Wag the Dog Theory: Domestic Scandal and Foreign Policy

715 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Politics in the bay of pigs invasion

Wag The Dog Theory: Domestic Scandal And Foreign Policy [Author] [Institution] Wag The Dog Theory Of Domestic Scandal And Foreign Policy The “Wag the dog” theory of domestic scandal and foreign policy is advanced by some pundits through which, the US presidents committed the United States to overseas conflicts in order to divert public attention from national unrest or outcry does not necessarily apply to all US presidents. Some of the US presidents have indulged in foreign affairs, foreign tours, summits with foreign leaders, foreign conflicts or certain bold or rash decisions when faced with problems of economic or political nature on the domestic front. Harry S. Truman atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which he could have avoided, but that would have dragged on the WWII a little longer creating more problems for him on the domestic front. Kennedy’s ill-planned Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba in support of the Cuban exiles planning to overthrow Fidel Castro. Reagan’s Iran-Contra Affair for secret sale of arms to the inimical Iran and channeling of ill-gotten profits to the Nicaraguan rebels. But, the classic example of the practice of the “Wag the dog” theory was by Bill Clinton. To draw away attention from his personal indiscretions, on the day Monica Lewinsky was supposed to testify before a grand jury, Clinton ordered cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan under the pretense of it was a chemical weapons factory. Later, targets in Afghanistan were attacked under the pretext that these were linked to the Saudi terrorist Osama Bin Laden who was suspected of orchestrating bombings of US embassies in East Africa. Clinton’s actions that led to his impeachment were not mere personal misdeeds, but lasting stains ...

... middle of paper ...

...om time to time to continue the pretense that US domestic affairs are very dear to his heart and have his wholehearted attention. If we take a deeper look in to the foreign adventures and foreign relations gimmics of the US presidents during the last 50 years, it is quite evident that they have not got themselves involved in these out of necessity, but to draw the nation’s attention away from their domestic policy or personal failures. Definitely, future US presidents will continue to indulge in such adventurism unless the nation through its legislatures and public opinion builders endeavor to put a stop to such practices and tie up the presidency with necessary laws. References Scheer, Robert 2002 Published in the Los Angeles Times www.mediamonitors.net/alan1.html www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html www.freeman.org/m_online/jan99/eidelberg.htm

Show More
Related

  • Justified - Madison's Decision To Change US Foreign Policy

    791 Words  | 2 Pages

    Is it wrong for a president to do what he thinks is best for his country? As a young nation – which just finished a costly war – could America afford to get involved with another conflict with nations more powerful than itself? Madison – like Adams and Jefferson – had to deal with Washington’s foreign policy. Unlike the other presidents, Madison felt like the foreign policy wasn’t right; so he changed it from isolationism to intervention. The previous foreign policy – known as isolationism – meant that America had to try to stay out of disputes between opposing countries. After Madison changed America’s policy, it became known as intervention: America’s duty was to stand up for itself. Madison did a lot of things before changing the foreign policy; he engaged in peace talks with other national leaders, he followed through with what he told the world, and when diplomacy failed, he and Congress declared war to protect our youthful nation. Madison was utterly justified in changing United States foreign policy from isolationism to intervention.

    Read More

  • Where Men Win Glory, by Jon Krakauer

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day in the history of the United States; a terrorist attack had left the country shaken. It did not take long to determine those who were behind the attack and a call for retribution swept through the nation. Citizens in a wave of patriotism signed up for military service and the United States found resounding international support for their efforts in the war on terror. Little opposition was raised at the removal of the Taliban regime and there was much support for bringing Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice. Approval abroad diminished approximately a year and a half later when Afghanistan became a stepping stone to the administration’s larger ambition, the invasion of Iraq. The administration would invent several stories and in some cases remain silent of the truth where would prove positive for the Iraqi invasion. It seems they were willing to say anything to promote the largely unpopular and unnecessary war they were resolved on engaging in.

    Read More

  • Foreign Policy Dbq

    1378 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the 20th century, successive presidents pursued foreign policy in different ways but with one objective and that is to make America the most powerful nation on earth. Despite the challenges of each administration during this century, presidents found a way to put American at the frontline as the undisputed super power. President Taft pursued an aggressive foreign policy by introducing dollar diplomacy which was meant to encourage U.S. investments in the Latin America and the Caribbean. He used government officials to promote this policy in hope that it will create markets for American products in the region. President Wilson made a promise to the American people that he will focus on domestic policy agenda and rarely will his administration

    Read More

  • Political Scandals in American History: The Iran-Contra Affair

    1551 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Iran-Contra affair survives as one of the most dramatic political scandals in American history. Approximately a decade after Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal both shocked and captivated the public. The affair began in Beirut, 1984, when Hezbollah, a militant Islamic group sympathetic to the Iranian government, kidnapped three American citizens. Four more hostages were taken in 1985. The conservative Reagan administration hurriedly sought freedom for the Americans. Despite a 1979 trade embargo prohibiting the sale of weapons between the U.S. and Iran, members of Ronald Reagan’s staff arranged an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran in an attempt to free the American hostages in Lebanon. Meanwhile, back in the Americas, Reagan was pursuing an aggressive foreign policy in response to the Cold War. The Reagan administration was doing its best to curb Communist influence in Central and Latin America. In Nicaragua, Reagan wanted to support the democratic rebel Contras against the Marxist Sandinista regime, despite legislation passed in the early 1980s, the Boland Amendment, that made federal aid to the Contras illegal. In 1985, Oliver North, a staff member in the National Security Council, devised the scheme to divert surplus funds from weapons sales with Iran to the Contra cause in Nicaragua, violating the Boland Amendment. Following public exposure of the scandal, Oliver North and many other members of Reagan’s staff were put on trial; however not a single one of them was appropriately punished. Each person involved was either pardoned, granted immunity or had convictions overturned. The Iran-Contra scandal and its aftermath exposed both the executive branch’s lack of accountability to the American people and the other branches of g...

    Read More

  • American Foreign Policy Dbq

    941 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Changes In Us Foreign Policy Between 1880 And 1910

    1180 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the years, the United States government had made drastic changes in its foreign policies. The few decades from 1880 to 1910, which saw five different presidents all with very distinct foreign policies, were no exception. As a country, the United States progressed from being a country only concerned with expanding its territory out west, to being a country on the verge of becoming involved in the First World War.

    Read More

  • President Clinton vs. President Nixon

    491 Words  | 1 Pages

    President Clinton and President Nixon both associated themselves with criminal actions. Both the presidents misled the American public, causing personal as well as professional problems. For instance, President Clinton released a false statement about his affair with Monika Lewinsky, causing a lengthy and costly trial, and greatly affecting his presidential career. Also, President Nixon caused a scandal associated with Watergate, which ended up with his leaving the office. Even though they caused trouble for themselves and others around them, Clinton and Nixon did influence the American economy to a great degree. Clinton practically saved the economy and lowered the US inflation rate, through gradual and advocated plans of reform. Moreover, Nixon was the first to go into China territory for negotiations. Ultimately, they have attracted the media with their antics, making themselves? targets of controversy and embarrassment. In fact, President Clinton and Nixon have become the subjects of public mockery and have been an embarrassment to the American people in the office of the President. Moreover, both men have been involved in humiliating situations.

    Read More

  • The Causes Of The Iran-Contra Affair

    688 Words  | 2 Pages

    In reality, he and his security advisor, Admiral John Poindexter, had lied to Congress, shredded evidence, and refused to inform the President of details in order to guarantee his “plausible deniability”. Ultimately, the Iran-Contra investigation raised more questions than it answered. Reagan held fast to his plea of ignorance, the full role of the CIA director remained murky, and the role of Vice President Bush remained mysterious as well. The Iran-Contra affair revealed how secretive government officials undermine the Constitution and compromise Presidential authority under the facade of patriotism.

    Read More

  • Kaufman Vs. Kaufman's American Foreign Policy Legacy

    1676 Words  | 4 Pages

    The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions

    Read More

  • Foreign Policy: The Iran-Contra Affair

    1077 Words  | 3 Pages

    Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...

    Read More

  • US Isolationism During 1919-1941

    1240 Words  | 3 Pages

    Due to this attitude and the need to satisfy it, the US government presented itself as isolationist during the period and was limited in the extent of its intervention in foreign affairs. Public acts of withdraw

    Read More

  • The Rhetoric of an Apology: The Bill Clinton Sex Scandal

    1763 Words  | 4 Pages

    On August 17, 1998, exactly one year after making the statement above, President Bill Clinton prepared to deliver a speech concerning a scandal that had gripped the nation for months. It is needless to say that this was an important moment during the Clinton administration. After accusations of sexual harassment, Clinton addressed the nation and admitted to having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In this critical speech Clinton set out to admit to wrong-doings, provide a few reasons for his action, and ultimately persuade the audience into moving on and forgetting the scandal. This essay will break down his speech into sections and examine the most and least effective strategies that Clinton employed and how well he executed those strategies. This is an interesting speech given under rare circumstances. Not since Watergate had an American president been under such harsh moral criticism from the public. By looking critically at this speech we are able to gain valuable insight into Clinton's motives.

    Read More

  • Why Kissinger Helped Pinochet

    891 Words  | 2 Pages

    The United States “hands have not always been clean” (Landau 1999, page 16). It seems that as time passes more and more of past United States foreign policy actions are discovered to have been a cause of corruption rather than security. Recently numbers of declassified documents show the fraud of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is apparent that Kissinger directly assisted General Augusto Pinochet into power in Chile and despite his knowledge of Pinochet’s human rights violations he deliberately ensured his stay in power (Landau 1999; page 16). Currently the legal action being taken against Henry Kissinger must be taken seriously to show current United States officials, the cruelty of our nations past and how we are guilty of initiating and helping a brutal dictatorship for sixteen years.

    Read More

  • Models Of Presidential Power

    2075 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Effects Of The Watergate Scandal

    1778 Words  | 4 Pages

    After successfully ending American fighting in Vietnam and improving international relations with the U.S.S.R. and China, Richard Nixon became the only President to ever resign the office, as a result of the Watergate scandal. Hubris has come to refer to recklessness and overconfidence among those who wield power in financial or political fields- particularly when it leads to disastrous errors of judgement. The word Watergate has entered the political dictionary as a term synonymous with corruption and scandal as a result of the overwhelming pride, or hubris, of President Richard Nixon, who engulfed himself in his own omnipotence.

    Read More

More about Wag the Dog Theory: Domestic Scandal and Foreign Policy

Open Document