The Federal Foreign Policy of the U.S. under Presidents - Assignment Example

The Federal Foreign Policy of the U.S. under Presidents Arabian Foreign Policy of Bush Senor and Junior Administrations Position In Favor of the Policy Perhaps the similarity of one of the most daunting tasks for the two Bush’s administrations regarded the foreign policy around the Middle East. Protection of American interests in the Middle East composed the assurance of security of American nationals in the region as well as support for American allies. In view of the course of action taken by the government to assure Americans exercising public and private duties in the Arabian region, it could not be overemphasized that such action was needed. It is the role of the American government, just as other credible governments should, to facilitate a safe working environment for all the Americans working around the world. The attack and hatred against the American nationals in Lebanon and other Middle East areas was beyond provocation of the two governments to react and be seen to respond to such threats. Without the assurance of American support to her allies in the region, it would be difficult for America to pursue her foreign policies around the world (Davis, 2006). It was therefore in good taste that the two American governments provided support to Saudi Arabia and Israel during the turbulent periods. Despite the fact that the provision of support to national security of the allies could augur well with the security of American securities in the region, it was not possible to carry both policy functionalities separately. By ensuring that the American foreign policy was equally sustainable in both needs, it was possible to demonstrate America as a strong world power concerned by the safety of Americans and allies alike. Specific interventions for the safety of the allies such as neutralization of proliferation of nuclear weapons also assured America’s national security. Response to the Position in Favor of the Policy Apparently, the role of the government in terms of provision of security for its citizens is among top priority agendas (Positive Argument). Alternatively, the protection of the national interests, particularly in strategic foreign relations implies that the role of the government in such a setting requires a close consideration. It is therefore understandable that both the George W. H Bush Senior and the George W. Bush Junior governments followed the Middle East policy keenly. Under the circumstances that the American population in the region was exposed to, it was imperative that the government rose to the occasion. It would be a similar scenario for a future American president to be compelled by national duty to offer direct intervention to an American in distress, at any location in the world (Kaufman, 2009). It was not necessarily special about the intervention to protect the Americans under threat due to the location, but the American national policy on such a scenario does not isolate cases. For purposes of sustaining strategic relations such as those between the Saudis and Israelis, taking a leading role before other world powers’ support is in the best interests of the country. The volatility of the Middle East against a backdrop of domineering powerful regimes such as from the former Soviet Union could not be left too escalate. In terms of the Cold War tensions that prevailed for a considerable duration of time between the major blocs, lenience was not an option for the Bush Senior administration (Hulsman and Lieven, 2006). It was therefore timely and advisable to ensure that long standing policy against certain hostile positions against the allies did not damage the American stance. Position Against the Policy Whereas the threats posed by the insecurity in Middle East leading to the First and Second Gulf Wars appeared to risk America’s and allies national security, the outcomes did not prove conclusive. In the First Gulf War, it was not possible for America to topple the Saddam’s regime even after using considerable resources for the policy implementation. It was not possible therefore to neutralize the perceived threat where aggression against Americans and allies in the region and around the world. Contrary to the belief that Saddam’s regime was running dangerous weapon programs, the toppling of the regime during the Second Gulf War gave even a difficult possibility. The credibility of the American foreign policy in Iraq raised questions on the actual intention of celebrated policy for protection of Americans and allies in the region. In addition, the series of events of hatred against the Americans in the Middle East has aggravated terrorist extremism that now spills out of the region. Despite the fact that provision of unquestioned support to strategic allies in the Middle East is a core approach by the United States, it should be extended at the expense of other important allies. As an illustration, insurgence around the Middle East led to the strengthening of terror ideologies such as Al-Qaida and other related terror groups operating nearly across the whole of Asia and large parts of Africa. Concentration of America’s effort to the security of her nationals and allies around the Middle East is perhaps disproportionate with the rest of the world. Rising antagonism from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea with regard to nuclear policy only heightens the tension around pursuing a long lasting solution to the challenge. Response to the Position Against the Policy For any aggressive policy to be rolled out against a perceived enemy, it is expected that the highest standards of cost-benefit analysis for the involved intervention be involved. By engaging the Baath regime in the Gulf War, Bush Senior’s administration would be expected to have met the highest possible intelligence around the allegations of possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - (Evidence Argument). Despite the fact that the war was not worn to immediately establish the accuracy of the allegations during Bush Senior’s administration, the Bush Junior administration pursued the same policy and the worst-case scenario was unraveled. The only success to the American-led collapse of the Baath regime can perhaps be associated to the bringing to justice of Saddam for atrocities perpetrated. Legal challenges against the American-led war on Iraq to purse WMD still exist and it is a huge mistake if nothing convincing comes out of the probes around the war (Cashman and Robinson, 2007). Today’s high-level terror threats for America and her allies across the world cannot be justified for just two administrations in entire American history. It is more insecure for an American to be in the Middle East and many more world regions than it was before the implementation of the foreign policy by the Bush’s administrations. The economic and social costs incurred by the policy by far surpass the benefits, with rising hatred and isolation of Americans likely to affect the Super Power status into the future (Buss and Joseph, 2008). Apparently, it would be better if a dialogue alternative were employed to stop the escalation of possible threats against America and her allies. References Buss, M. H., & Joseph, M. (2008). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World History, vol. 2: The Modern Era to the Present. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Higher Education Cashman, G. & Robinson, L. C., (2007). An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq, London, UK: Rowan and Littlefied Publishers Davis, J. (2006). Presidential policies and the road to the second Iraq war: From Forty One to Forty Three. London, UK: Ashgate Publishing LTD Hulsman, J., C. & Lieven, A., (2006). “Neo-Conservatives, Liberal Hawks, and the War on Terror: Lessons from the Cold War,” World Policy Journal, 23(3):64-74 Kaufman, J. P. (2009). A Concise History of US Foreign Policy. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Taylor R. S., (n.d). “The United Nations International Law and the War in Iraq”, World Press Review. Retrieved from: http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ Read More