The Evolution of the U.S Grand Strategy from Containment to the Current Situation under Obama - Essay Example

Discuss the Evolution of U.S Grand Strategy from containment to current situation under Obama. Provide example of the impacts of individuals and events in the development of U.S strategic thinking. United States of America has undergone strategy changes between different phases of the 20thcentury. Prior to 20th century, United States of America followed a policy of isolation. This was the precedence of the previous centuries order under which United States of America operated. The role of U.S in the post First World War and the rejection of proposals of Woodrow Wilson by the Congressmen was the evidence of the same strategy. Since then, the overall strategy of U.S is a mix of individuals as well as collective state’s policy that has been reflected in the different events. For example the coming of age of Marshal as the Secretary of State, the following by presence of the notable Henry Kissinger (Hitchens, 2012, p. 9) and leading on to the appointment of First Black president in the form of President Barack Obama, all are the instances where U.S has played its role in a declaratory or through diplomatic manner towards the resolution of issues in global sphere. Seeing the impact of the isolation and negligence on account of U.S’s non participation in the global affairs between the First and Second World War, United States felt obliged breaking the shackles and getting into a policy of global participation. The post 2nd world war scenario: In the post World War scenario the world saw rise of two super powers, namely United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (U.S.S.R) (McElreath, et al., 2013, p. 21). Since the world had seen the destruction and damages of all kinds, it could not afford another direct war. The U.S was fully mindful of this fact and as a result adopted a policy of countering the rise of the Communist state through a counter strategy. The counter strategy was not to get engaged directly, rather through indirect means and measures. This included economic funding, diplomatic activities, partnerships and allies creating in bid to foil the spread of Socialists agenda against the Capitalist objectives. Containment policy: The containment policy was a result and response to the actions undertaken by Soviet Union. This came about in the post world war Second circumstances. Since Soviet Union had worked on its strengths, it had given a lot of sacrifices and it had played an important role towards outplaying Germany, as a result it wanted more influence in the regions. One of the general examples is that of Poland. Poland had been used as a corridor to attacking Russia in both the world wars (Polley, 2000,p 114). In order to avoid such mishap in future, Russia wanted pro soviet governments in these regions. The Eastern bloc in the Europe was of influence and interest towards both the great powers. Other countries that were of interest were Ukraine, Poland, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. Each side aimed at gaining maximum gain and control over these regions in a direct and indirect way. The Marshal Plan: It is also dubbed as the Europe’s recovery plan. Under this plan, the aim and objective was to thwart the growing danger of Russia’s expansion and control over the region. Since it had already expressed its intentions clear in the form of pro soviet governments establishment in the Eastern Europe, United States of America could not afford giving out the other parts of the Europe. It could little afford allowing Russia stepping into the affairs of the Western bloc. The likes of Greece and Turkey were next in line (Morgan, 2010, p. 29). In order to prevent them from falling into the hands of Soviet Republic, U.S.A came up with Marshal Plan. Marshal was the secretary of State in the post Second World War scenario and he world under the guidance ship of President Truman (Acacia, 2009, p. 72). The financial support fund which would cover multiple facets, namely economic, social and military was allowed for approval by the congress through the recommendation of President Truman in the form of Marshal Plan. Ambit of Marshal Plan: Under the scheme of action of Marshal plan, the idea was to provide assistance to the likes of Germany, and other Western states who had denied the request of Soviet Republic to join their league and adopt a policy of aggression and offensive against the capitalist bloc. E.C.A was established in the same context of assistance and cooperation establishment between the stated members. Outcome of Marshal Plan: The marshal plan that was initiated towards 1948 lasted for over four years (Sørensen, 2001, p .9). It had highly positive impact on the social and economic outlook of Europe. Apart from the social aspect, it had political impact on the overall retrospect as well. it allowed for establishing a league and bloc against Soviet union and further allowed for containing the spread of communism in different parts of the world. U.S.A, in return enabled gaining its reach to the industries and markets of Europe and this in turn helped them increasing their overall economy and economic standings domestically and internationally as well. Since that point on, United States of America has not looked back. It came up with different ideas and proposals that allowed for enacting U.S.A’s influence in the regions of its interest. The plans such as Truman Doctrine, establishment of economic partnerships such as CENTO were few of the many economic entities established under the auspices and guardian ship of U.S.A to allow these countries a better economic environment and in turn protect them from the shed and clot of Soviet expansion that aimed at entailing these countries. Countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and Great Britain were its participants and they had come together for purpose of economic cooperation. The participation of the U.S in the Middle East crisis and aiming to resolve the dispute shows of its active participation. Time and again the U.S has been directly engaged in resolving the disputes and aiming to bring about a halt to the atrocities and high tension environment between the two sides. The role being played by Henry Kiesinger towards the 1967 war followed by the Camp David Peace accord and many other similar accounts and affairs speak of the active existence and participation of U.S.A in the global affairs (Dowek, 2001, p. 226). The diffusing of the ties between Pakistan and India and aiming to resolve the Kashmir issue through amicable means is another area where U.S had played a substantive role. It is the result of the same policy that U.S has made its influence and presence felt in the Korean Peninsula. The two Koreas were of key interest to the two super powers at that time. United states of America decide to provide guardian ship to South Korea (Malkasian, 2008, p.5). As a result of it, South Korea enjoys a much better economic state as compared to the North that went along the guidelines and instructions of Soviet Republic, adopted socialism for social and political order and ended up isolating itself from the rest of the world and its fruits and favors that came along in the form of economic and military assistance. United States of America till this date has its troops and bases present in South Korea which provides them an edge and protection against the possible jingoism of the military led dictator of North Korea. This policy was largely in place for the bulk of the period of the 20th century. It lasted till the 1989. This year marked the collapse and formal demise of the Soviet Union. The five decades long policy of containment had paid off and now U.S.A had adopted a new strategy (Lewis, 2007, p. 67). It was to work on consolidating the power. The downfall and decline of U.S.S.R left U.S.A as the sole runner and power dictator of the world. It had to gain strength at the same time, make sure it does not go into isolation or let the other rising powers come into authority and power. The possible threats that were there were the Chinese economic rise and the potential other small elements that may come up and cause any damage to U.S.A’s position of strength. U.S Policy shift immediately after end of Cold War: The post Cold war saw the rise of the First Gulf war and other minor menaces. The Yugoslavian episode and the human rights violation was another challenge for the fresh lone Super power. U.S.A lived up to the expectation and delivered the goods by taking actions and collaborating with the U.N. The U.N sent peacekeeping force with U.S.A as the flag bearer in the entire event and providing relief to the victims in different forms (Kennan, 2002). War on terror and 21st century: The 21st century’s dawn saw new menace and clouds of new challenges. This came about in the form of attacks on twin towers (Quay & Damico, 2010, p. 265). As a result of which U.S was engaged into war in Afghanistan. Citing this, and the global presence of the entities that operated and spread terrorism and hatred and fear, U.S took to them openly. The likes of Al Qaeda were hunted for in all parts of the world. Regardless of their background and presence they were chased for in parts of Asia, Africa and other corners of the world. This policy was engaged by the George W. Bush who through his terms initiated offensives against Afghanistan First and Iraq Second. The threat of nuclear material expansion was another move and motive that motivated and dictated the foreign policy of U.S.A. The countries that aimed to acquire the nuclear material were termed as the axis of evil in this bid. The blame and axis fell upon Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea being the front runners who according to George W. Bush were the enemies of the global peace and should be brought to justice through direct and indirect means. The potential nuclear proliferation in regions like Pakistan was another point of concern and point of interest for U.S policy makers and considerable thought and effort was made into ensuring that the Pakistan’s nuclear stocks remain safe and do not land in to the hands of the miscreants of other individuals who may pose threat to the global peace and stability (Synnott, 2012, p. 96). Under President Barrack Obama: President Barrack Obama took over the reign and authority in the times when U.S.A were confronted with wars on two battle fronts. Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have so far proved to be set of costliest and deadliest wars in terms of the losses suffered by the troops and the economic spendings. In the light of such events, Barack Obama had to devise policies that would allow for U.S’s active engagement and at the same time overcoming the weaknesses and mistakes that had been committed in the previous decades by his predecessors. It is as a result of this effort that President Barrack Obama has been awarded with Nobel Peace Prize. The announcement of President Barrack Obama with regard to the Guantanamo Bay prison was another move that was largely appreciated by the global community towards restoring peace and potential restoration of the U.S image as a peace builder in the world (Pallitto, 2013). At present President Barack Obama seems bent and tilted towards pulling out the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. This at same time does not deter him from taking a stronger stance of eradicating all kinds of terrorist activities that would attack U.S directly or indirectly in different corners of the world (Indyk, 2012). U.S’s Stance towards Syrian Crisis: The Syrian crisis that is one of the most debated and discussed topic in recent times is a point of concern and interest for United States of America as well. It is turning into one of the most deadliest and bloodshed civil war that is in to its third year now (Maslen, 2013, p. 400). U.S.A as the lone declared world power has its responsibility cut out ensuring that the peace is restored in the region and that the people are saved the burden and further damages in form of the civilian causalities and atrocities that they are suffering every day. It is as a result of this, that U.S has time and again gone to U.N Security Council and come up with the proposal of taking actions against the Bashar Al Assad regime. The aim is to bring an end to the usurper’s regime which would give the country men a chance to elect a democratic leader. The presence of the incumbent is disputed on accounts of his background and his manner in which he came to power and authority. U.S Role towards Ukraine: Ukraine is one of the latest event and accounts that held the global community’s attention. It was in recent times when Russia for the first time since the ending of the Cold War and the decline of U.S.S.R, formally engaged itself in a directly offensive adventure. It launched its offensive in the strategically important area of Crimea in Ukraine. United States of America came up active against this and gained the global attention by calling over the Russians to pull back from their stance and actions. It was as result of the hue and cry created by the Obama Administration that the G-8 gathered on emergency grounds and made efforts to stopping the referendum in the region. The referendum could not be stopped, yet Russia has been shown the door and has been excluded from the G-8 for now. Other many defense curbs are also on the line which will make Russia’s economic standing relatively more strangulated. All these come as the active foreign policy engaged by U.S.A in modern times under the president ship of President Barrack Obama. U.S policy towards china: If there is any country that is a potential threat to the supremacy and dominance of U.S.A in modern times, it is China. China, unlike U.S.S.R has not engaged itself it direct offensives or participation in the different troubled waters of the world, rather it has adopted a policy of isolation and at the same time, slow and silent creeping over in the economic and military front. It has gained its reach to the major markets of the world and has in turn established reliance of the states upon its market and products. It has also strengthened its military front and has invested heavy in this region. The damages incurred by U.S.A in the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War has given China an edge with regard to establishing its might and not incurring any damages in the context of economic wastages or military leakages over the arsenal being miss used and lost in the war. In the individual perspective: Although the policies devised have been through the proper approval of the think tanks, yet there were individuals who stood out on occasions. One of these who have been long acclaimed for and famous for his role as a good and effective statesman has been Henry Alfred Kissinger. He played a vital role towards diffusing the tension in the Middle East. Even in the post retirement phase, he was part of the think tank and provided able guidance and advises on matters of mutual interest. It is as a result of this, that Henry Kissinger enjoys repute and name four decades after he had formally been in the seat of being the Secretary of State in such times when the Vietnam war wasn’t going too well and the Cold war was at its peak. He represented his country in an apt and utmost professional manner. Other notable leads in this regard who have held the post of the U.S Secretary of State have been Henry Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. The two of them came at a time when U.S was engaged in cross continental war fare and also other diplomatic events and incidents. One major event and incident that took place during the days of Henry Clinton was that of the Libyan Ambassador’s killing at the hands of the protestors. Shift of policy from Bush to Barrack Obama: U.S’s inaction over Syria and its limitation to only sanctions and exclusion of Russia from G-8 has led to many criticizing Obama’s policies being ineffective. However, on other front President Barrack Obama’s policies have been acclaimed for having not engaged U.S into another war and conflict. The war engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan led to lots of suffering and damage on multiple fronts. U.S towards Iran: Iran and U.S has had a long standoff. The history of their bitter relationship stretches back to the early 1950s when a coup was hatched. This coup according to many Iranian critics and now present day international historians was backed by U.S.A. Since that point on, U.S.A and Iran have had little generosity towards one another. The declaration of the revolution under the banner of Islamic activists and Khomeini followers, the alienation grew further deeper and visible and with Iran’s aims and ambitions to acquiring nuclear arsenal, Iran was pushed against the wall by U.S.A and its Western partners. The sanctions imposing and other curtails upon its economic and strategic importance made it more difficult for the two to retain good ties and relationship. Recently, developments have been made in the form of meetings that were held in Geneva. The aim has been to break the ice and find a potential solution to the long standoff with Iran that has impeded the regional peace and potential economic exchange and other activities of regional interest and collaboration. In this episode the presence able representative abilities of John Kerry come to front. He has represented the American agenda and policy in most professional manner. He under the auspices of have undertaken the task of finding a potential solution to the long standoff. This comes as another achievement and effort of U.S towards resolving the global crisis and other issues that pose challenge to the global existence and peace and stability. U.S has to play a role towards global peace. The pending issues of Libya, Syria, Middle East and various other parts of the world need to be resolved by United States of America (Martel, 2013). References: Acacia, J., 2009. Clark Clifford: The Wise Man of Washington. s.l.:University Press of Kentucky. Dowek, E., 2001. Israeli-Egyptian Relations 1980-2000. s.l.:Psychology Press. Hitchens, C., 2012. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. s.l.:Atlantic Books Ltd. Indyk, M., 2012. Scoring Obamas Foreign Policy A Progressive Pragmatist Tries to Bend History. [Online] Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137516/martin-indyk-kenneth-lieberthal-and-michael-e-ohanlon/scoring-obamas-foreign-policy [Accessed 29 March 2014]. Kennan, G. F., 2002. After the Cold War. [Online] Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/24389/george-f-kennan/after-the-cold-war [Accessed 29 March 2014]. Lewis, A. R., 2007. The American Culture of War: The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom. s.l.:Taylor & Francis. Malkasian, C., 2008. The Korean War. s.l.:The Rosen Publishing Group. Maslen, S. C.-., 2013. The War Report: 2012. s.l.:Oxford University Press. Martel, W. C., 2013. A Roadmap for American Grand Strategy. [Online] Available at: http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/a-roadmap-for-american-grand-strategy/ [Accessed 29 March 2014]. McElreath, D. H., Jensen, C. J., Slyke, J. V. & Doss, D. A., 2013. Introduction to Homeland Security, Second Edition. s.l.:CRC Press. Morgan, K., 2010. Cold War. s.l.:ABDO Publishing Company. Pallitto, R. M., 2013. Torture and State Violence in the United States: A Short Documentary History. s.l.:JHU Press. Polley, M., 2000. A-Z of Modern Europe Since 1789. s.l.:Psychology Press. Quay, S. E. & Damico, A. M., 2010. September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. s.l.:ABC-CLIO. Sørensen, V., 2001. Denmarks Social Democratic Government and the Marshall Plan 1947-1950. s.l.:Museum Tusculanum Press. Synnott, H., 2012. Transforming Pakistan: Ways Out of Instability. s.l.:Routledge. Read More