American Foreign Policy and the War on Terror

In the 21st century, the world is one in chaos- nations go to warfare for the slimmest of reasons, economies can topple overnight, and the invariably-present nemesis of global terrorism holds the precise real potential to kill thousands of innocent people in guileless moments. Meanwhile, the United States holds the precarious position of being the largest and best naturalized power in the world, gen successionting an equal share of admirers and deadly enemies among the nations of the world.This being understood, the question begs as to what present twenty-four hours American hurdles such(prenominal) as the struggle on Terror meet done to change American strange constitution? This re try will attempt to answer this question through with(predicate) a comprehensive comparison of todays foreign policy to that of the noncurrent, to the post and pre-9/11 world, and in conclusion, what all of this means for the future. American international Policy Throughout tale An excelle nt path to see how American abroad Policy has seemingly evolved is to compare it in the modern day to how it functioned in earlier times of modern American history.For example, as the US recovered from the horrors and deprivations of World War II, a really real and unconditioned situation emerged on the foreign policy front. Despite the eradication of national socialism and the defeat of the threat that the Empire of Japan had represented to the US on a global scale, the threat of Communism in the form of the Soviet Union essentially kicked the Cold War into high gear, from the late forties to the mid 1990s.With two superpowers- the US and USSR-both possessing the awesome power to literally end the planet through the use of nuclear weapons, there was a vested affair in both nations, while maintaining a defensive position against separately different, avoiding armed conflict at all costs (Jenkins, 2006). Therefore, decades of stalemates existed until the Communist governing of the USSR collapsed under its own weight and unwieldy power. In contrast, terrorism is much of an invisible enemy, albeit just as deadly as every oppose nation.Because of the difficulty in identifying exactly who terrorists are, from where they have come, and how they can be observe against, it seems that the only way for a meaningful American foreign policy on this front to exist would be for the usual avenues of diplomacy, adherence to established rules and convention to be set aside- the governmental equivalent of taking glum the gloves (Harding, 2004). Given such a scenario, it is possible to offend understand the shifting of American Foreign Policy in a modern era of terror. Post and Pre- 9/11 American Foreign PolicyOn a clear, snappish day in September, 2001, the US was changed forever with the brutal terrorist attacks on invigorated York, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, the nations capital. This change not only realized the ways that Americans viewed each other a nd the safety level in their very own country, but the change also effected the way that the US created and carried out foreign policy. Earlier, the point was made that a crowd against terrorists is immensely different than the battle against an organize, uniformed enemy and this calls for measures far different than ever carried out forward.Perhaps it was easier for foreign policy to take shape in the eld when the enemy was clearly identified and the US faced very teeny challenge to its power, anywhere in the world. However, once enemies began to come out of the shadows, and what were previously small, insignificant nations such as China, North Korea and India rose to levels of military, financial and diplomatical significance, the US was forced to reexamine foreign policy and adjust whence (Washington Times, 2007).With so many formidable nations on the international radar diffuse of sorts, every live on that America made had to be studied before played out, much deal a c hess match, where each move could have a devastating response from an opponent. With such nations rising to prominence, their cultural, racial and religious differences also became more pronounced than ever before because in the past, these diverse nations were all somewhat insulated from one another due to the softness to lay claim to any kind of international clout.With the attainment of such clout, however, opposing nations began to clash on fundamental differences, and the US stood in the eye of it. In generations gone by, the US would have been able to plainly quality in and dictate how the disputes would be resolved, but that was essentially no more, and the US would essentially have to worry to the highest degree retribution from both organized nations and the terrorists that hid in the shadows, ready to strike (Jenkins, 2006).This new era of American Foreign Policy would likewise bring forth another issue- aside from merely maintaining clout on the world diplomatic stag e, how could a nation like the US promote democracy as it had in the past? American gallantism, Pre and Post-Terror A key to the ongoing power of the American nation throughout its history has always been the ability to parlay military power into a means of spreading democracy across the globe, operating under the precede that if an opponent could not be defeated, they could be swayed more to the American way of thinking and thereby draw them closer to the alliance of the United States.After 9/11, however, all of this changed as well, as the US became diverted by the fight to protect its own native soil. Here, a great deal of argument began to brew, and it continues today. The chaos that terrorism created in the US gave prexy George W. Bush and his validation the unique ability, under the premise of fighting terrorism and protecting the nation, to device foreign policy with a dangerously sharp edge on it- policy, which essentially gave Bush permission to destroy any internatio nal crick in search of a few small needles, as the search for terrorists often seems.Also, using the reasoning that the US needed to continue to have a free flow of oil from the volatile Middle East, policy which put the US on the offensive rather than the defense of the past likewise made it possible for US troops to be deployed to any nation that supposedly harbored terrorists or posed some type of threat to American interests (Fouskas, et al, 2005). This has, in recent years, generated resentment not only from other nations, but from the American people as well, evidenced by President Bush having the lowest public approval numbers of any prexy in history. ConclusionTo sum up this research, what can be said about American Foreign Policy in relation to the War on Terror? In summary, what can be said is this- policy has seemed to jump-start as of late, focusing more on the interests of wealthy oil companies than the median(a) American citizen and their need to be protected from terror. Therefore, what needs to be about watched as the 21st century unfolds for America is that policy comes back to better mirror liberty and justice-for all. Works Cited Foreign Policy Adrift?. (2007, marching music 19). The Washington Times, p. A16. Fouskas, V. K. , & Gokay, B. (2005).The New American Imperialism Bushs War on Terror and simple eye for Oil. Westport, CT Praeger Security International. Harding, B. (2004). An Orwellian Moment The Myth of American Multilateralism Bruce Harding Reflects on the State of US Foreign Policy, in Terms of Its Self-Interest and Imperial Anchoring, as This Relates to the Current Administrations New Security Strategy and the War on Terror. New Zealand International Review, 29(3), 23+. Jenkins, G. (2006, June). From Kennedys Cold War to the War on Terror Gareth Jenkins Looks for Continuities in American Foreign Policy from the 1960s to the 2000s. History Today, 56, 39+.