United States Foreign Policy Since 1945

The Second War World changed the scope of American foreign policy dramatically. The United States had historically sought to stay out of disputes in continents outside North America. The nation had sought isolationism during the Great War of 1914-1918 until it became necessary to protect innocent American lives. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was also inclined to remain uncommitted in the struggle that began in Europe in 1939. It was not until the end of 1941 that a direct attack against the United States at Pearl Harbor drew the United States into the conflict raging throughout the rest of the world.
In the book Washington Rules, Andrew Bacevich, himself an officer in the U.S. army for many years, argues that every president after World War II has followed a set of “rules” known as the Washington Consensus. There are four parts to this consensus. First, in order to avoid global chaos, the world should be shaped and organized. Second, only the United States has the capability to both direct and enforce this global order. Third, American principles are what define global order and what is acceptable. The fourth component is that everyone understands and accepts these principles as fact, and in turn looks up to the United States to be the global leader. Has each administration inadvertently or purposely followed these guidelines? Is this mindset detrimental to national security and has it caused the U.S. to intervene in too many foreign places? I agree with Andrew Bacevich who argues from a decidedly negative view of these principles of foreign policy and believes that each administration has progressively followed these ideas in creating foreign policy.
There is an argument that Bacevich fails to adequately add...

... middle of paper ...

...ith a focus on defending U.S. vital interests instead of creating world order, positioning the American soldier in the U.S. rather than abroad, and using military action only as a last resort and as a defensive measure. By following these principles, Bacevich writes that the size of the Pentagon budget, the nuclear arsenal, and army will all be reduced. I tend to agree with him. Fundamental change needs to occur in our global outlook. Our policy makers have become stuck in the rut of precedent and in building a franchise that upholds our global status as a superpower. Rather than extending our resources overseas, the needs of our nation should be addressed, such as lapses in public education and poverty and unemployment in cities. Instead of looking abroad for problems to solve, the U.S. needs to look inward and create a nation built on prosperity and peace.