The Suitability of the Current U.S. Foreign Policy - Article Example

The Suitability of the Current U.S. Foreign Policy Max Boot: “I think that U.S. intervention is highly necessary in resolving the turmoils experienced in Haiti. This U.S. intervention protected the interest of both countries.” Thomas Fowler: “Such view is derived from a dominant culture. However, it does not necessarily signify that the U.S. intervention is suitable for the condition in Haiti. This is what a dominant culture, like the U.S., imposed to a differential community.” Max Boot: “But, the world has witnessed the turbulent political climate of the Haiti. The period between 1911 and 1915 was marked by forced exiles and political assassinations. Leaders are overthrown and put into position by the Cacos. The U.S. needs to intervene to eliminate the prevailing anarchy, oppression, and savagery of the country.” Thomas Fowler: “The pursuit of U.S. for neo-imperial foreign policy is often disguised as an attempt to rebuild and aid a vulnerable nation. Unknown to many, the U.S. consented the bombings in Vietnam for this same pursuit.” Max Boot: “These bombings are necessary for the long-term good of Vietnam in the same manner that U.S. marine’s landing in Port-au-Prince is necessary.” Thomas Fowler: “These same malevolent actions blur the distinction between good and evil. The U.S. has engaged in terrorism while claiming that it is for the cause of democracy.” Max Boot: “This is not an ‘either or’ condition, the U.S. had to fight to establish a precondition for a negotiation. The situation warrants Colonel Littleton W.T. Waller to disarm the Haitian army and fight the Cacos.” Thomas Fowler: “The problem with the U.S. foreign policy can be clearly illustrated in the Vietnam war where thousands of lives were lost. The U.S. was preoccupied with their commitment to eliminate communism and pursued a war that lasted for nearly fifteen years. The U.S. utilized its military force to attain its goal. But the war ended with the failure of the U.S. to accomplish its goal. The U.S. became too absorbed in shaping everything in an ‘American way.’” Max Boot: “The failure of the U.S. in Vietnam is not due to a flawed U.S. foreign policy but to too much reliance of Vietnamese leaders on the U.S. and commitment of various errors. The North Vietnam, which is a communist regime utilized its human resources. A generation of the North Vietnamese was eliminated. Hanoi compelled its citizen to participate in the war effort of the country through entrenching a distribution system for basic goods. In addition, the U.S. forces depended too much on modern equipment and weaponry. The U.S. used conventional manner against North Vietnams unconventional warfare. The U.S. underestimated the nature of their nemesis, the political struggle, and the effects of supporting an unpopular and weak regime. These factors explain why the U.S. lost in Vietnam.” Thomas Fowler: “But the issue is how can the U.S. claim to favor democracy if they attempted to overthrow a democratically elected communist government in Vietnam and other countries?” Max Boot: “The ability of the Cacos to remove or put a new leader into position is not considered democracy. The interest of the majority is undermined to pursue the interest of the few.” Thomas Fowler: “It should be reiterated that the U.S. is mainly driven to protect their ‘interest.’ This is manifested by their intervention in Vietnam, which is fuelled by the belief that communism will begin dominating the entire Southeast Asian region if it is successfully imposed in South Vietnam. In the same manner, the U.S. feared that Germany would entrench a base in Haiti. This threatens the preeminence of U.S. in the Caribbean. This fear is strengthened by the flourishing German Merchant in Haiti. This German community controlled 80% of the foreign trade. American intelligence report asserted that these German businessmen are active in controlling or manipulating Haitian politics. Washington feared that the constant chaos in Haiti would give German an excuse to intervene. This would seem to indicate that the interest of the citizens of Haiti is undermining for the ‘interest’ of the U.S.” Max Boot: “The U.S. built 2010 bridges, 11 hospitals, 147 rural clinics, 1,250 miles irrigation canals, and more in Haiti. These are built by the U.S. with minimal cost to the taxpayers. The U.S. also revamped the educational system in the Dominican Republic. The U.S. imposed sanitation, cleaned up jails, built roads, updated hospitals, and overhauled the taxes. The population of the Dominican Republic significantly increased due to medical improvements. The U.S. established an American-officered constabulary, which aims to serve as a strong and efficient army and political police force. Similarly, the intervention of U.S. in Afghanistan proves beneficial to its citizens. The new government has improved the status of Afghan women in the country. Approximately 50,000 women got their jobs back, and millions of children were back to school. The U.S. intervention eliminated the threat of the country being taken over or dominated by Islamic fundamentalists. Lastly, the intervention of U.S. in Iraq enabled the U.S. to support allies and provide long term stability in the region. The U.S. successfully rebuilt these nations. This doesn’t seem to illustrate that the U.S. undermined the interest and welfare of other countries.” Thomas Fowler: “This U.S. intervention took the lives of 1,137 of ‘bandits’ in the Dominican Republic, 2,250 Cacos from 1915 until 1920, 1 million Iraqis, 2 to 3 million Indochinese, and numerous casualties. Millions in the U.S. army were killed due to U.S. decision to intervene when it’s completely unnecessary.” Max Boot: “The U.S. will give Germans an excuse to intervene in Haiti if it failed to act fast and get involved. Non-intervention of the U.S. will endorse political assassinations and dominance of Cacos in Haiti. It will send a message that the U.S. tolerates terrorism if it didn’t occupied Afghanistan and Iraq.” Thomas Fowler: “My friend, you failed to mention the notions and assumptions that impelled the U.S. to intervene in Vietnam. The domino theory, which fuelled the U.S. intervention, is proven to be invalid as no other Nation in Southeast Asia adopted the communism. I would like to stress that the U.S. has no means of knowing whether the Germans will get involved in the affairs of Haiti with the absence of the U.S. intervention. The U.S. intervention led to the lost of million lives. The wound that the war created left an indelible mark in the inhabitants of Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In addition, the roads decayed and telephones stopped functioning when the marines left in Haiti. The U.S. troops were back four years later in the Dominican Republic to eliminate the leftist revolt....” Max Boot: “That would somehow indicate the importance of the presence of the U.S. in those countries.” Thomas Fowler: “No, what I am trying to say is that the effects of the U.S. intervention didn’t last long. Thus, its foreign policy failed to accomplish its objectives. It established a native constabulary led by Americans and trained armies in Haiti and Dominican Republic. But it failed to diffuse tensions in these countries.” Max Boot: “But it protected the interest of the U.S. along with the interest of other unstable countries like Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq.” Thomas Fowler: “The problem lies in the failure of the U.S. to define its ‘national interest.’ The U.S. economy suffered from inflation due to war expenditures in Vietnam. The U.S. intervention in Iraq also leads to budget deficits and bankruptcy. U.S. intervention can be considered as a detriment as it undermines the welfare and prosperity of the country. The U.S. does not possess the ability to determine the interest of the other countries, when it doesn’t even know what its best interest is.” Max Boot: “The main goal of the U.S. is to transition the war from U.S. troops to afghan national forces or from foreign armies. The afghan forces increased from 150,000 to 250,000 with the U.S. intervention. The training provided by the U.S. military forces improved the skills and abilities of the afghan troops, which would consequently enable them to defend its country from the Taliban”. Thomas Fowler: “But the U.S. does not need to get involved into these conflicts and tensions. The national security of the U.S. is threatened by its financial condition. The U.S. does not need to interfere with the affairs of other countries. This same intervention has ignited the World War 1 and the war in Vietnam. The terrorist attacked the world trade center on September 9, 2011, due to the country’s military bases in Saudi Arabia. The terrorists wanted to retaliate to the U.S. as it occupies their country. It is the same way that the U.S. would aggressively react if China or other countries would establish military bases in the U.S.” Max Boot: “The 9/11 terrorist attack necessitates a respond. As what Ive said earlier, the U.S. will send a message that it condones terrorism if it doesn’t act and intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Thomas Fowler: “But this terrorist attack is fuelled by the presence of the U.S. in the Saudi Arabia. The U.S. should thoroughly examine its foreign policy. The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is not the suitable response to the situation. It has nothing to do with the national security of the U.S. as Al Queda was not found in these countries. This is exactly what Bin Laden and numerous terrorist groups’ desire; they want the U.S. to drain its money by intervening into the affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. in the present times can no longer tax and borrow money for intervention and nation building. The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars in these wars and nation building. The U.S. Federal Reserve cannot continue printing moneys for the foreign countries. The U.S. can cut its expenses when it withdraws its troops in Iraq.” Max Boot: “But how about the liberty of the inhabitants of South Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq?” Fowler: “How can imposing the will of the U.S.A foster the liberty of these individuals? The best thing that the U.S. can do for these individuals is to give them their country back. These individuals do not want the U.S. to impose a ‘western style’ of governing their countries. The presence of U.S. in the Arabian Peninsula has fuelled a lot of animosity. These individuals thought that we are stealing their oil.” Max Boot: “But you can’t simply deny the fact that the intervention and rebuilding efforts of the U.S. in Haiti, Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq have succeeded. The presence of U.S. into these countries has deterred militants, improves infrastructure and education, and strengthened the economy.” Thomas Fowler: “That is completely irrelevant, when you weigh the cost and benefits of U.S. intervention in these countries. The U.S. should look after its own welfare and interest. These intervention and rebuilding efforts weakened the economy. It’s time for the U.S. to mind its own business and promote the essence of true liberty. The U.S. should concentrate on its borders and revive the economy through cutting expenses in Iraq. You argued earlier that the U.S. intervention in Haiti aims to protect the residents of that particular country. But I highly doubt if the U.S. protects its interest and the other countries’ interest with its current foreign policy.” Max Boot: “The U.S. loses its foothold and consequently its power into these highly sensitive regions when it failed to intervene.” Thomas Fowler: “The U.S. will lose its power and prosperity due to the country’s current financial condition. It has started digging its crave when it started a war and intervention in Iraq. The attempt of the U.S. to assert its foothold into these sensitive regions through intervention will pose a threat to the country’s financial and security condition. As what I’ve said earlier, the country should concentrate on its own welfare.” A long silence ensued as the two became seemingly exhausted from their conversation. They enjoyed how the darkness began to engulf the surrounding .The silence was interrupted by Thomas Fowler’s invitation for a Beer, a perfect metaphor for how countries with differing views can still coexist. Read More