U.S. Foreign Policy US Middle

U.S. Foreign Policy

US Middle East Foreign Policy

The United States (U.S.) as the sole superpower in a multipolar world system operates under its own set of rules and guided by the character of its people and values set by its culture and leaders. These qualities are manifested in the U.S. foreign policy on specific countries across regions. Foreign policies are decisions undertaken by a particular country in terms of its political and economic transactions as well as military actions towards another sovereign state.

Foreign policies are determined largely by the directions set by the Chief Executive; these directions on the other hand are conditioned by the pursuit of economic gain, political power and national security. One component of U.S. foreign policy deals with actual military intervention. This approach was manifested in the U.S. action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Rationalized within the veil of the war on terrorism, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to cull out the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. This paper explores the implications of U.S. foreign policy specifically the war on terror. It identifies and operationalizes theories of international relations as applied on U.S. foreign policy as well as prospects amidst the direction set by the Obama administration.

In a country like Afghanistan, where the concept of the nation has developed recently, where the state is seen external to society and where people's allegiance is directed primarily towards the local community, the only thing which all Afghans have in common is Islam. (Roy, 1986 p.30).

In examining the political system of Afghanistan and the role of the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), it would be noteworthy to trace its history. Katzman (2008) provided a background of Afghanistan before the rise of the Taliban. Katzman revealed that during the regime of Zahir Shah (1933-1973), the national legislature was established and the women enjoyed considerable freedom in society. Shah was overthrown by his cousin Mohammad Daoud who established a dictatorship. In 1978, Daoud was killed and replaced by communist military officer led by Nur Mohammad Taraki. Hafizullah Amin replaced Taraki a year after. Both leaders imposed socialist reforms that include land redistribution and empowering women. It was at this point that Islamic parties planned to replace government.

In December 27, 1979, the U.S.S.R. sent it military forces to mitigate the Islamic groups from taking over government. Upon the Soviet occupation installed Babrak Karmal as Afghanistan's head of state. Katzman disclosed that the Soviet backed Afghan government had to contend with the rival mujahedin, a rebel group sponsored by the U.S. After years of fighting losses within the U.S.S.R.'s military ranks took its toll and in April 14, 1988, USSR through Mikhail Gorbechev agreed to a UN brokered accord - the Geneva Accords which provided for the U.S.S.R.'s troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. On September 13, 1991, Moscow and Washington agreed to joint cutoff of military aid to the Afghan combatants.

The Taliban became the governing power in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, holding power in parts of the country in 1994 and extending its range of control through the remainder of the decade. In November 2000, the Taliban forces were reported to have 95% of the country under their control. The name Taliban means "students of Islam" and the Taliban's governing policies have reflected its particular fundamentalist view of Islam filtered through the perspectives afforded by Pashtun culture. The Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and the ethnic group from which the Taliban movement has drawn many supporters. Before the emergence of the Taliban, Afghanistan was a religiously tolerant society in which the Sunni Muslim majority co existed with Sufis, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jews.

Although divided by clan and ethnic divisions and complicated by the maneuverings of superpower and regional rivalries, Afghanistan's political process was not characterized by political persecution. Taliban fundamentalism is based on deobandism. This school of thought opposes the equality of women with men. It likewise favors clan authority over religious authority. The Taliban interpreted deobandism along purist and extremist lines which at the end violated the integrity of the religion. With the Taliban regime in play, men were required to grow beards; women were prohibited to educational institutions and to practice their professions. Most games, photography and non-religious holidays were not allowed by the Taliban government. These policies as the Taliban contend were based on religion. (Rashid, 2000 pp. 88-90).

The Clinton administration became concern with the Taliban primarily because of its support for the terrorist group-al Qaeda. The U.S. wanted Afghanistan to surrender Osama bin Laden. The U.S. imposed sanctions against Afghanistan and fired cruise missiles at identified al Qaeda camps in an effort to flush out bin Laden. Katzman (2009) opined that the Clinton administration officials say that they did not try to oust the Taliban militarily because domestic and international support for doing so was lacking. (p.5).

The 9/11 attacks sowed rage in the hearts of the Americans. President Bush lost no time in declaring war against terror. He also made it clear that the United States would retaliate against terrorists. When the fundamentalist Taliban regime ignored Bush's ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden and shut down Al Queda operations in Afghanistan, the United States orchestrated a large scale military invasion with the intention of bringing down the regime change and hunting down bin Laden and his Al Queda confederates. The UN Security Council gave the United States a green light, and world public opinion overwhelmingly supported military action against the repressive Taliban. But for Bush overthrowing the Taliban and destroying the al Queda training camps in Afghanistan was only the first step. There still existed an "axis of evil" that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea. These countries, he alleged, were abetting international terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the Bush administration alleged that Iraq already possessed such weapons. (Magstadt 2009 p.602).

One applicable theory in International Relations to U.S. policy towards Afghanistan would be the theory of realism. Grisby (1999) suggests that realism adheres to a point-of-view that interests of governments are best promoted when governments gain and hold power relative to other states. Grisby stressed that power includes military and economic power. States that neglect the task of acquiring and maintaining power are vulnerable to attack by other states. Thus, Grisby emphasized that from a realist standpoint government security is understood primarily as military security not quality of life security. While to is clear not in the national interest of states to maximize their power to the point of actually provoking attacks by other governments, it is in the interest of states to have military power sufficient. Grisby adds that to realists, basing foreign policy on strategic military objectives is thoroughly rational, in part because governments exist in relations of international anarchy and anarchical conditions are prone to conflict. According to realists, because international organizations such as the United Nations lack the capacity to actually implement rules independently of the wishes of powerful governments, such organizations cannot be counted to implement decisive roles in international politics.

One of the major implications of realism is the notion that moral principles cannot outweigh military security in international decision-making. Given the conditions of anarchy, governments cannot afford to emphasize ethics at the expense of their own security needs. Governments tend to behave similarly whatever their respective ideologies. Under conditions of international anarchy, democratic governments are under the same pressures to survive, as are non-democratic governments. Hence, both types of governments will likely respond in similar fashion to similar international pressures. (Rosenthal, 1991).

With the Obama presidency, it was apparent that there will be substantial changes in the U.S. foreign policy towards Afghanistan. Katzman (2009) cited that although most U.S. officials and commanders agree that U.S. strategy must go beyond adding U.S. troops to include enhancing non-military steps that include economic development and improved coordination among international donors, building local governing structures and reform of the Afghan central government. Katzman reiterated that although U.S. officials have become disillusioned with the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, some experts believe there is substantial progress to build on, including completion of the post-Taliban political transition with the convening of a parliament following parliamentary elections in September 2005, presidential elections in October 2004 and adoption of a new constitution in January 2004. The parliament has become an arena for formerly armed factions to resolve differences, as well as a center of political pressure on Karzai. Katzman pointed out that with international and Afghan criticism on the current leadership is rising; the upcoming elections slated on August 2009 would be a litmus test for the legitimacy of Karzai's government.

The Taliban movement has represented an important phenomenon in recent international relations and with implications that go much wider than Afghanistan. Through its extreme radicalism, it has taken on a symbolic role in confronting the dominant position of the U.S. By its assertion of an alternative value system and its uncompromising determination to impose its value system on the entire country at the expense of any material benefits that might accrue from a greater level of engagement with the international community, it has made itself almost invulnerable to Western pressures. 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 martyr themselves for as long as there are legitimate grievances against the U.S. And other countries. It is therefore in the interest of the Americans that actions are taken by its government that seek to address both the legitimate concerns of moderate elements within the Islamic world and American's own relative ignorance as to what is happening in the world beyond the U.S. (Marsden, 2002 pp. 153-155).