The U.S Power in the Middle East - Coursework Example

The U.S Power in Middle East Neo-conservatism andAmerican Foreign Policy Introduction Neo-conservatism refers to a political philosophy that has transcended through decades in the United States political and social platform. It is a theoretical approach that advocates the assertive promotion of American democracy and enhancing of national interest in international affairs including military incursion. Today’s it defines why the American army continues to fight in the Middle East despite the region open disregard to democratic ideals and the rule of law that is championed by the Americans. In addition, the theory borrows a lot from a general belief that liberalists are wrong and evil. In addition neo-conservatives believe that the pursuit of socialism is impractical, and the call for non-secular democracy is inevitable (Kilmister 2009) Historically, this philosophy that today defines American foreign policy dates back to 1950s and 1960s when university riots and cultural unrest appeared to have held the country hostage (Jamal 2012). For many years, civil rights activists had successfully championed for a liberal nation that was rooted in democratic ideals, the cultural unrest and agitation for liberal political platform appeared ill to those who hold conservatism views (Hobbes 1985).Under the concept of neo-conservatism, the American political platform is based on patriotism as described by Kristol. Besides, it is conservatives’ belief on traditional values that drives and nurture strong ideology of patriotism that ensures that the American interests both locally and foreign is given uttermost consideration. Hess (2011 states that conservatives believe in the noble discourse of maintaining world peace while staring off the liberalization of foreign policy. This explains why U.S consistent attitude of using its power for "moral" and international obligation. During the 9/11 incidence, the ideology was shaken, and the American patriotism was put to test by terrorism (Hess 2011). Through an interlaced system of domestic ideologies, the pursuit for terrorist and resilience of American citizens appeared stronger than ever. The theory on conservatism became overt during President Bush; however, it was also present as early as Jimmy Carter and Reagan regime as very crucial values in advancing politic and foreign affairs. Although neo-conservatism beliefs application in strict Muslim extremist Middle East appears appeared impractical, the pursuit of terrorist into Middle East region is part of wider beliefs of conservatism. Some critics argue that inversion of the Middle East is a self-gratifying mission by U.S government in patronizing the entire world politics and not self-protection as a pillar of neo-conservatism theory (Jones 2012). The neo-conservatism theory suggests an organized democratization post-cold war era in world politics. Neo-conservationists believe in using American power to uphold American moral and shaping world politics, any nation that appears or perceived hostile to this reality could be confronted forcefully. The debate on whether American global ideals are representatives of the other nations remains unanswered. In addition, critics argue that U.S cannot afford to be the world policemen. As a defining foreign policy, neo-conservatism recognizes that the presence of the American role is crucial, and the nation will cease being America if it fails to guard this role in the midst of rising rebellion and religious extremism in the Middle East (Hess 2011). Cross-pollination concept argues that conservatism is unjust means of exercising egocentric cultural values to others at expense of freedom (Jost et al. 2009).In fact, the author argues that neo-conservatism as introduced in 1960s appears to have slowly eroded liberal 1930s liberal democracy and, as a result, there has been a slow democratic expansion in U.S and global politics. In addition, this theory introduced republican democracy that arguably applies democratic ideals sparingly. Other critics argue that President Bush republican ideologies plunged the U.S into endless Middle East that has since lead to great socioeconomic losses due to conservatism ego. However, neo-conservatism ideals agree totally with this military expedition as a show of U.S influence in upholding its values (Steger & Roy, 2014). Today, conservatives derive pride from the U.S military role and the ultimate, unwavering U.S superior role in world politics. Neo-Liberalism and U.S Foreign Policy Neo-liberalism refers to a theoretical framework that suggests a general belief that human beings are good-natured beings and deserve freedom of choice. It can also be crudely defined as assured freedom to individuals. The core foundation of this theory is derived from the persistent and purposeful struggle towards ensuring that every person has the freedom to do whatever possible, but within the constraints of the law (Zenko 2013). With the authority, the liberal concept when blended with conservatism creates the moral responsibility of every action undertaken. In the light of this reality, many nations have consistently jeopardize many lives at the expense of the pursuit of self-fulfillment. Today, the arms race and religious radicalization in the Middle East is arguably the product of adopting excessive and unchecked freedom (Jones 2012). Neo-liberalism theoretical application gained prominence after the World War 1 after the U.S President Woodrow Wilson founded the League of Nations. It was seen by many as a liberal gesture towards creating individual nation’s freedom and expanding political and religious space (Amable 2011). It appeared democratic dispensation; the emphasis was given on the individual nation constitution as a yardstick in local and international politics. In addition, Woodrow upheld Kants theoretical framework of perpetual peace that laid down three pillars of constitutionalism, Pacific Union and treatment of civilians with respect and dignity (Esposito & Finley 2014). This was the beginning of liberalism ideology that thereafter, swept across the Europe and gradually across the globe. Liberalsits believes that no country encroaches sovereignty of another nation, largely, the strategy succeeded in creating a temporary truce although international politics appeared to have been shaped by the events of the war. Application of neo-liberalization beliefs has introduced a new twist to American foreign policy and to a greater extends the international political platform. Those who hold neo-liberal views, believes in the institutionalism approach in handling global matters such as such as world peace and war on terror (Clarke 2010). The new liberals anchor their beliefs in the United Nations, NATO and other international bodies as the ultimate solution to ending the unrest in the war-torn Middle East. Neo-liberalists believe that relative peace sustainability can be attained through international systems and hegemony that sets the global agenda. This theory, therefore, supports hegemonic theory in upholding world peace and international relations. However, the United States still believe in the individual effort that includes military incursion into idle East as the ultimate solution to ending wars and terror groups. Although, American participation in Iraq and Korea warfare to a significant extent is a wider scheme to ensure relevance in terms of superpower and international politics According to the democratic peace theory, liberalists trust institutionalized and peaceful approach towards ending warfare. The theory agrees with the liberals in ensuring there is no any form of wars in contemporary government. Contrary to the belief that American is the leader of modern day democracy, the incursion into Iraq following 9/11 terror attack betrays the intention of American in ensuring liberalism in approaching conflict (Rubenzer 2011). Issues bordering threat to national peace ought to be approached in a lesser liberal manner. The liberalism and neo-liberal central theme lies in democratic space theory that forms the basis of Kants democratic ideals and realism (Exposito & Finley 2014). Under the traditional democratic peace theory, the emphasis was laid on learning from the experience. The modern day version lays emphasis on the firm foundation of nations that exercises cautious liberalism while upholding the rule of law and convention human rights. One of the reasons of military action in Iraq by the American government is derived from the need to foster democratic leadership and promote internal liberalism values as stipulated in liberalism theory. Arguably, removal of perceived dictatorial leadership and nurturing democratic ideals in socialist states culminates the liberalism success in the Middle East and the overall impact on the international political arena. The hallmark application of neo-liberalization requires mature democracy and national values that hold the interest of the citizens a priority (Mann 2012). Middle East and U.SA Relations U.S.A in Middle East and U.S relations has attracted significant attention over the past five decades. The relation of these two parts of the world appears to excite both economists and political analysts across the globe. The relation started as a socio-economic romance around 1930s, when American had risen to be a powerful and influential nation in global politics. It began when a California-based exploration company discovered huge oil reservoirs in eastern Saudi Arabia (Johnston 2012). In a rare twist of events, Roosevelt, then the president of the United States hosted Abd al-Aziz the founding monarch of Saudi Arabia together with Egyptian leader in 1945. After a much-publicized meeting, the U.S undertook the initiative of fostering peace of Saudi and across the Pacific Gulf region. During this initial contact, the chief interest of the United States was oil. Sadly, today, the relation has turned sore leading to hostile relation of the entire Middle East towards the United States government (Hess 2011). Besides, most Middle East nations view American incursion into the region as patronizing and exploitative. Besides, there has been terror groups extremist and radical Muslim groups that have continued to ensure United States influence in the region remains dismal. Certainly, numerous factors appear to motivate the continued efforts of the U.S into this war-torn region. Firstly, the U.S is interested in keeping oil, gas and petroleum product flow into the world markets; certainly, this is morally good because the region enjoys rich oil reserves whose supply is crucial to the global oil prices and production of energy. Secondly, as a noble global duty, the U.S is determined in eradicating production of weapons of mass destruction as witnessed by the attempts made by the Koreans (Koo 2011). Under the U.S traditional of conservatism, the pursuit for a peaceful planet includes arms reduction and pursuit against terrorism. This explains George Bush encroachment into Iraq and revolution expeditions against the Saddam Hussein government. Thirdly, the motivating factor in the region is Anti-American terror groups and religious extremists who have radicalized youths into jihadism. With increased threat to world peace, Americans have chosen to severe its relation to the East by forcefully entering the region in pursuit of al Qaeda and similar terror groups. Today, the American government derives pleasure from killing Osama Bin Laden, who sadly, had established a terror network in the region. The war against terror remains non-partisan and unbiased towards a religion, race or any social grouping (Jones 2012). Despite declining U.S power in the Middle East, the strategic interest has not changed much. One of the universal moral duties is to promote respect for human rights and foster participative democracy in the region. Although the locals view this as patronizing and thus the U.S government has been exposed to hatred and opposition in the region, the ultimate intentions are healthy in the region (Bouchet 2013). The U.S influence has significantly because the governments in the region have continuously opposed the actions and programs championed by the States; this has led to the loss of good will for the U.S from the civilians (Hess 2011). Certainly, American influence in the Middle East has over the past decade declined significantly. The incursion into Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria has seen enormous financial losses in addition of overt loss of lives. While Americans attempted to exert its political ideologies in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have failed to establish a lasting solution. The Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to expand anti-American ideology despite the U.S military presence in the region. Besides, the U.S has failed to oust Syrian President despite economic sabotage and sanctions threats. There is certainty that the Taliban will emerge immediately the U.S troops leave the region. The pursuit to enhance U.S supremacy has failed to enhance U.S citizen confidence in their military operations. Surprisingly 52-37% of American citizens consider incursion a failed mission. The continued terror groups’ operations and public loss of faith are clear indicators of declined influence (Jones 2012). Contrary to the opinion of many scholars, Juneau (2014) believes that the relations between United States of America and Middle East States are still reassuring and strong. He demonstrates this by expressing distinct examples of how the two states do influence each other’s development in different sectors. For example, he states how US have several military bases and assets situated in Middle East. Essentially, they have deployed at least 165,000 troops to the country for the sake of peace maintenance. This is quite expensive to US, as it costs approximately 100 billion dollars annually. Additionally, there have been constant negotiations with reference to the cessation of utility of nuclear weapons.US do rely to a large extent a portion of the petroleum and oil products from the Middle East. Consequently, despite the extrinsic picture of deteriorating relationships, the overall dimension reflects a country that deems to maintain ties with the Middle East. Conclusion The U.S intelligently influenced the Iraq and Iran rivalry so that these countries could continue checking each other in the wake of the1991 war. Besides, U.S did not intend to create a separate center of power, but create a wave of sustained influence across the region. Although it successfully succeeded, this control is slowly fading due to the establishment of the socialist government and modern day international policy on respect for sovereignty. Currently, the U.S wields its influences solely on the war on terror and extremist. However, it seems to have adopted retreat strategy at the economy front despite overt attempts to control the oil reserves. Reference List Amable, B., 2011. Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-Economic Review, 9, pp.3–30. Bouchet, N., 2013. The democracy tradition in US foreign policy and the Obama presidency. International Affairs, 89, pp.31–51. Clarke, J., 2010. After Neo-Liberalism? Cultural Studies, 24, pp.375–394. Esposito, L., & Finley, L. L. 2014. Beyond Gun Control: Examining Neoliberalism, Pro-gun Politics and Gun Violence in the United States. Theory In Action, 7(2) Hess, D. J. 2011. Electricity Transformed: Neoliberalism and Local Energy in the United States. Antipode, 43(4), 1056-1077 Jones, T.C., 2012. America, Oil, and War in the Middle East. Journal of American History, 99, pp.208–218. Jamal, M.A., 2012. Democracy Promotion, Civil Society Building, and the Primacy of Politics. Comparative Political Studies, 45, pp.3–31. Johnston, A.I., 2012. What (If Anything) Does East Asia Tell Us About International Relations Theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 15, pp.53–78. Jost, J.T. et al., 2009. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological bulletin, 129, pp.339–375. Juneau, T., 2014. US Power in the Middle East: Not Declining. Middle East Policy, 21(2), pp. 40-52 Kilmister, A., 2009. The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. Contemporary Political Theory, 7, pp.114–119. Koo, M.G., 2011. US approaches to the trade-security nexus in East Asia: From securitization to resecuritization. Asian Perspective, 35, pp.37–57. Mann, K., 2012. Resistance to Neo-Liberalism: France, Greece, Spain, and the US. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 11, pp.182–191. Manfred, B.S. & K.Roy, R., 2010. Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Rubenzer, T., 2011. Campaign contributions and U.S. foreign policy outcomes: An analysis of cuban american interests. American Journal of Political Science, 55, pp.105–116. Zenko, M., 2013. Reforming US Drone Strike Policies. Council on Foreign Relations Special Report, pp.1–42. Read More