents, but beyond the immediate toll of dead and wounded. In an age when cell phones can take pictures and videos of collateral damage and then e-mail them, and terrorists recruit via Web site imagery, intervention abroad can bring long-term blowback. Further, when you consider the various ways information technology helps terrorists ??" not just to recruit more fighters to the cause, but to orchestrate attacks and spread recipes for munitions ??" and you throw in advances in munitions technology, an alarming principle suggests itself: In coming years, grass-roots hatred and resentment of America may be converted into the death of Americans with growing efficiency.
That domestic security depends increasingly on popular sentiment abroad makes it important for America to be seen as a good global citizen ??" respecting international laws and norms and sensing the needs of neighbors. One of President Bushs most effective uses of power was the tsunami relief effort of 2004, which raised regard for Americans in the worlds largest Muslim country, Indonesia. Much of the war on terror isnt military.
Of course, some of it is, and well need the capacity to project force anywhere, anytime. Still, a full accounting of the costs of intervention makes it clear that we cant afford to be the worlds army. Fortunately, globalization has made the peaceful suppression of at least some forms of disorder easier. Economic interdependence makes war among nations less attractive, and never before has this interdependence brought so much transborder contact among businesspeople and politicians.
So its not shocking that India and China, which clashed repeatedly over disputed borders during the cold war, have kept things cool since becoming enmeshed in the global economy. Or that the most worrisome nation of the moment, North Korea, is about the most isolated from the global economy; or that its rival for worrisomeness, Iran, is far from full immersion.
Obviously, wars can happen even when theyre irrational. Still, their growing irrationality is a progressive force worth honoring. It strengthens the case for economic engagement and for regional and other international bodies that help cement commercial entanglement with political cooperation.
IV.
The excesses of neoconservative idealism have prompted various scholars to adapt realist principles to a changing world. The political scientists John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan outlined a liberal realism two years ago, and Mr. Ikenberrys book, After Victory, showed how international governance can serve the interests of hegemonic powers. This fall the historians Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman will publish a foreign policy manifesto called Ethical Realism.
Such works are true to the spirit of Hans Morgenthau, chief architect of realism. Writing in the mid-20th century, he emphasized that realisms implications would change as the world changed. World peace could require radical constraints on national sovereignty, he said, and the nation-state might drop in significance as larger units rose.
Morgenthau seems to have sensed something that later political scientists dwelt on: technology has been making the worlds nations more interdependent ??" or, as game theorists put it, more non-zero-sum. That is, Americas fortunes are growing more closely correlated with the fortunes of people far away; fewer games have simple win-lose outcomes, and more have either win-win or lose-lose outcomes.
This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation of fortunes ??" being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics, environment, security ??" is what makes international governance serve national interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian. Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish ??" if African states cohere, if the worlds Muslims feel they benefit from the world order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and more, doing well means doing good.
Of course, resources arent infinite, and the world has lots of problems. But focusing on national interest helps focus resources. Notwithstanding last weeks carnage in the Middle East, more people have been dying in Sri Lankas civil war than in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But given the threat of anti-American Islamist terrorism, forging a lasting two-state solution inthe Middle East is a higher priority than bringing lasting peace to Sri Lanka.
This sounds harsh, but it is only acknowledgment of something often left unsaid: a nations foreign policy will always favor the interests of its citizens and so fall short of moral perfection. We can at least be thankful that history, by intertwining the fates of peoples, is bringing national interest closer to moral ideals.
Harnessing this benign dynamic isnt the only redemptive feature of progressive realism. Morgenthau emphasized that sound strategy requires a respectful understanding of all players in the game. The political actor, he wrote, must put himself into the other mans shoes, look at the world and judge it as he does.
This immersion in the perspective of the other is sometimes called moral imagination, and it is hard. Understanding why some people hate America, and why terrorists kill, is challenging not just intellectually but emotionally. Yet it is crucial and has been lacking in President Bush, who saves time by ascribing behavior that threatens America to the hatred of freedom or (and this is a real time saver) to evil. As Morgenthau saw, exploring the root causes of bad behavior, far from being a sentimentalist weakness, informs the deft use of power. Realpolitik is reality-based.
Is progressive realism salable? The administrations post-9/11 message may be more viscerally appealing: Rid the world of evil, and do so with bravado and intimidating strength. But this approach has gotten some negative feedback from the real world, and there is a growing desire for America to regain the respect President Bush has squandered. Maybe Americans are ready to meet reality on its own terms.
Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of The Moral Animal and Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny.

An American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With
By ROBERT WRIGHT
Princeton, N.J.
As liberals try to articulate a post-Bush foreign policy, some are feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance. They have always thought of themselves as idealistic, concerned with the welfare of humankind. Not for them the ruthlessly narrow focus on national self-interest of the realist foreign policy school. That schools most famous practitioner, Henry Kissinger, is for many liberals a reminder of how easily the ostensible amorality of classic realism slides into immorality.
Yet idealism has lost some of its luster. Neoconservatism, whose ascendancy has scared liberals into a new round of soul-searching, seems plenty idealistic, bent on spreading democracy and human rights. Indeed, a shared idealism is what led many liberals to join neocons in supporting the Iraq war, which hasnt turned out ideally. In retrospect, realists who were skeptical of the invasion, like Brent Scowcroft and Samuel Huntington, are looking pretty wise.
Its an unappealing choice: chillingly clinical self-interest or dangerously nave altruism? Fortunately, its a false choice. During the post-cold-war era, the security landscape has changed a lot, in some ways for the worse; witness the role of nonstate actors last week in India, Israel and Iraq. But this changing environment has a rarely noted upside: Its now possible to build a foreign policy paradigm that comes close to squaring the circle ??" reconciling the humanitarian aims of idealists with the powerful logic of realists. And adopting this paradigm could make the chaos of the last week less common in the future.
Every paradigm needs a name, and the best name for this one is progressive realism. The label has a nice ring (Who is against progress?) and it aptly suggests bipartisan appeal. This is a realism that could attract many liberals and a progressivism that could attract some conservatives.
With such crossover potential, this paradigm might even help Democrats win a presidential election. But Democrats can embrace it only if theyre willing to annoy an interest group or two and also reject a premise common in Democratic policy circles lately: that the key to a winning foreign policy is to recalibrate the partys manhood ??" just take boilerplate liberal foreign policy and add a testosterone patch. Even if that prescription did help win an election, it wouldnt succeed in protecting America.
I.
Progressive realism begins with a cardinal doctrine of traditional realism: the purpose of American foreign policy is to serve American interests. But these days serving American interests means abandoning another traditional belief of realists ??" that so long as foreign governments dont endanger American interests on the geopolitical chess board, their domestic affairs dont concern us. In an age when Americans are threatened by overseas bioweapons labs and outbreaks of flu, by Chinese pollution that enters lungs in Oregon, by imploding African states that could turn into terrorist havens, by authoritarian Arab governments that push young men toward radicalism, the classic realist indifference to the interiors of nations is untenable.
In that sense progressive realists look a lot like neoconservatives and traditional liberals: concerned about the well-being of foreigners, albeit out of strict national interest. But progressive realism has two core themes that make it clearly distinctive, and theyre reflected in two different meanings of the word progressive.
First, the word signifies a belief in, well, progress. Free markets are spreading across the world on the strength of their productivity, and economic liberty tends to foster political liberty. Yes, the Chinese government could probably reverse the growth in popular expression of the past two decades, but only by severely restricting information technologies that are prerequisites for prosperity. Meanwhile, notwithstanding dogged efforts at repression, political pluralism in China is growing.
Oddly, this progressive realist faith in markets seems to be stronger than the vaunted neoconservative faith in markets. After all, if you believe that history is on the side of political freedom ??" and that this technological era is giving freedom an especially strong push ??" your approach to fostering democracy isnt to invade countries and impose it. And if you believe that the tentacles of capitalism help spread freedom, you dont threaten to disrupt economic engagement with China for such small gains as the release of a few political prisoners.
A strong Democratic emphasis on economic engagement always threatens to alienate liberal human rights activists, as well as union leaders concerned about cheap labor abroad. But the losses can be minimized, thanks to the second meaning of the word progressive.
II.
The American progressives of a century ago saw that as economic activity moved from a regional to a national level, some parts of governance needed to reside at the national level as well. Hence federal antitrust enforcement and the Pure Food and Drug Act. Analogously, problems that today accompany globalization call for institutionalized international responses.
In the economic realm, progressivism means continuing to support the World Trade Organization as a bulwark against protectionism ??" but also giving it the authority to address labor issues, as union leaders have long advocated. Environmental issues, too, should be addressed at the W.T.O. and through other bodies of regional and global governance.
Nowhere does this emphasis on international governance contrast more clearly with recent Republican ideology than in arms control. The default neoconservative approach to weapons of mass destruction seems to be that when you suspect a nation has them, you invade it. The Iraq experience suggests that repeated reliance on this policy could grow wearying. The president, to judge by his late-May overture toward Iran and his subdued tone toward North Korea, may be sensing as much. Still, he is nowhere near embracing the necessary alternative: arms control accords that would impose highly intrusive inspections on all parties. Noconservatives, along with the Buchananite nationalist right, see in this approach an unacceptable sacrifice of national sovereignty.
But such sacrifices can strengthen America. One reason international weapons inspectors havent gotten a good fix on Irans nuclear program is that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives them access only to declared sites. Wouldnt Americans be willing to change that and let inspectors examine America more broadly ??" we have nothing to hide, after all ??" if that made it harder for other nations to cheat on the treaty?
There is a principle here that goes beyond arms control: the national interest can be served by constraints on Americas behavior when they constrain other nations as well. This logic covers the spectrum of international governance, from global warming (well cut carbon dioxide emissions if you will) to war (well refrain from it if you will).
This doesnt mean joining the deepest devotees of international law and vowing never to fight a war that lacks backing by the United Nations Security Council. But it does mean that, in the case of Iraq, ignoring the Security Council and international opinion had excessive costs: (1) eroding the norm against invasions not justified by self-defense or imminent threat; (2) throwing away a golden post-9/11 opportunity to strengthen the United Nations power as a weapons inspector. The last message we needed to send is the one President Bush sent: countries that succumb to pressure to admit weapons inspectors will be invaded anyway. Peacefully blunting the threats posed by nuclear technologies in North Korea and Iran would be tricky in any event, but this message has made it trickier. (Ever wonder why Iran wants security guarantees?)
The administrations misjudgment in Iraq highlights the distinction ??" sometimes glossed over by neoconservatives ??" between transparency and regime change. Had we held off on invasion, demanding in return that United Nations inspections be expanded and extended, we could have rendered Iraq transparent, confirming that it posed no near-term threat. Regime change wasnt essential.
To be sure, authoritarianisms demise is a key long-term goal. Authoritarian states never have the natural transparency of free-market democracies, and the evolution of biotechnology will make an increasingly fine-grained transparency vital to security. But this degree of transparency will only slowly become a strict prerequisite for national security, because the bioweapons most plausibly available to terrorists in the near term arent effective weapons of truly mass destruction. (Anthrax isnt contagious, for example, and there is a vaccine for smallpox.) For now we can be patient and nurture regime change through economic engagement and other forms of peaceful, above-board influence.
The result will be more indigenous, more culturally authentic paths to democracy than flow from invasion or American-backed coups dtat ??" and more conducive to Americas security than, say, the current situation in Iraq. Democrats can join President Bush in proclaiming that freedom is on the march without buying his formula for assisting it.
III.
When expressing disdain for international governance, the Bush administration morphs from visionary neocon idealist into coolly rational realist. Foreign policy, were told, is not for nave, Kumbaya-singing liberals who are seduced by illusions of international cooperation. Yet the president, in his aversion to multilateralism, flunks Realism 101. He has let America fall prey to what economists call the free rider problem. Even if we grant the mistaken premise that the Iraq war would make the whole world safer from terrorism, why should America pay so much blood and treasure? Why let the rest of civilization be a free rider?
The high cost of free riders matters all the more in light of how many problems beyond Americas borders threaten Americas interests. The slaughter in Darfur, though a humanitarian crisis, is also a security issue, given how hospitable collapsed states can be to terrorists. But if addressing the Darfur problem will indeed help thwart terrorism internationally, then the costs of the mission should be shared.
President Bushs belated diplomatic involvement in Darfur suggests growing enlightenment, but sluggish ad hoc multilateralism isnt enough. We need multilateral structures capable of decisively forceful intervention and nation building ??" ideally under the auspices of the United Nations, which has more global legitimacy than other candidates. America should lead in building these structures and thereafter contribute its share, but only its share. To some extent, the nurturing of international institutions and solid international law is simple thrift.
And the accounting rules are subtle. As weve seen lately, the cost of military action can go not just beyond dollars and cents, but beyond the immediate toll of dead and wounded. In an age when cell phones can take pictures and videos of collateral damage and then e-mail them, and terrorists recruit via Web site imagery, intervention abroad can bring long-term blowback. Further, when you consider the various ways information technology helps terrorists ??" not just to recruit more fighters to the cause, but to orchestrate attacks and spread recipes for munitions ??" and you throw in advances in munitions technology, an alarming principle suggests itself: In coming years, grass-roots hatred and resentment of America may be converted into the death of Americans with growing efficiency.
That domestic security depends increasingly on popular sentiment abroad makes it important for America to be seen as a good global citizen ??" respecting international laws and norms and sensing the needs of neighbors. One of President Bushs most effective uses of power was the tsunami relief effort of 2004, which raised regard for Americans in the worlds largest Muslim country, Indonesia. Much of the war on terror isnt military.
Of course, some of it is, and well need the capacity to project force anywhere, anytime. Still, a full accounting of the costs of intervention makes it clear that we cant afford to be the worlds army. Fortunately, globalization has made the peaceful suppression of at least some forms of disorder easier. Economic interdependence makes war among nations less attractive, and never before has this interdependence brought so much transborder contact among businesspeople and politicians.
So its not shocking that India and China, which clashed repeatedly over disputed borders during the cold war, have kept things cool since becoming enmeshed in the global economy. Or that the most worrisome nation of the moment, North Korea, is about the most isolated from the global economy; or that its rival for worrisomeness, Iran, is far from full immersion.
Obviously, wars can happen even when theyre irrational. Still, their growing irrationality is a progressive force worth honoring. It strengthens the case for economic engagement and for regional and other international bodies that help cement commercial entanglement with political cooperation.
IV.
The excesses of neoconservative idealism have prompted various scholars to adapt realist principles to a changing world. The political scientists John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan outlined a liberal realism two years ago, and Mr. Ikenberrys book, After Victory, showed how international governance can serve the interests of hegemonic powers. This fall the historians Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman will publish a foreign policy manifesto called Ethical Realism.
Such works are true to the spirit of Hans Morgenthau, chief architect of realism. Writing in the mid-20th century, he emphasized that realisms implications would change as the world changed. World peace could require radical constraints on national sovereignty, he said, and the nation-state might drop in significance as larger units rose.
Morgenthau seems to have sensed something that later political scientists dwelt on: technology has been making the worlds natons more interdependent ??" or, as game theorists put it, more non-zero-sum. That is, Americas fortunes are growing more closely correlated with the fortunes of people far away; fewer games have simple win-lose outcomes, and more have either win-win or lose-lose outcomes.
This principle lies at the heart of progressive realism. A correlation of fortunes ??" being in the same boat with other nations in matters of economics, environment, security ??" is what makes international governance serve national interest. It is also what makes enlightened self-interest de facto humanitarian. Progressive realists see that America can best flourish if others flourish ??" if African states cohere, if the worlds Muslims feel they benefit from the world order, if personal and environmental health are nurtured, if economic inequities abroad are muted so that young democracies can be stable and strong. More and more, doing well means doing good.
Of course, resources arent infinite, and the world has lots of problems. But focusing on national interest helps focus resources. Notwithstanding last weeks carnage in the Middle East, more people have been dying in Sri Lankas civil war than in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But given the threat of anti-American Islamist terrorism, forging a lasting two-state solution in the Middle East is a higher priority than bringing lasting peace to Sri Lanka.
This sounds harsh, but it is only acknowledgment of something often left unsaid: a nations foreign policy will always favor the interests of its citizens and so fall short of moral perfection. We can at least be thankful that history, by intertwining the fates of peoples, is bringing national interest closer to moral ideals.
Harnessing this benign dynamic isnt the only redemptive feature of progressive realism. Morgenthau emphasized that sound strategy requires a respectful understanding of all players in the game. The political actor, he wrote, must put himself into the other mans shoes, look at the world and judge it as he does.
This immersion in the perspective of the other is sometimes called moral imagination, and it is hard. Understanding why some people hate America, and why terrorists kill, is challenging not just intellectually but emotionally. Yet it is crucial and has been lacking in President Bush, who saves time by ascribing behavior that threatens America to the hatred of freedom or (and this is a real time saver) to evil. As Morgenthau saw, exploring the root causes of bad behavior, far from being a sentimentalist weakness, informs the deft use of power. Realpolitik is reality-based.
Is progressive realism salable? The administrations post-9/11 message may be more viscerally appealing: Rid the world of evil, and do so with bravado and intimidating strength. But this approach has gotten some negative feedback from the real world, and there is a growing desire for America to regain the respect President Bush has squandered. Maybe Americans are ready to meet reality on its own terms.

This course is my major course. Please do not copy and paste. If you do that I will fail this course. When you need some helps, please put references or work cites.
This is a topic.
The "neoconservative" thrust in American foreign policy, including unilateralism, regime change and democracy promotion, by force if necessary, has been somewhat discredited in Iraq but is by no means defunct. Some 'neocons' hold that "benign hegemony" is still a valid objective, and that the war in Iraq has gone badly simply because of ineptitude. But there are other concepts on which policy might be based: Isolationism, a return to realism(as suggested by Henry Kissinger), or a liberal, "soft-power" emphasis(as advocated by Joseph Nye) are being openly discussed by scholars and journalists, if not within the Bush administration.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these several policy options? Please discuss specific risks or benefits that they might imply.

This is an essay addressing your view towards the early twentieth-century American foreign policy in the Caribbean Basin. Take a stand as to whether or not you feel the policy was dominated by economic concerns. The two proposed views come from that of Walter LaFeber, from Inevitable Revolutions: The US in Central America(W.W. Norton, 1983) and that od David Healy from Drive to Hegemony: The US in the Caribbean, 1898-1917

ISSUE SUMMARY FROM THE BOOK
Yes: Professor of history Walter LaFeber argues that the US developed a foreign policy that deliberately made the Caribbean nations its economic dependents from the early ninteenth century on.

No: Professor of history David Healy maintains that the two basic goals of American foreign policy in the Caribbean were to provide security against the German threat and to develop the economies of the Latin American nations , whose peoples were considered to be racially inferior.

**Note from the instructor**
Issue #3 addresses the idea of American imperialism, political and economic hegemony, and military intervention.

Was early twentieth-century American foreign policy in the Caribbean Basin dominated by economic concerns? Students might be able to draw analogies between events of this period and more recent conflicts in the Middle East.

Choose a position of yes or no. Then write a 300-600 word response explaining which side you believe is stronger and why you believe this.

Be sure to:

Identify the issue itself,
The authors of the clashing sides,
The reasons you chose one side over the other
The noteworthy points of the side you did not choose.
Please demonstrate your understanding of the entire articles and not just the introductions. The instructor has already made up his mind regarding where he stands on each issue, but there is no right or wrong answer, so don't worry about reaching the correct answer.

My reference: Madaras, larry. Taking Sides. Dbuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2006. 36-46. Print

** FYI: I have prefaced this class(to the instructor) that I have a very limited knowledge about American History.

**Let me know if you need anything else!! I appreciate you tackling this today!!! It is due by midnight...SSorry I procrastinated:)
There are faxes for this order.

The title of the Metodology is :"The Age of Change: American foreign policy towards the Middle East under Obama (discourse analysis)."
The scope of the methodology is to analyze if and how the American foreign policy towards the Middle East (Iran, The Arab-Israeli Conflict and Lebanon ) has changed since Obama has been elected President. Is Obama following a new policy towards the Middle East or is he following Bush's lead?
The analysis must be an assessment of Obama's speeches and actions since his election from newspapers such as The New York Times.

Discuss and describe in detail the role that ideology played in the conduct of U.S. Foreign relations since the end of the American revolution. What are Hunt's 3 core ideas and how have they each influenced American foreign policy? In detailing each core idea, please make sure you discuss a specific historical event that can be used to illustrate each idea. Assess the validity of Hunt's argument. Do you think he is correct to reduce the history of american foreign relations to 3 core ideas? Defend to argument in detail.

The sources that must be used are: Michael Hunt's Ideology and U.S. Foreign policy
Walter LaFeber's the American age U.S. Foreign policy at home and abroad (2nd. Ed).

Three additional sources can be used.

Please select ONE QUESTION as the essay from the 8 questions listed below:

1. How important is soft power in US foreign policy? Has this changed after the events of 9/11?

2. How effective is diplomacy as a US foreign policy instrument in the absence of the threat or actual use of force?

3. Critically assess the importance of nationalism in US foreign policy.

4. How great an impact do US foreign policy requirements have on its domestic policies? Discuss with reference to economic and security issues.

5. How compatible are the political and economic interests of the US? Has this changed following the events of 9/11?

6. Critically assess the impact of public opinion on US foreign policy. Has its impact increased or decreased following the Cold War?

7. What is the impact of globalization on American foreign policy? Discuss with respect to security and economic issues.

8. How much of an impact on US foreign policy does the president have? Do the views and interests of particular presidents matter, or are presidents constrained by Congress and the bureaucracy?

Answer the following five essay questions.

1. Explain the development of containment after World War ll and the reasons for conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.

2. What happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis and why is it an important case of Cold War confrontation?

3. Explain how the United States got into conflict in Vietnam and how did the U.S. end is role in Indochina?

4. Samantha Power discusses several issues of human rights since the 1970s. Select one of these issues on---Cambodia, Rwanda, or Bosnia and explain what policies the United States pursued and the limitations of American and other outside actions.

5. What were the major issues of American foreign policy in the 1950s? Justify your response by addressing the significance of each.

This is a midterm critical essay. No additional bibliography is required, you can use it but is not required.

Im studying at a school that has a critical view on international affairs. Thus, the midterm paper should be a critical essay.

The instructions are : "Which of the aspects in conflict prevention theory can we use to improve U.S Foreign Policy and influence around the world?"

I will send the readings provided in class so far. The essay should take these readings into consideration; however, this paper should take a critical approach on were American Foreign Policy has failed to prevent current global conflicts.

Some issues could be : Social uprisings, economic crisis , Austerity measures, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan (Middle East-US relations in general) transatlantic relationship with Europe, imperialism, etc. There are many problems in the world today and the US and its Foreign Policy has failed to prevent and solve such issues. Actually, the U.S has contributed to all of them. Some examples of conflict prevention that will be explained on the readings are: Early warning, Humanitarian Intervention, Prevention Diplomacy, etc

I am an international student. And, as you can see, I don't speak perfect English. Even though I always have someone review my papers, the teacher knows I don't have a perfect vocabulary.

So, as a summary, the paper should analyze current global problems , say where the U.S has failed to prevent them or has created them, and what can the U.S take from Conflict Prevention Theory in order to improve the situation.

I hope I have made myself clear. Sorry if the grammar is not perfect or I'm not making sense... Let me know if you have any questions.


There are faxes for this order.

The title of the research proposal is: "The age of change:American foreign policy towards teh Middle East under Obama (a discourse analysis)".

One of the main themes of Obama's campaign was "change", including a rejection of Goerge W.Bush's "ideological" approach to foreign policy, in favor of "pragmatism".He has enunciated for Middle East policy based on multilateralism, and negotiations to deal with Iran, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since his election as the president of the United States how has his foreign policy approach towards the Middle East been different than Bush's?What has he done different?
Obama's seemingly new tough approach with Israel,in the establishment of peace between Israel and the Palestinians that has become almost symbolic of the US relationship with the Muslim world,signalled a new phase in the peace process.So, how has his approach been different from George Bush's in acheiving peace? Moreover, what is Obama's policy regarding Iran ad its nuclear program?

The research proposal must include:
1)Introduction
2)The purpose of the study(which explains the main aim of the research and must include the main question of the research)
3)The importance of the study ( mentioning why is it important to understand Obama's foreign policy towards the Middle East)
4)Time Framework ( the research will analyse Obama's actions since his election as the president of the United States and what is expected from him in the future)
5)Literature review (since the research is a discourse analysis , along with the opinions of political analysts,the literature review must include an analysis of what was written about Obama's foreign policy towards the Middle East in the newspapers such as the washington post)
6)Methodology ( this part must talk about the theoretical framework of the research, and how an answer will be reached).

These are possible essay questions for a final exam. Of the eight questions listed, please choose only four to answer, and please make each answer 2.5 pages long. Of the four questions you choose to answer, please choose the four you find yourself most capable of answering.

1. What were the initial aims, scope and means of the containment policy? How and why did strategy of containment evolve over time from Truman to Reagan? What were its major strengths and flaws?

2. What were the major reasons for the Cuban Missile crisis? Could the crisis have been avoided? Evaluate the management of the crisis by the U.S. and the Soviet leadership. What were the lessons of the crisis for American, Soviet and European leaders?

3. What were the reasons for American intervention in Vietnam? Why did each president from Truman to Nixon regard Vietnam as important to the United States? What are the lessons of the Vietnam War and what are its consequences
for American foreign policy?

4. Identify and evaluate some of the major contending arguments explaining the end of the Cold War. What role did American containment policy play in the transformation of Soviet foreign policy under Gorbachev?

5. Discuss major international challenges the U.S. faced during the 1990s. What were major achievements and failures of the American foreign policy in that period?

6. Identify and evaluate major features of the Bush Doctrine and the neoconservative moment in American foreign policy. How do neoconservatives and the Vulcans fit into competing American foreign policy traditions?

7. Since the Cold Wars end, some international relations theorists and strategic analysts have argued that the United States will not fall victim to the fate of past hegemons (who either overstretched themselves or caused a counterhegemonic backlash). According to others, the arguments in favor of U.S. hegemonic exceptionalism are weak and American hegemonic grand strategy is not sustainable. Discuss/evaluate both points of view and their implications for American foreign policy.

8. Evaluate and compare visions of the future American grand strategy articulated by Josef Joffe and Christopher Layne.

This essay needs to answer these two questions about American National Security: What are the dangers associated with employing military forces in a compellent role? What nonmilitary factors of national power can be employed in a compellent role?

Please use Chicago Manual style footnotes. 5 to 6 pages. No definite number of sources needed, but here is a good start:


Nye, Joseph, Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Political Science Quartery, Vol. 19 No. 2 (2004) pp. 255-270).

Nye, Joseph, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, (Public Affairs Publishers: New York, 2004).

Schelling, Thomas, Arms and Influence, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966).

Treverton, Gregory, Framing Compellent Strategies, (Washington, D.C.: RAND Monograph Report, 2000).

Art, Robert J. Coercive Diplomacy: What Do We Know? In The United States and Coercive Diplomacy, edited by Robert J. Art and Patrick M. Cronin, 359-420. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2003.

Hastedt, Glenn P. American Foreign Policy. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008.

Sarkesian, Sam C., John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala. U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes and Politics. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008.
There are faxes for this order.

Excesses both of hope and fear, especially the American inclination to see good in certain nations or movements and evil in others, can lead us into unhappy conflicts. Our
crusading zeal may have contributed much to the world, but it is time we saw the menace to peace that it also contains." - Professor John K. Fairbank, 1971. To what
degree, and to what extent, did American foreign policies between 1945-1965 substantiate Professor Fairbank's comment? In constructing your essay refer to the specific areas below: Brazil Colombia Ecuador Guyana Suriname Uruguay Venezuela.

Resources should be trusted sources, no wikipedia references.

This is what is required: All students have to submit one research paper at the end of the semester. Topic: The topic of the term paper is the domestic sources of American foreign policy. You must choose one historical event where U.S. foreign policy was deeply engaged (e.g. the Vietnam War, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Iraq War) and explain it with the domestic sources of American foreign policy such as societal aspects, institutional sources, or the individual factors. You can also combine more than two different domestic sources for the explanation.

Answer the following five essay questions using the APA style. Please write atleast 2 pages on each question.

1. Why did the United States go to war in 1898 and what were the consequences of the war?

2. What were the significant issues of American foreign policy under President Theodore Roosevelt? Explain.

3. What questions are raised about America?s response to genocide and humanitarian crises? Explain.

4. What were the issues between 1939 and 1941 that led to American involvement in World War II and what were the major issues of the war? Explain.

5. Explain the major foreign policy problems of the Wilson years, especially the issues related to World War l.

There are two questions that needs to be answered. There are a total of 6 pages and for each question.
1. Discuss America's place in the world just before and then a change after WWII. Explain how and why America got into WWII?What shaped American foreign policy after that and what were the effects of the Truman Doctrine on the beginnings of the Cold War in the late 1940's. How did a policy of containment work at home and abroad? What did former CIA agent John Stockwell mean by "third world war" when addressing U.S. foreign affairs after WWII? What evidence supports such a claim? What conflicts/wars resulted and what was their outcome? Was this policy successful? Why and/or why not? What patterns of mistakes were repeated tracing from Vietnam to Iraq? Do these undermine or further American Hegemony? Explain. Are these wars of the past ongoing under a new title, "the war on terrorism?" Support all statements and be specific. (3 pages)
2. The Great Depression was a worldwide development. Discuss the causes of it in the U.S. and then FDR's answer in 1933. What was the New Deal and what were its numerous programs and provisions? Include elements of relief, recovery, and reform. What was its purpose-progressive or pragmatic- was it radical or a reaction and did it end the depression for America? Did it have historical precedent and did it spawn any future movements? Be specific. (3 pages)