Therefore, any war waged on a terrorist group then becomes a war to protect the personal liberties of those who can not do so themselves.
However, the United States itself has not even been able to stand up to the standards of liberated individual rights. Within the context of the most recent foreign soil wars, American soldiers in a military base have proven that the nation itself is unable to live up to its high standards of personal liberty. In a prisoner of war camp located at a military base in Guantanamo Bay, American soldiers violated international prison code standard during a humiliating act of submission where prisoners were forced to perform unlawful acts and behaviors at the behest of the soldiers on duty, (Sullivan, 2008). The very rights which were being so violently being protected in the eyes of the American public were actually being violated in our backyard. Despite the Bush administration's effort to promote the fight for individual freedoms, a military base under their jurisdiction was the scene of a huge international scandal which highlighted the United State's blatant disregard for individual human freedoms, (Sullivan, 2008). Suspected terrorists were being held at a foreign location and then being forced against their will by American prison staff to perform humiliating actions on film. After the break of the scandal hit newsstands, the current presidential administration only strengthened their devotion to pursuing international human rights, as well as the legal punishment of those who had embarrassed them with the true nature of United States' involvement in the revocation of those rights which many have fought so hard for.
One of the most debated sources of United States foreign policy has been the current conflict with the various conflicts with the once unified nation of Iraq. Since the beginning of one of the most controversial wars in the beginning of the twenty-first century, both American citizens and foreign nations have questions the true motives and desires behind the initial invasion of Iraq.
The conflict, which began first from an American pre-emptive strike on the nation of Iraq, has lasted much longer than previously expected and has caused the death of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens. What was the justification of our entry into this war, which has proven to be much more complicated than earlier expected by the Bush administration? According to official reasons for American involvement, Saddam Hussein was initially targeted due to his connections with terrorist activities and general threats to the American democracy which had been so popular world wide.
Being the first war the United States has started without a previous reason to do so, it has been a constant source of conflict and scandal.
Another prominent example of the most recent adaptations to United States foreign policy is the modern American stance on free trade in a way to both justify and promote capitalism within the context of the international agenda. According to White House administrators, free trade leads to a much safer America due to a more stabilized world. When a country's economy is strong and stabilized, that nation becomes less of a potential threat for revolutions and political coups, (National Security Council, 2008). This administration has promised to help lift up other nation's economies via "economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth," (Whithouse.gov, 2008). This is also an example of the administration's attempt to publicly prove their concern for third world nations who play a large role in the economy of the United States. According to the administration, the United States in devoted to encouraging a more stable economy in order to help further efforts to end poverty in nations constantly troubled with the effects of an unstable economy. Currently, millions of American dollars are being spent on engaging in the economies of other nations. A 2005 article written by Steven Radelet posits about $16.3 billion dollars of American money, made up mostly of individual tax dollars, to rejuvenating international economies with ties to the United States economy. This contribution to foreign economies made up about twenty-five percent of all the money raised and donated to third world economies throughout the world, (Radelet, 2005). Where is this money going exactly? Based on estimated numbers of the money donated during the 2003-2003 seasons, that was about $51 per citizen (Radelet, 2005). Although this number does seem pretty significant coming from an American's citizen view, we are still far behind the $381 per month each citizen in Norway donates to foreign aid. Current administration press led us to believe that the United States is the top dog in terms of monetary donations and humanitarian aid, yet we fall significantly behind most prominent European powers, (Radelet, 2005). Americans do not spend nearly as much as the rest of the first world countries around the nation do on foreign aid for healthcare, democracy endeavors, and other efforts to further the improvement of life in foreign nations who would not be able to do so on their own.
Another major concern in the efforts of engaging in other economies via free trade is the idea of a modern imperialism taking hold within the context of the nations which are promised to be lifted out of an economic decline through the inclusion into United States' global economic efforts. In order to qualify for inception within the idea of free trade, the country must have positive American relations, and give up a certain amount of financial decisions to the United States in order to be fully included into the economical gold mine which is the opportunity to trade with the extremely capitalistic American market. This gives the United States much more say within the local governments of particular nations which have entered into business with the United States via the push towards free trade.
However, this large scale effort to bump up the economies of foreign nations has had several real life negative consequences. With more and more money invested within the economies of budding democratic nations, the United States has more and more influence within the governmental functions of that nation. Therefore, many have come to view the U.S. involvement within the idea of free trade as another more modern form of imperialism, which allows further U.S. control of nations who are seen as unable to fully control them. Although every nation involved in free trade has benefited in terms of potential new food sources and higher medical attention via more sophisticated healthcare (Shah, 2006), many countries have then been open for further American pillaging of necessary and therefore valuable resources and man power. With all of its promises of wealth a prominence, capitalism also offers the other side of the spectrum with increased poverty and less equality. This is then solidified through the embodiment of free trade, where the lower scale of the money is then outsourced to nations which are not to the same economic standards as the United States, (Shah, 2006). Basically the ideology of free trade has just opened up cheaper markets to already rich American businesses. Therefore, many nations have to undercut the rights and paychecks of workers in order to provide the United States the cheapest labor or the cheapest product so that America does not venture forth to find a cheaper market. Then, the initial charitable notions of free trade the United States would have had in the original inception of the methodology behind the idea of free trade.
There is also a strong push from the U.S. government to help further the development of democracy within the context of foreign nations. In fact, furthering establishment and success of foreign democracies in areas which were previously in hospitable to democratic development "is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy," (National Security Council, 2008). Several key goals for the general humanitarian effort of the United States are the public context of securing world wide health on an international basis, despite our current regional conflicts. Another main goal of the administration is the further development of agricultural endeavors which would therefore continue to support the foundations of a United States friendly democratic atmosphere. This was in fact a major justification of the onslaught of the Iraqi war. However, is it possible to force a nation into peaceful democracy by use of violent military force? Many critics of modern America foreign policies and decisions have raised the idea that democracy can only successfully come from within, (Stradiotto, 2004). So then, how is Iraq to be successfully molded into a modern democratic nation, much in the image of the American mainland if not by any other means than the citizens voluntarily accepting the principles of Western democracy? As seen in the context of the…