The Cold War Impact - Essay Example

Final Examination Questions Part I. B Introduction The Cold War had numerous consequences for the major global superpowers such as the United States and Russia or the formal Soviet Union. The Cold War was the situation of military and political apprehension that preceded the World War II, which involved the powers of the Eastern bloc allies that were led by the Soviet Union and the Western bloc allies led by the U.S. (Westad, 2005). Before the Cold War, the world was bipolar in terms of superpowers, however, with the end of the War II, the U.S. emerged as a unipolar and the sole superpower. The first part of the essay outlines the effects of the end of Cold War and the role the U.S. plays in the world. Over the last seventy years, the U.S.’s role in the global arena has significantly been influential in all aspects ranging from socio-political to economics, even though, this has faced a number of challenges. One of the greatest effects of the cold war to the U.S. was its emergence as the main world superpower. In the aftermath of the war, the military power of the U.S. was adequately equipped due to the high budgetary allocations from the government that was aimed at improving military power. By 1989, the U.S. had established military coalitions with 50 nations and had 526,000 troops deployed in many countries globally. The end of the cold war saw America deploy up to 326,000 troops in Europe with the majority being assigned to Germany (Kane, 2006). The Cold War also marked the summit of peacetime military-industrial intricate in the United States and intense armed financial support of science. The military-industrial complexes have an immense impact on the U.S. and have aided in shaping the country’s society, strategy, and foreign relations (Entman, 2004). The other notable effect of the Cold War was the elevation of the U.S. as an economic empire in the world. The end of the cold war marked a new beginning for the U.S. characterized by economic growth and prosperity that led to its dominance in the global economy to date, in addition to, strengthening and positioning the U.S. as the world’s richest country (Ostry, 2008). For instance, the automobile industry experienced rapid economic boom after the cold war and to date, the industry continues to grow and has enabled a majority of inhabitants to own vehicles since they are readily available and affordable. Moreover, most Americans nowadays are in the middle-class due to low unemployment and inflation rates; effects that are attributable to the Cold War. After the cold war, the U.S.s foreign policy was dramatically reformulated to adjust to the new status of the U.S. as the major global governing nation. Gaddis (2006), argues that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union into smaller countries, the pro-soviet alliances also broke creating an opportunity for the U.S. to rise as the world superpower. However, this presented a new number of challenges to the U.S. such as the terrorist menace from countries such as Iraq, which had the ability to develop nuclear weapons; hence escalating the fear of U.S. due to heightened national insecurity matters (Kristensen, 2005). The U.S. also experienced a phase of fear of the Russia invasion that wanted to challenge the country’s military and political supremacy (LaFeber, 2008). Therefore, this raised new concerns for the U.S. on how it would defend its territories from nuclear attacks. Additionally, there lingered an enduring perception that the country could be bombed at any time from the rival powers. Reportedly, the country was in constant fear, a consequence of a perception that there were Russian spies in each part of the U.S. Thus, the end of the cold war successfully brought a setback to the U.S. in relation to its internal security; something that was confirmed by the September 2001 bomb attacks because of the nation’s political dominance and commitment to reject and fight terrorism (LaFeber, 2008). Conversely, the end of the Cold War underlined the importance of the U.S. in combating terrorism. This was and is the primary role of the U.S. in the world, leading to the creation of the term ‘the new world order’ (Kagan, R. (2007). Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush used the phrase to try to delineate the character of the post-Cold War period, and the fortitude of a great power collaboration that they anticipated being realized in the world. In the contemporary world of politics, the U.S. has dominated in power treaties and the Security Council decision-making. The recent development in the world involving Iran’s quest to having nuclear plans brokered by the secretary of state, John Kerry reveals the relentless role the U.S. plays globally in combating extremism and other forms of terrorism. Apparently, the U.S. is the sole nation that has the power for leadership on an international level. The country also has a role in providing a strategic balance in the Pacific, with its commitment to supporting democracy in the world, in addition to, acting as an anchor of security in Europe (Posen and Ross, 2012). Moreover, America controls the Arab world, which has been severely rocked by dictatorship and crimes against humanity. Therefore, the U.S. is an important and actor, key observer and universal monitor; a role that can be likened to the roles of the police, which is often termed as the global police. Despite its worldwide position as the global leader, the country faces several limitations. The U.S. is not immune to analogous troubles that restrict the capacity of shaping of peripheral events. One of the major limitations in its role in the world after the Cold War was the lack of adequate resource to facilitate its global watchdog activities. The recent regimes in the U.S. have inclined their efforts towards domestic problems, which has necessitated other countries to come out and emulate the U.S. to act as substitutes. Hu (2011) states these countries to include China, India and Brazil because they have endeavored to exert political influence and persuasion to various regions, such as the concerted efforts of in Africa in the recent past. Part II. B Introduction Political analysts have been running overtime trying to establish why and how the U.S.’s political affairs have become the dysfunctional chaos the planet has seen in recent times. The main issue that arises in trying to determine the reasons for political dysfunction in the U.S. is the contribution of the minority of hardline extremists (Mann and Ornstein, 2013). The minority extremists in the U.S. has engendered sufficient fear, thus paralyzing their party’s headship; compelling the government to close down and bring the nation to the rim of default. Political dysfunction in America is attributable to a number of reasons that includes the following. The second part addresses the political dysfunction of the U.S. Political dysfunction has manifested in the U.S. in different forms triggered by political, social and economic issues. One of the root causes of political dysfunction in the U.S. is the remaining after-effects of the September 11 attack. In addition, there is ongoing trauma in the U.S. associated with the economic predicament of 2008/2009. There are agitations experienced by those that have reacted in the face of swiftly shifting social and sexual ways of life and the issue of race (Flynn, 2004). Racism in the U.S. has been a major concern to the population since the wake of the slave trade several decades ago. Thus, the conflicts that arise from racial diversity have hampered and become a contentious issue in the U.S. administration to date. For instance, the police civilian conflict in the recent era clearly indicates the political dysfunction in America. Floyd, et al. (2004) states that the terrorist assails on 9/11 that claimed 3,000 innocent civilians wrecked the decade of comparative peace and affluence that had characterized the post-Cold War Clinton period. Even though the U.S. had overpowered the Soviets and had surfaced as the worlds solitary superpower, in an instantaneous, the country’s sense of security buckled. The attacks rang a bell on U.S. administration on its terror susceptibility. The other cause of political dysfunction in the U.S. as stated earlier is the dramatic alteration stirring in contemporary collective and sexual traditions. These societal morals led to the emergence of ‘values voters’ progress. Thus, the shifting trends in social morals spawn political dysfunction. Moreover, the economic crisis of 2008, which affected the country created a political dysfunction, even though, it was largely related to economic dysfunction (Baldwin and Evenett, 2009). The plunging of share values in the wake of the crisis had a massive impact on the country’s pension resources. For instance, one in five house-owners feared mortgage foreclosure while unemployment rose by 100%. Due to this, the American dream became obsolete making many citizens insecure in terms of financial capabilities. Furthermore, the middle-class earners in the country who had toiled hard and adapted to the system were inclined to stomach the impact of the economic meltdown with the exception of the automobile firms. The economic meltdown affected the political scene, crippling efforts from the Washington administration to improve the country’s economic situation. The other root causes of the America’s dysfunction is its reluctance to reduce its spending on war activities. The U.S. currently spends almost an equivalent amount of dollars in its armed forces and paying existing and past wars liabilities and care for the injured and aging defense forces as the entire of the planet collectively spends on their military. Ramey (2009) states that the U.S. sets aside about $1.3 trillion annually for its military spending, which is routinely milked from the taxpayers and external debt. It is simply preposterous, given these circumstances, to envisage that the US can considerably shrink its budget shortfall either by elevating taxes or by reducing social spending. This has immensely contributed to political dysfunction, bearing in mind the different views on military spending from the diverse political divide in the country. In a legitimate democracy, there would be elected officials and a political party that would be demanding for an end to the U.S. militarism tendencies and the substantial spending that is required to support it (Haas, 2007). For this reason, opinionated polls demonstrate that the majority of Americans want to see ensue, but there are no people in government demanding an end to the massive funding of the military activities, which the U.S. commercial media keeps on concealing from the public. In the past four decades, disparities between political parties have developed into absolute polarization, thus contributing significantly to the issue of political dysfunction. For instance, the 111th Congress, was ideologically polarized in the contemporary history of the U.S. In both the House and the Senate, the most conventional Democrat was more noninterventionist than was the many tolerant Republicans. Theriault (2008) argues that party polarization in the late 19th and the early 20th century was as passionate as it is nowadays. He goes to argue that in the flounce of American history, one might dispute the ideologically overlapping and less discernible political parties of the mid-20th century like the exceedingly distinguishable and unfriendly parties of the current U.S. political system. Therefore, the differing views of Republicans and the Democrats contribute significantly to the political dysfunction of the U.S. Conclusion Ultimately, it is evident the Cold War has impacted on the U.S. from the leadership perspective such as political dysfunction and prosperity. However, the U.S. continues to be recognized politically as a supreme nation by many states globally because of the role it plays in the global arena such as opposing autocratic regimes and promoting democracy. However, the country faces challenges of ineffective leadership practices from Washington, which have paved way for the emergence of other countries are threatening its monopoly power of global administration and oversight role. References Baldwin, R., & Evenett, S. (2009). The collapse of global trade, murky protectionism and the crisis: Recommendations for the G20. CEPR. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2004). The effect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2-3), 19-38. Flynn, S. (2004). America the vulnerable: How our government is failing to protect us from terrorism. New York: HarperCollins. Gaddis, J. L. (2006). The Cold War: a new history. Penguin. Haas, M. L. (2007). A geriatric peace? The future of US power in a world of aging populations. International Security, 32(1), 112-147. Hu, A. (2011). China in 2020: A new type of superpower. Brookings Institution Press. Kagan, R. (2007). Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order. Vintage. Kane, T. J. (2006). Global US troop deployment, 1950-2005. Available at SSRN 1146649. Kristensen, H. M. (2005). The role of US nuclear weapons: new doctrine falls short of Bush pledge. Arms Control Today, 13-19. LaFeber, W. (2008). America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2006. McGraw-Hill. Ostry, S. (2008). The post-cold war trading system: whos on first?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Posen, B. R., & Ross, A. L. (2012). Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy. Ramey, V. A. (2009). Identifying government spending shocks: its all in the timing (No. w15464). National Bureau of Economic Research. Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westad, O. A. (2005). The global Cold War: third world interventions and the making of our times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More