Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: American history
The advent of the interagency process coincided with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. This landmark legislation dramatically altered the landscape of the federal government at the dawn of the Cold War. Although various presidential administrations adjusted their foreign policy methods to meet their own requirements, this act established the basic framework of coordination necessary for America’s position as a global superpower.
Why have the national security advisor and the NSC staff become so prominent in the formulation of foreign policy?
The 65-year evolution of the National Security Advisor (NSA) and the National Security Council (NSC) staff into an influential shaper of US foreign policy reflects an acceptance by successive iterations of national leadership that America’s place in the world necessitates a small, yet decisive body capable of producing viable options to deal with a complex world. Although its prominence has ebbed and flowed from administration to administration (and even within individual terms of office), the overall assessment remains that the NSC staff, and by extent the NSA, stand as “attractive tool[s]” for presidential political and policy maneuverings. Their importance is also rooted in historical reasons as well.
The major rise of American foreign influence, and thus the need for cohesive foreign policy, materialized just prior to WWII, and prompted the powerful Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, to advocate interdepartmental coordination between the State, War, and Navy entities. The subsequent global (and total) victories by the Allies in WWII heavily influenced the main crafters of foreign policy by demonstrating that military power and international obligations held muc...
... middle of paper ...
... of the government to meet an evolving terror threat actually ends up masking the far more important government responsibility for overall national preparedness, not just guarding against terrorism. The billions of dollars and staggering amount of effort spent on crafting the mushrooming homeland defense/homeland security enterprise certainly helped plug some existing holes, but the rampant inefficiency continues to be a point of contention today. The overly broad notions of counter-terrorism and homeland defense means “any expense can be justified” as proven by the decade long rise in DHS budgets and numerous instances of wasteful spending. The headfirst plunge into the world of homeland security was a uniquely American undertaking. No other nation possessed the fiscal means to enact such drastic measures on so many levels, and in such a short amount of time.
In the book, America’s Great War: World War I and the American Experience, Robert H. Zieger discusses the events between 1914 through 1920 forever defined the United States in the Twentieth Century. When conflict broke out in Europe in 1914, the President, Woodrow Wilson, along with the American people wished to remain neutral. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century United States politics was still based on the “isolationism” ideals of the previous century. The United States did not wish to be involved in European politics or world matters. The U.S. goal was to expand trade and commerce throughout the world and protect the borders of North America.
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
The Monroe Doctrine reflected the concerns and ambitions of a fledgling nation that was brave enough to declare its sovereignty on the world stage. The Doctrine, in stating that European powers ought not to intervene in America’s affairs, established the US as a world power, although one that had inadequate, hemispheric aspirations. However, these aspirations would extend, and in future years the Doctrine would substantiate its usefulness for interventionists, as well as protectionists. Being conceivably the most distinguishable and the most revered as regards principles of diplomacy, the doctrine’s influence on the popular imagination was so great that it described the limits of standard decisions on policy, in turn influencing the choice of preferences that US Presidents had for most of the last two centuries.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicate the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a summation and conclusion.
Henry A. Kissinger, perhaps one of the most powerful American diplomats of the twentieth century, remarked that in his time, “[George F. Kennan] came as close to authoring the diplomatic doctrine of his era as any diplomat in our history” (Kissinger, 1979: 135). It is interesting to note, however, Kissinger’s appraisal of the doctrine as being a success in his time—not all time, and perhaps not even in Kissinger’s time. Despite the relative absence of scholarly consensus surrounding the body of thought that has become Kennan’s strategic canon, few could plausibly deny that Kennan had a profound impact on the exercise of American foreign policy during the Cold War.
During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will analyze: the expanding role and use of power of the President; weak Congressional legislative policies that empower the executive; and the Supreme Court’s role legitimizing the autonomy of Presidential war making.
David Reynolds has written and enlightening book named “From Munich to Pearl Harbor” discussing three main objectives dealing with World War II. The first of the three objectives is to provide a detailed and clear narrative story from the years between Munich to Pearl Harbor. The second of the three purposes or objectives of the book is to analyze and show how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the American people into a new perspective on international relations that were different from anything Americans had known. The last of the three objectives of the book is to show the developments between the years of 1938 through 1941. Many of these developments were very important later for the foreign policy of the United States not only during the Second World War but also during the Cold War complications with Russia and today with President Bush’s war on terror currently taking place in Iraq.
Hawley, C. (2003). U.S. foreign policy. Encyclopedia of American history: Expansion and reform, 1813-1855, 4, Retrieved August 14, 2008, from Facts on File: American History Online database.
Watson, Robert P., Devine, Michael J. and Wolz, Robert J. eds., The National Security Legacy
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
...the nation’s critical infrastructure. With the creation of the DHS the government has shown that they are investing money and resources into protecting our nation’s infrastructure.
Another quote that shows this is, “Preventing further attacks requires the U.S. to drop its law-enforcement approach to terrorism and recognize that we are at war” (9/11). To stop attacks like 9/11 from occurring, people need to see that the U.S. isn’t only under attack, but at war as well with the terrorists. Slowly, the country and its citizens are realizing this. The counterclaim for this argument is, “The work of public officials allowed us to ask if the country overreacted to 9/11. Providing counter terrorism has increased costs more than what was expected” (9/11).