Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
War impacts
Us relationship with the middle east
Us relationship with the middle east
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: War impacts
The recent presidential elections have highlighted international policies, and the support or disapproval of government action overseas, such as the Iraq war. As supportment over the Iraq war has led to questions over United States involvement in the Middle East. Americans today tend to strongly believe on one stance or another, however there is indecisiveness over the more recent question if the United States should remain in the Middle East, especially when it comes to the issues of geopolitics, radical organizations, and an in-depth look at current United States policies.
When it comes to the topic of the Middle East, most economists would agree that oil has been a central focus of United States affairs. This is in part due to the dependence
…show more content…
As President Barack Obama has implemented a policy of strategic absence in Northern Africa and the Middle East. As Paul Williams emphasizes in his writing “President Obama’s Approach to the Middle East and North Africa: Strategic Absence” defines the term strategic absence as. “ The term Strategic Absence is used to describe political behavior that arises from a belief that sometimes, in foreign affairs, it is better to be absent rather than present.” (President Obama’s Approach to the Middle East and North Africa: Strategic Absence). However this policy has been disastrous to multiple nations, and caused severe problems such as Yemen becoming a power-struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that has led to air-strikes killing numerous citizens, tensions between Tunisia and Libya, and instability in Iraq (President Obama’s Approach to the Middle East and North Africa: Strategic Absence). Of course, many will most likely disagree with this assertion that the United States should not implement a strategic absence, seeing the controversy of going into the Middle East in the beginning, and the criticism faced by President Barack Obama by not removing troops fast enough from the Middle
The United States has again stumbled into an overseas quagmire from which there is no easy exit. History seems to be repeating itself when again, we are led by a group of men who launch wars without exit strategies and fail to understand the nature of their enemy. In Vietnam the United States became involved because they felt the need to stop the spread of communism throughout the rest of Asia and attempt to prevent the "domino effect." The belief is that if Vietnam fell, so then would Cambodia, Laos, etc. Vietnam was the longest U.S. war with its never ending deaths, escalating destruction of Vietnam and Cambodia, and growing danger of splitting the American people (Carter 28). In Vietnam the Americans were told that U.S. was there because the South Vietnamese asked us to save them from the communist threat. But what the soldiers experienced did not add up to what the American people were being told (Thura 9). Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein, eliminate him from power, abolish Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from aiding terrorist groups. (Anderson 5). In Iraq the soldiers are anxious with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein no longer in power the reason why U.S. is still fighting in Iraq when the war was declared over a year ago is questionable (Moore 19).
In doing so, this assessment of U.S. interests in Crimea supports the options of non-intervention and a non-provocative stance in order to maintain long-term stability because the Russian invasion has only violated peripheral interests of EUCOM and SACUER. One of EUCOM's primary roles is to strengthen NATO's collective defense and assist its transformation since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is accomplished through building partner capacity to enhance transatlantic security. EUCOM supports American interests in Europe as outlined in the National Security Strategy: The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners; A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity; Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.
The relations between the U.S and the Middle East are strained at best. The troops deployed in the area face constant threat of attack by a militant group. These broken relations between the U.S and the Middle East started over 50 years ago, with the Iran Hostage Crisis. Root causes of the crisis were many. One was U.S greed over oil in Iran. The second, the coup in Iran organized and funded by the CIA. The U.S dependence on foreign oil is another cause of the problems. Lastly, should the U.S stop moving into other countries sovereign lands and trying to “Prevent the evil of communism”, the nation would not have so many problems around the world. This worry was even shown in Iran (Kinzer, 10). While often blamed on radicals, the strained relations between the U.S and the Middle East are a direct result of a poor US foreign policy.
America is dependent on other nations for their ability to create energy. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil at 18.49 million barrels of oil per day. And it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future considering the next largest customer of oil only consumes about 60% of what the U.S. does. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to any instability that may arise in the energy industry. In 2011, the world’s top three oil companies were Saudi Aramco (12%), National Iranian Oil Company (5%), and China National Petroleum Corp (4%). The risk associated with these countries being the top oil producers is twofold. One, they are located half way around the world making it an expensive to transport the product logistically to a desired destination. And two, the U.S. has weak, if not contentious,...
The article What Does America Stand For? written by Ian Bremmer is about the past and present of United States foreign policy. Throughout the article, Bremmer touches on key aspects of America’s role in other countries affairs. Initially, he starts out talking about the role Obama has played on behalf of the United States and its affairs in other countries. Bremmer believes that Obama’s “deeds suggest that he is not acting in the world so much as reacting to crises as they appear”(pg. 3) and that many of the world events that have happened in the past four years has caught Obama and the United States off guard. Bremmer continues to talk about how this just did not happen with Obama, it has happened in presidencies before his own. Bill Clinton and
However, it is worth mentioning that this general rule of US inactiveness in the face of the Israeli adventures was broken only once, namely, in the Suez Crisis, when the US intervened to address the imbalances caused by the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956, and forced Israel to relinquish the territories it had occupied; the Sinai desert. During this crisis President Eisenhower credibly threaten to withhold US aid to Israel after the Suez War. This balanced policy towards the conflicting parties rendered the Middle East system in a better equilibrium and cleverly de-escalated an international crisis.
The United States has had several scares throughout its history in terms of oil, most turn out to be over exaggerations of a small event. However, these scares highlight a massive issue with the U.S. and that issue is the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil. Why does it matter that our oil should come from over seas? In a healthy economy this probably wouldn’t be as relevant, but the U.S.’s economy is not exactly healthy at the moment. There are 4 things that I would like to address: what the problem is, how it affects us, what some solutions are, and what solutions I feel are best.
So, as you can see, there are advantages and disadvantages to being Isolationist or Interventionist. We can do a lot of good for the world by stepping in, however it is often at a great cost to ourselves. And our country can be seen as a great protector or a greater destroyer. Being only Isolationist or Interventionist would mean we are weak or too controlling. All we can do is try to find a medium and decide when is the right time for action.
However, the president was a moderate, therefore he was concerned with both economics and the environment. As a member of the domestic policy group and as the Director of the NEC, I felt that most of the conflicts transpired because it was difficult to satisfy both the economic and environmental needs. As a result, though extremely difficult, our group strived to create a policy proposal with five parts each aimed at addressing either the economy or the environment. Similarly, in the foreign policy simulation, it was also difficult for participants to create a U.S. foreign policy that allowed the United States to work with Russia in order to remove Assad without committing United States ground forces. However, members in the foreign policy group also had to strive to advance the economic interests and protect the safety of the United States. Correspondingly, the crisis simulation also demonstrates the complexity of presidential decision-making. At this juncture, in the crisis simulation participants had difficulty deciding how the United States should respond to the Israel intelligence stating that Iran has nuclear capabilities. During the simulation, participants
Wright, R. T., & Boorse, D. F. (2011). In addition to the rise in prices, another negative aspect of the U.S. dependency on foreign crude oil is the risk of supply disruptions caused by political instability in the Middle East. According to Rebecca Lefton and Daniel J. Weiss in the article “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit” in 2010, the U.S. imported 4 million barrels of oil a day, or 1.5 billion barrels per year, from “dangerous or unstable” countries. The prices at which these barrels are being purchased are still very high, and often lead to conflict between the U.S. and Middle Eastern countries. Lefton and Weiss also add that the U.S. reliance on oil from countries that are dangerous or unstable could have serious implications for our national security, economy and environment....
Jimenez was successful in Wichita not because of the monthly chats, weekly baseball games or Keller, but because she set up an environment conducive to attaining results she needed. This achieved two critical goals- it enabled the employees develop cross-functional solutions and fostered a sense of ownership and commitment. Jimenez misunderstood what made the Wichita project successful. Instead of trying to set up circumstances conducive to developing site-specific solutions in Lubbock, she simple imported the methods that the Wichita employees had created.
When a country’s grand strategic approach does change it implies that the foreign policy elite changed their conceptions about the conditions required to ensure security. Therefore, I intend to research when, and under what conditions, does a country’s grand strategy change? Furthermore, given relevant contexts for change, in what ways should observers anticipate
This has leaded that NATO countries are openly questioning the commitments to the Afghan mission. “The level of troop commitments from NATO today (is) not sufficient to achieve the long-run objectives that the international community and NATO have set for themselves […] NATO chiefs of staff […] recognized that ISAF did not have sufficient forces in certain regions of Afghanistan, that important capabilities had not been delivered to ISAF and that these shortfalls were creating additional risks to ISAF forces” (Roi and Smolynec 302). As a result of this, the forces in place in southern Afghanistan would have to fight harder, make more crucial decisions and establish difficult strategies to be assured of defeating Taliban forces, and which would ultimately prolong the stay of the troops. Another problem that arose by deploying troops was that there was no consideration of the development that was happening in Afghanistan itself. There was no strategy to which the different interventions were holding on to: “At times, particularly in the NATO context, it appeared that the strategic goal was simply to deploy.
In addressing his foreign policy strategy, President Trump laments the lack of cohesion of his predecessor’s plan and vows that his administration will avoid such a predicament. He then proceeds to describe his personal vision for the grand strategy of the United States. Based on his priorities and planned policy actions, he presents a plan of selective engagement. Selective engagement prioritizes peace among the major powers of the world as the key to national security. Proponents of such a strategy recognize the inherent threat of the international realm, yet believe that only those that will involve other world powers warrant true concern (Posen, 1996, 16).
Obviously when talking about global security, there needs to actually be the security aspect of it. Such aspect comes from the military itself. The military’s role is to protect both the people of the public and private sectors. Due to this, the military can play the most important role of the three. With being the most important of the three, there also comes the time that needs to be put within it to make sure that this part can function at its maximum potential. Allowing the military to function at its maximum potential allows the public and private to feel at ease with their safety. This does not only constitute for the United States, but all over the entire