Despite possessing overwhelming military power, the United States has sometimes struggled to achieve political objectives for a variety of reasons: first, the U.S. changes its administration every four to eight years and this means a new approach to policy is brought in each time, which makes it difficult for a consistent international policy to take hold. Second, if “strategy is a concept for relating means to ends,”[footnoteRef:2] the means (military power) may stay the same but the ends are changing every time power changes hands, which means strategy is always undergoing redevelopment. Thus, the political objectives are not achieved because the objectives may change along with strategy. Third, the global opinion towards the U.S. has itself changed over time, meaning that allies are more and more hesitant to work with the U.S. after the disastrous Iraq War and the bungling of the Libyan regime change and the Syrian intervention. The Muslim population is divided in its stance towards the U.S. Saudi Arabia remains an ally, but one that is also open to working with Russia. Turkey is openly being courted by Russia. Iran is openly antagonistic towards the U.S. As Mary Habeck notes, the U.S. has many enemies that want to see the U.S. brought low for all of its meddling in the Middle East.[footnoteRef:3] For these reasons, the U.S. has sometimes struggled to achieve its political objectives. [2: Carl H. Builder, “The Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis,” 2.] [3: Mary Habeck, “Why They Did It,” Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror, 1..
As Gray points out, there is a “multiplicity and sheer variety of sources of friction” in the U.S. when it comes to developing policy.[footnoteRef:4] The variety of sources are there because there are so many different moving parts to the problem of establishing and pursuing political objectives. There is the State Department, the military, the intelligence community, the White House, Congress, and business interests—and all have roles...…achieve international political objectives, it requires stability, consistency of vision, coherent and consistent strategy, and support from allies around the world. In recent years, the U.S. has faced challenges in every one of these areas. The White House changes hands every four to eight years and was constantly undergoing shifts in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, there is a political outsider in the White House, which has impacted how strategy and objectives are determined. It has also led to more allies asking questions about what the U.S. is doing. So in spite of the nation’s military power, the struggle to achieve political objectives remains—for one cannot simply make war and expect one’s desired outcomes to come about. Iraq, Libya and Syria have shown that to be the case. The U.S. has waged war in the Middle East for years, and yet terrorism remains and unless the U.S. objective was to destabilize the region it is difficult to say what the gain was.

Bibliography

Builder, Carl H.…