Foreign Policy Current Challenges in the United States
Introduction to Foreign Policy Current Challenges
The events of September 11 had a profound effect on the Bush administration and U.S. foreign policy. They also affected the attitudes of the American public toward foreign policy and the level of congressional and public support for the president on foreign policy issues.
The events of September 11 increased the public’s support for a more assertive approach toward actions in the global arena and enhanced congressional deference to the president. They also motivated the president to take more interest and control over the conduct of foreign policy. All of these things produced a new U.S. foreign policy strategy. That strategy was designed to fight and defeat “terrorists and tyrants” worldwide, especially those with access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To carry out this strategy, the United States embarked on a comprehensive global effort, utilizing alliances, international organizations, and an informal “coalition of the willing.” Significantly, the United States reserved to itself the right of taking preventive action against these adversaries, if necessary-that is, launching military attacks without evidence of an imminent threat. American actions against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and against Saddam Hussein in the U.S.-Iraq War illustrate two important instances of applying this strategy.
The Bush doctrine, as this strategy came to be called, represented a substantial change in approach from that adopted in the immediate post-Cold War era and from the foreign policy approach that George W. Bush initially embraced upon becoming president. At the same time, the Bush doctrine bore some similarity to the kind of foreign policy pursued by the United States at the height of the Cold War. Much like the Cold War years, the antiterrorist strategy is universal in scope and moral in content. In both eras, U.S. policymakers sought to steer a clear and consistent policy course by focusing on a singular target or goal. Both eras, too, relied significantly on the use of U.S. military capabilities and on the willingness of the United States to act alone if necessary.
The Bush doctrine has received both criticism and support for these very characteristics. Among critics, it is perceived as too unilateralist, especially in an age of globalization and multilateralism. It is also seen as too ideological, especially when it sets the United States at odds with its traditional allies and friends, and too dependent on military capabilities, especially when political, social, and economic actions are also crucial to combating the terrorist threat (see Counterterrorism). Other critics pointed to U.S. “bullying” of other nations to achieve its goals and questioned the validity of the data to support it-for example, the lack of supporting evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Among supporters, the Bush doctrine’s clarity of purpose and its singular focus on the principal international threat today are important sources of its strength. Supporters say the strategy aims to preserve human dignity, a fundamental American value, against the dangers of terrorism and tyrants and to build a “balance of power that favors freedom” against these forces. Furthermore, the nature of the threat justifies U.S. unilateral action, including the reliance upon military means. Since terrorists and tyrants-especially if they gain access to weapons of mass destruction-represent the greatest threat to international peace and stability, the United States has little choice but to act alone if others will not. Because some forces hostile to the United States can only be deterred or defeated through military means, the United States must rely upon these capabilities.
Several domestic and international challenges thus confront the implementation of this new U.S. foreign policy strategy. Will the American public and policymakers continue to embrace this new strategy and continue to allow the president broad discretion in carrying it out? Will the international community support the often-singular focus of this new U.S. policy? Or will the policy produce the opposite outcome that it sought-by undermining confidence in U.S. leadership and weakening global efforts to address the numerous transnational threats, including the terrorist threat.” (1)
Resources
Notes and References
- Information about Foreign Policy Current Challenges in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia
Leave a Reply