Reagan Doctrine
Scholars studying U.S. foreign relations have long argued that there is great continuity in the conduct of Presidential Administrations. Very often, a policy started by one President continues under the next one. This has especially been the case since World War II. For example, while President Truman began to assist the French to re-take Indochina from local revolutionary forces, in a purported attempt to contain communism, President Eisenhower began to send U.S. advisers to continue the struggle against Communism. President Kennedy escalated it by sending more advisers and President Johnson turned it into a full-scale war. Nevertheless, scholars also note that some Presidents come up with a doctrine that separates them from others. During the Cold War, doctrines pursued by U.S. Presidents, one way or another, dealt with containing Communism. But it was President Reagan who specifically outlined a doctrine, calling for an outright sponsorship of guerilla forces who were trying to overthrow Communist or pro-Soviet regimes (Roskin & Berry, 2012). The pursuit of the doctrine left a mixed legacy, as it has helped end the Soviet regime on the one hand, but also contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Central America on the other.
When Ronald Reagan presided over the Presidency of the United States, the Cold War was at a hot point, both Western and Eastern blocs maintaining a policy of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD), ensuring that an attack by one bloc would provoke a retaliatory strike that would destroy the other. The policy prevented both camps from attacking each other directly. Both the Soviets and the Americans, however, engaged in proxy wars throughout the Third World, supplying their own allies, be they governments or revolutionary forces, with cash, weaponry, and political support. President Reagan entered the Oval Office a few months after the Soviets had demonstrated their resolve by invading Afghanistan. Reagan believed that the policy...
The author explains that is the case because it would lead to complete chaos (Ikenberry 2005). In addition a neo-imperial system of American rule is too expensive and burdened with inconsistencies, and based on an exaggerated accounting of American power (Ikenberry 2005). The asserts that Likewise, there are an array of incentives and impulses that will persuade the United States to try to organize unipolarity around multilateral rules and
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now