A Summary and Critical Evaluation of the Key Issues In Post-World War II National Security Structure Development Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II. Hook and Spainer deems that American Exceptionalism greatly fuels and influences some of the most important foreign policies since World War II. It is basically a belief that the U.S. is "different" from all other countries, and thus, is necessary to be also considered as different. One of the historical examples can be cited from the start of U.S.'s ambitions regarding imperial motives. In the contemporary scene, this concept is more used to heighten the American pride especially for elections (for the benefit of the politicians). This was elucidated by Hook and Spanier by discussing the perception of "American destiny" by some public officials. The view regarding country's difference from other nations "also allowed the United States to behave hypocritically by acting like other nations in its continental expansion while casting its motives in the noblest terms (Hook and Spanier, p. 10)." This explains the imperial methods that were conducted by the US for the past ... ... middle of paper ... ...work by making allies for the sake of success. Rothkopf discussion can be connected with Hook and Spainer's argument that the US defense "has always involved more than physical security (p. 8)" but then claimed that "American security, including its values, would be always threatened, whether by communist governments, terrorist groups or other adversaries seeking to challenge the United States (p. 9)". This quote then supports Scowcroft's traditionalist approach regarding the US strategical method to make friends in order to gain support in times like these. Hook and Spanier describes the current relationship of U.S. with other countries as "ambivalent" and "erratic" with a "love-hate relationship with the world (p.20)". The authors also claimed that the Cold War and other pertinent historical events forward pertinent impacts to the current foreign policy scene.
Imperialistic Europe differed strongly from that of the United States. Europeans focused on Social Darwinism; politicians felt that conquering underdeveloped territories was the best thing for the human race. The United States did not have as strong of views on imperialism that were expressed by Europeans. The United States imperialism differed from Europeans by the lack of pressure to join the movement from neighboring countries, sheer size, and the economic importance of conquering other territories.
At the turn of the century, and after gaining our independence, the United States land mass more than doubled through the use of purchasing, annexing, and war. However, the foreign policy of our government took a predominately isolationist stand. This was a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. General Washington shaped these values by upholding and encouraging the use of these principles by warning to avoid alliances in his farewell speech. The reasoning behind these actions was that the Republic was a new nation. We did not have the resources or the means to worry about other countries and foreign affairs; our immediate efforts were internal. Our goals that were of primary importance were setting up a democratic government and jump-starting a nation. The United States foreign policy up to and directly preceding the Civil War was mainly Isolationist. After the war, the government helped bring together a nation torn apart by war, helped improved our industrialization, and helped further populate our continent. We were isolationist in foreign affairs, while expanding domestically into the west and into the north through the purchase of Alaska. However, around 1890 the expansionism that had taken place was a far cry from what was about to happen. Expansionism is the nations practice or policy ...
After a few years since the publication of the “X” article, ‘containment’, the term that was coined by Keenan, became a key word to describe the U.S. foreign policy in overcoming Soviet threats. Yet, Keenan criticized Truman’s containment policy as ‘too universalistic’ in that it placed the U.S. in an exhausting commitment to block every Soviet expansion to free countries (Keenan, 1967). In fact, the containment policy was influencing the U.S. involvement in different confrontation from Germany to Vietnam.
This threat to “American democratic values and way of life” prompted Bush’s preemptive National Security Strategy as the security environment is changing and terrorist groups and rogue sponsor states ability to use weapons such as weapons of mass destruction are becoming an increasing threat to the American people, American interests, and the allies of the Unites States. Finally, Bush’s National Security Strategy and preemptive doctrine are based on American values and national interests and its objectives are spreading political and economic freedoms, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.
United States expansionism in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century is both a continuation and a departure of past United States expansionism. Expansionism in the United States has occurred for many reasons. Power (from land), religion, economics, and the ideas of imperialism and manifest destiny are just a few reasons why the U.S. decided to expand time and again throughout the course of its 231 year history. Expansionism has evolved throughout the years as the inhabitants of the country have progressed both socially (the Second Great Awakening, the women's suffrage movement, the populist party and the early 19th and 20th century social reformers) and economically (factories, better farms, more jobs, etc.) Expansion changed from non-interference policies to the democratic control of the government as the United States grew in both size and population. Through the use of the documents and events during two major-expansion time periods (1776-1880) and 1880-1914), I will display both the continuation and departure trends of United States expansionism.
The United States of America has never been content with stagnation. The landmass of the Thirteen Colonies was enough to rival that of the Mother country from which they separated. The forefathers believed that it was the manifest destiny of this nation to eventually claim the expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By 1890, nearly a hundred years following the original claim of Manifest Destiny, the land that was once open, was now under American control. But no sooner was the Great American Frontier closed, than was the door to East Asian expansion opened with the great gold key of American diplomacy. In a world where imperialism was contagious, and cartographers had to work around the clock to keep up with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the United States seized the opportunity to establish herself as a significant world power. With great expansionist minds at her helm, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft the United States began to grow beyond her border to claim stake in this wide-open world. This new expansionism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a different institution than its early to mid nineteenth century counterpart. Still, the drive to exercise the sovereignty of the United State and to propel itself over the world’s stage was the same then as it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. In order to understand this assertion, attention must be given to three levels of analysis. First, the similarities that exist between the drive and purpose of old and new expansion must be taken into account. Second, the differences in the global political scene must be considered. Finally, there exits differences in the means by which expansion occurred.
Expansionism in America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century shared many similarities and differences to that of previous American expansionist ideals. In both cases of American expansionism, the Americans believed that we must expand our borders in order to keep the country running upright. Also, the Americans believed that the United States was the strongest of nations, and that they could take any land they pleased. This is shown in the "manifest destiny" of the 1840's and the "Darwinism" of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Apart from the similarities, there were also several differences that included the American attempt to stretch their empire across the seas and into other parts of the world.
As the United States grew in power, so did her ideas of expansion. The foreign powers were beginning to move out of their continents and seek land in other countries. The United States soon followed. They followed in their founder’s footsteps and tried to occupy lands in the far seas. However, in the beginning, this need for more land was called Manifest Destiny. This idea claimed that God was forcing them to occupy the new western lands. The expansionism that occurred in the late 1800’s was not a result of Manifest Destiny, and thus this "new" idea of expansionism was different from the expansionism ideas of early America. For the most part, the United States’ need for more land was primarily to keep other nations (mainly European powers) out of the western hemisphere. However the United States began to see reason behind change towards the "new" expansionistic ideas.
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
The idea that America is a superior nation has been perpetuated in the minds of Americans and their political leaders since becoming a nation. The foreign policy that America has had since its inception contains the idea of American exceptionalism. This paper will focus on the ways in which American policy makers during the first few Presidential terms would have made the argument for American exceptionalism in regards to foreign strategy. To substantiate this argument this paper will utilize information from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the book Crucible of Power. This paper will also address the counterargument that could be made, which is that the United States was acting like every other nation in regards to its foreign policy. To support this counterargument evidence from Crucible of Power and other various sources will be utilizied.
It is known throughout the history of America, post the Civil War that there was a clear division of reforms about the foreign policies between the republican and the democratic presidents. It is also stereotypically known that most democratic presidents have taken the road of diplomacy and understanding with their foreign affairs, while the republican presidents have always resulted to war, and different violent means to keep America in its position of power. But historic facts have proven that these political divisions are not at all related to their acts of presidency and their foreign policies. Here we have some of the most known presidents during the Cold War and their foreign policies to prove this point.
(1993), The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, Volume Four, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945 – 1991, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press · Froman, M.B. (1991) The Development of the Détente, Coming to Terms, London, Macmillan Academic and Professional LTD · Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2004) International Relations Since 1945, Oxford, Oxford University Press · www.oed.com (Oxford English Dictionary online)
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.
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
As shown, America’s rapid change as the 19th century came to a close was supported by a various amount of imperialistic beliefs, motives, and incidents that almost jumpstarted the U.S. onto the world stage. Many of these incidents such as the public’s thirst for expansion, the annexation of several faraway lands, and the build-up of U.S. military forces would not have been possible without the Spanish American War. Moreover, the Spanish American war would not have been possible without the American people. Imperialism was a consequence of the American Democratic experiment, giving the people what they want.