US Foreign Policy, Military Power, and Imperial Governance
This paper examines the evolution of US foreign policy from the post-Cold War period through the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It explores how the dissolution of the Soviet Union created a transitional era of ambiguity, during which America struggled to redefine its national interests and global role. The paper analyzes the institutional structures governing US military and foreign policy, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and America's global war on terrorism. It further considers the United States' position as a de facto imperial power, discussing nonproliferation policy, alliance structures, and the tension between democratic principles and the sustained use of military force abroad.
- Introduction: Foundations of US Foreign Policy: Constitutional framework and institutional actors shaping US foreign policy
- The Post-Cold War Transition and Redefined National Interests: Post-Soviet ambiguity and America's search for new foreign policy doctrine
- The September 11 Attacks and the War on Terror: 9/11 as a turning point in US security and global engagement
- US Military Capability and Training Reforms: Post-Vietnam military training reforms and combat readiness
- Imperial Governance: Nonproliferation, Alliances, and Rule-Making: US nonproliferation policy and alliance treaties as imperial instruments
- Sustaining Imperial Power: Limits and Contradictions: Tensions between democratic principles and sustained imperial conduct
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a clear chronological and thematic structure, moving logically from the institutional foundations of US foreign policy through post-Cold War realignment, 9/11, and the concept of imperial governance.
- It grounds abstract policy arguments in concrete examples — specific budget figures, troop counts, alliance treaties, and named operations — which adds credibility and specificity.
- The concluding section raises a genuinely provocative analytical question: whether a democratic nation can sustain the kind of long-term imperial conduct its global position seems to require, leaving the reader with a substantive tension to consider.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of secondary source synthesis to construct a policy narrative. Rather than relying on a single authority, it draws on Rosen, Haass, Gill, and Deutsch to triangulate perspectives on US foreign policy, military reform, and imperial theory. This multi-source approach strengthens the analytical thread running through the paper.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the constitutional and institutional framework governing US foreign policy, then traces the post-Cold War period of strategic ambiguity. It pivots to 9/11 as a defining rupture, examines military training and capability, and then reframes America's global role through the lens of imperial governance — covering nonproliferation, alliance structures, and pre-emptive doctrine. The conclusion questions whether democratic principles are compatible with sustained imperial conduct.
Introduction: Foundations of US Foreign Policy
The government of America exists for its citizens' welfare, an obligation that encompasses responsibility for both internal and external affairs. The key principles of US foreign policy are: defense of the nation's physical territory, safeguarding citizens from attacks by enemies, promoting America's status and economic interests, and advancing the nation's democracy- and freedom-related values across the world. By the end of the twentieth century, US foreign policy entailed relationships with a total of 159 states that were typically competitive, sometimes supportive, and at other times clearly unfriendly (Deutsch, 1997).
The government's executive branch has largely remained in charge of US foreign policy. The President of the United States is accorded constitutional power to forge treaties, command the nation's armed forces, and enter into executive agreements that do not require congressional approval. Consequently, the President is ideally positioned to define and pursue the nation's international aims (Rosen, 2003).
A number of entities advise and attempt to influence the President on matters of foreign policy, including the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, senior citizens, the Council on Foreign Relations, and similar interest groups. Additionally, public opinion shapes foreign policy. The threat of being removed from office for an unpopular decision typically restrains excessively aggressive policymakers (Deutsch, 1997).
The disbanding of the Soviet Union was accompanied by a post-Cold War intermission in the United States, best understood now as a transitional era marked by insecurity, during which the nation struggled to define its role within a global system in which no single existential threat remained.
The culmination of the decades-long Cold War meant that military deterrence was no longer as central to American strategy. Terrorist acts — most notably the September 11, 2001 attacks — emerged as more pressing threats to national security. To safeguard the nation and its citizens against such attacks, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established by Congress in 2002. The Department's mission was to prevent terrorist attacks and aid with recovery efforts should such attacks occur. It consolidated numerous federal organizations, including the US Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Deutsch, 1997).
Thus began America's fight against terrorism, targeting both terrorist organizations and the states that supported them. The foremost action was leading an armed expedition with a global coalition to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist organization based in Afghanistan. Beyond targeting al-Qaeda — which claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks — the mission also aimed at overthrowing the Taliban regime, the Afghan government that had supported and sheltered al-Qaeda. By 2002, that regime had fallen and al-Qaeda fighters had been forced to flee. The United States vowed to continue its struggle against terrorism worldwide (Gill, 1993).
The Department of Defense reflects a consistent ethic of civilian control over the military, with the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the individual service branches all being civilians. The Department originally combined the naval and army departments, integrating them with the Air Force. Over time, however, its structure grew more dispersed, expanding to include organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Agency (NSA) (Rosen, 2003).
The Department of Defense's jurisdiction largely covers the substantial share of tax revenue devoted to military spending. During the latter part of the 1990s, its annual budget exceeded $250 billion. Over three million individuals — both defense force members and civilians — were employed by the Department. The figures for 1998 were: 480,721 individuals actively serving in the US Army; 377,039 in the Naval Forces; 365,639 in the Air Force; and 173,031 in the Marine Corps (Deutsch, 1997).
References
Dougherty, J. E. (1997). Contending theories of international relations: A comprehensive survey. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Gill, S. (Ed.). (1993). Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations (Vol. 26). Cambridge University Press.
Gill, S. (Ed.). (2013). Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations (Vol. 26). Cambridge University Press.
Haass, R. N. (2002). Defining US foreign policy in a post-post-Cold War world: The 2002 Arthur Ross Lecture, remarks to the Foreign Policy Association.
Haass, R. N., & Director, P. P. S. (2002). Defining US foreign policy in a post-post-Cold War world. Remarks to the Foreign Policy Association.
Kroenig, M. (2017). The case for Trump's foreign policy: The right people, the right positions. Foreign Affairs, 96, 30.
Rosen, S. P. (2003). An empire, if you can keep it. The National Interest, (71), 51–61.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.