Has United States foreign policy been guided Essay Example

Has United States foreign policy been guided Essay Example Has United States foreign policy been guided Essay Has United States foreign policy been guided Essay 2003, p. 3 ) The logical and convenient replacing for Communism, after the onslaughts of September 11, 2001, was Muslim fundamentalism, which needfully thrust American foreign policy in the Middle East to the centre phase. American foreign policy in the Middle East is one part where the struggle between American idealism and American pragmatism, every bit good as a failure of imaginativeness in exceeding a Cold War-esque good vs. evil’ paradigm, has caused serious failures in policy that have gone beyond the rational and affected the lives and wellbeing of 1000000s of people non merely in the Middle East, but across the Earth. The most noteworthy illustrations are the mostly nonreversible support the US has systematically given to Israel at the disbursal of its neighbours, and the 2003 invasion and subsequent business of Iraq, which is now widely regarded worldwide, with the exclusion of the most hardline ideologists within the Bush Administration and its few Alliess, as a ca tastrophe. American support for Israel has been, and continues to be, an highly complicated affair governed by a complex mix of echt benevolence, idealism, and rational histrionpractical politics. As the largest individual state on Earth with a population owing the bulk of its spiritual tradition to Judeo-christian civilization, the United States possesses a natural spiritual affinity to, and affinity for, the state consisting a part of the geographics from which Christianity and Judaism sprung, Israel. There is besides an extra, less rational undertone of spiritual fundamentalism to US support for Israel ; many Americans of evangelical, or fundamentalist Christian religion hold the belief that Jews are God’s chosen people and that it is hence axiomatic that Israel keep a particular topographic point on the universe phase and bask a particular friendly relationship with the US. To Muslims, peculiarly those in the Middle East, this is a self-evidently a deeply violative impression ; to Bu ddhists and other Eastern religions, the full impression of a chosen people anointed by a divinity who plays favorites largely likely appears silly. There is besides a natural moral gravitation to the predicament of Jews, who suffered mightily from flooring race murder during World War II, the understanding for which is surely a worthy factor in sing any friendly relationship between the United States and Israel. Finally, there is a considerable pragmatism to US policy towards Israel: the Middle East, being both a historically volatile hotbed of force and instability and the location of oil indispensable to the opportunism of the US. It has ever been in the US’ opportunism, so to hold a sympathetic, strong ally in the part which portions its values. Israel has ever served this function good, supplying both a counterweight to other states and civilizations that do non believe extremely of the US every bit good every bit functioning as a proxy political histrion in the part. Unfortunately, there is a self-defeating politico-religious exceptionalism that powers a part of US idealism, and which the US and Israel portion – viz. , a strong belief that as beacons of blessed freedom and values, they are entitled to repress others, militarily or culturally, who do non hold with that strong belief, and that the agencies by which that subjection occurs are, ironically, frequently exempt from judgement as being incompatible with those same sacred values. The United States and Israel are united, for illustration, in the belief that Iran should non be allowed to possess atomic arms, yet the United States possesses the most deadly reserve of all states on Earth. Israel, while denying that is has atomic arms ( all grounds to the reverse ) , perennially asserts its right, whether by title or force, to protect itself. Israel has repeatedly retaliated against Palestinian Acts of the Apostless that disrespect human rights and values, i.e. suicide bombardments, by r eacting with military operations – overt and covert – which at the really least dabble in the same ugly methodological analysis as their oppositions, rendering slightly hypocritical Israel’s moral authorization. This same aggressive stance the preference for the self-justified pickings of preemptive political, economic, and/or military action upon arbitrary determination has marked United States foreign policy under the disposal of George W. Bush. Simply put, the US and Israel frequently do whatever they like under the rubric of self-defense, while take a firm standing that the agencies of making so are exempt from crystalline moral rating by other states. The confederation between the two, so, has come at the disbursal of many other possible confederations in the Middle East and has engineered a pronounced misgiving and disfavor of the United States among many Muslims, who view American policy in the Middle East as ill disguised Zionism, a unidimensional point of view which though meritable in some respect, distorts the more rational and benevolent motives the US has for its confederation with Israel. The terminal consequence in any instance is that the US frequently finds itself in hard and unsafe state of affairss with regard towards its involvements in the Middle East due to its disproportionate favouritism towards Israel. Though the Clinton and Bush disposals publically advocated, and done some work towards guaranting the rights of Palestinians to hold their ain province co-existing with Israel, the perceptual experience of favouritism remains and negatively impacts US involvements in the Middle East. One of the first grudges amon g those Muslim fundamentalists who engage in terrorist activities is their accusal that the United States favours Israel and disrespects Islam. While whatever virtues this accusal may hold can non excuse such barbarous Acts of the Apostless of force, the issues underlying the accusal can non be ignored in successful foreign policy decision-making. However, the Bush Administration has displayed small involvement in those issues, prefering punitory action. The connexion between Israel and Iraq goes beyond their mere geographical propinquity. Indeed, the other sore topographic point in American foreign policy in the Middle East is its cataclysmal failure in Iraq, and this is non a happenstance. American idealism, or a version of it propagated by an ideological motion dominant in the foreign policy setup of the Bush Administration known as neoconservatism, led the US to occupy and busy Iraq, the attempt disintegrating into a morass that has cost the US over $ 400 billion ( US ) , over 3,000 lives of American military forces, and estimations of between 30,000 – 100,000 Iraqi deceases – with no terminal in sight. What motivated these neoconservatives, and who are they? Harmonizing to one of their ain, noted conservative foreign policy mind Phillip Zelikow, the motive behind Iraq had to make with Israel: Why would Iraq assail America or utilize atomic arms against us? I ll state you what I think the existent menace ( is ) and really has been since 1990 it s the menace against Israel†¦ And this is the menace that dare non talk its name, because the Europeans do nt care deeply about that menace, I will state you honestly. And the American authorities does nt desire to tilt excessively difficult on it rhetorically, because it is non a popular sell. ( Zelikow, quoted in Mekay, 2006 ) The neoconservatives of the Bush disposal owe their rational inspiration mostly to Leo Straus, a German-born political philosopher who fled Nazi Germany to get away persecution as a Jew. Strauss †¦ taught his adherents a belief in absolutes, disdain for relativism, and joy in abstract propositions. He approved of Plato s noble prevarications, ’ disliked much of modern life, and believed [ in ] a Straussian elite in government†¦ ( Schlesinger, 2004 ) Neoconservative adherents of Strauss seethed at what they perceived as American failure to pull off Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The onslaughts on the US of September 11, 2001, provided the screen for the neoconservatives to work out the Iraq job under the rubric of self-defense and preemptive action. The neoconservative phantasy was that Iraq could be easy converted into a democracy should the U.S. dispense with Saddam Hussein in an impressive show of force. The thought, so, was to set up a 2nd axis of US proxy power in th e Middle East to supplement the US confederation with Israel, which would in bend lead to a Domino consequence of American values being inculcated into the Middle East and supplying a counterweight to hostile Islamic currents and guaranting the safety of American involvement in oil. However, Iraq has now descended into a sectarian civil war between Muslim cabals who have small involvement in functioning as a beacon of American values, and the US government’s dishonesty in jointing its motives for the war has now been widely exposed. In this instance, the debacle in Iraq was a consequence of the victory of idealist neoconservatism over rationalist pragmatism in American foreign policy. While American opportunism in Middle East oil has ever provided a consistent realist component to American foreign policy, the matrimony of and subservience of that pragmatism to the idealism of neoconservative political orientation was a catastrophe in Iraq. The idealism actuating American fore ign policy in Iraq, nevertheless well-intended it may hold been, suffered greatly from the hubris of self-assumed American cultural, moral, and military high quality. An ill-judged mix of idealism and pragmatism has led to the US errors Iraq, and ill-judged unconditioned support of Israel, both of which damaged US involvement in the Middle East and across the Earth. Most grave is the encouragement and foment of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist act. The US, holding been in a alone place of moral and military authorization post-9/11 to take a planetary campaign against fundamentalism-inspired terrorist act, has alternatively engineered the terrible weakening of its military capacity and an addition in understanding for, and engagement in, Islamic terrorist act. BIBLIOGRAPHY / REFERENCES Cameron, Fraser.U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War( Andover: Routledge, 2nd edition, 2005 ) Charles W. Kegley, Eugene R. Wittkopf A ; James M. Scott,American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process6th Edition. ( Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003 ) Mekay, Emad. IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel, Inter Press Service News Agency, 28 December 2006. Schlesinger, Jr. , Arthur. The Making of a Mess, New York Book Review, September 23, 2004. Friedman, Murray,The Neoconservative Revolution: Judaic Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy( Cambridge University Press, 2005 ) Zelikow, Phillip ( editor ) .American Military Scheme: Memos to a President ( Aspen Policy Series )W.W. Norton A ; Company, 2001. Zunes, Stephen.Tinderbox: US Foreign Policy A ; the Roots of Terrorism( London: Zed Books, 2002 ) .