The United States military occupation in the Middle East, or the “War on Terror” as it is sometimes called, is one of the most hotly debated subjects to date. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, along with the history of Saddam Hussein, created an extremely difficult situation for President George Bush and the rest of the government. The United States was not a stranger to war in the Middle East; in the early 90’s, the United States was fighting the Gulf War in the Middle East.
The attacks on 9/11 were committed by Al Qaeda, as Islamic terrorist organization based in the Middle East. The attacks consisted of four commercial planes being hijacked by suicide terrorists, and deliberately being flown into buildings. Two planes hit the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, and those buildings subsequently collapsed within two hours. The other two planes were aimed at the Pentagon and Capitol Building in Washington D.C. The former reached its target, obliterating a portion of the building. The latter, however, was brought down over Pennsylvania, due to the passengers of the plane attempting to regain control from the terrorists. Osama bin Laden, who was thought to be the leader of Al Qaeda, did not claim credit for the attacks until 2004. Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, was one of the only leaders in the world to praise the 9/11 attacks.
The question whether or not going to war was an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks, as well as Hussein’s actions, in my opinion, is a resounding yes. After 9/11, the most significant threat to U.S. security was rogue states with WMD’s. Hussein had been attempting to develop WMD’s for decades, and without the opposition destroying his nuclear sites on numerous occasions, it is very possible that Hussein would have been in possession of WMD’s by 2001. In a speech made by Vice President Dick Cheney to a national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in 2002, he states that, “…many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981, when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath.” Cheney went on the say that, “But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon” The mere thought of a leader like Hussein in possession of nuclear weapons is terrifying. Though it is unclear whether or not he actually was in possession of WMD’s around the time of 9/11, Hussein was being purposefully vague. He implemented a strategy known as deterrence by doubt. Hussein believed that nuclear weapons were essential to deterring countries like Iran from attacking, so even if he did not have them, he found that it was better for every else to wonder if he did or not.
Another significant reason for going to war against Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein from office. According to Bruce Jentleson, in his book, American Foreign Policy, “Saddam Hussein truly was among the worst of the worst dictators. He had used chemical weapons against his own people. He had murdered thousands, tortured thousands more. He had started two wars against his neighbors.” Hussein’s reign was responsible for killing thousands of people; men, women and children alike. In President Barack Obama’s address concerning the war, he stated that, “In the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al Qaeda and routed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then, our focus shifted. A second war was launched in Iraq, and we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there.” He had shown a willingness to go to war and to use chemical weapons, and the evidence had shown that he would not be removed from power, considering his reign lasted over two decades and through two wars.
A third reason to go into Iraq was pure humanitarianism....
...American Government B
Unit 3 Portfolio Options
*Choose ONE of the following ____ options to complete.
*DO NOT follow the directions listed in the lesson (U3L11).
*Live Lesson on April _____th will review these directions.
*Every option MUST include a list of bibliography with at least three sources.
*DO NOT use Wikipedia, blogs, or any other unreliable source.
1. Read the letter to the editor “Not in Our Son’s Name” by Phyllis and Orlando Rodriguez. The article is a plea from the parents of 911 victim Gregory Rodriguez to the government not to go to war to avenge their son.
2. Respond to the Rodriguez family by writing a 1.5-2 page letter supporting or disagreeing with their position based on facts from reliable sources.
3. The letter must include:
1-2 pages of text in Times-Roman 12 font, 1-inch margins, double-spaced.
Proper letter format.
At least 3 verifiable facts about world politics, or U.S. foreignpolicy.
Bibliography with at least three sources.
1. Choose a major US diplomatic crisis to review. After some research, write a 2-page on the crisis. Focus on how the U.S. State Department worked to diffuse the crisis.
2. Possible examples of crises to be reported on include:
Iran-Hostage Crisis, 1979
Bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1982.
WikiLeaks Crisis, 2010.
Ax Murder Incident, Korean Demilitarized Zone, 1976.
U.S.S. Pueblo Incident, 1968.
...How successful was Henry VIII foreignpolicy.
On this question there are two opposite views. First, traditional, is that Henry’s and Wolsey’s foreignpolicy was a complete failure; it was short-sighted, naïve, anachronistic and way too expensive. As John Guy said in 1988, Wolsey ‘overreached himself in diplomacy’. The other view, in contrast, is that Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey, although not reaching much success had a very practical, flexible and purposeful foreignpolicy. Witness for this view is Mandell Creighton who in 1888 said: ‘Wolsey had a capacity which amounted to genius’. However, in my opinion, both these views are extremes, stressing too much some fact or other in English foreignpolicy in 1509-1529.
The traditional view points out Henry’s most important failures and misfortunes in his foreignpolicy. First of all, Henry VIII was unlucky in the war with France of 1512-14, as his army proved to be quite disorganized when he first went to battle in 1512. On the other hand, the Battle of Spurs was a triumph for Henry and Wolsey, as they occupied the city of Tournai and the fortress of Therouanne. The traditional view, however, is that this battle was of little importance to the whole English foreignpolicy and was soon forgotten. But it can’t be denied that this battle...
...millennium, it became increasingly clear that a new era in American (and world) history had begun. The old era had been dominated by the Cold War struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. The new era was defined by the rise of a new global economy...the ways in which the world's peoples lived, worked, and governed themselves. Global communication, trade, and capital flow all grew rapidly..." (Griffith, Baker 531). The United States rose to being the most powerful military supremacy nation in the world due to Reagan and Bush's destruction of the Cold War, bridging the 80's into the new 90's. George Bush's CIA and ambassadorial experience provided Americas key to our foreignpolicy negotiations, aiding in our nations leadership over the world. This defeat and new era caused our domestic and social society within America into a state of confusion and caused Americans to question what role they would play in this new society. "Not only did the Cold War define America's stance in the world, dictating foreignpolicy choices from southeast Asia to Latin America; it defined the contours of domestic politics as well," (Chafe 549). How can we believe now after September 11, that we still or always have had leadership or supremacy in this world? How could the heart of our country be damaged so much affecting our nation as a whole? This recent tragedy damaged the core of our patriotism...
..."The foreignpolicy of a country is in a sense a projection of its internal policies, social, political and economic."
(F. M. Muhammad Ayub Khan)
Pakistan was born under inauspicious circumstances. As with all other countries, Pakistan's ForeignPolicy is determined by the inescapable facts of history and of geography and by special influences which may be of transitory nature. In the words of P.A Reynolds, theForeignPolicy is defined as under:-
"The range of actions taken by varying sections of the government of a state in its relations with other bodies similarly acting on the international stage, in order to advance the national interests."
ForeignPolicy consists of the external actions taken by decision makers with the intention of achieving long-range goals and short-term objectives. Action is constrained by the perceived circumstances of the state, which includes its geography, its economy, its demography its political structure, culture and tradition, its military-strategy situation. But action is taken with reference to other bodies (states) similarly acting on the international stage, and is likewise constrained by their action. This may be called the international environment of decision-makers.
DETERMINANTS OF PAKISTAN'S FOREIGNPOLICY
1. Security, 2. Ideology 3. National Interests 4....
...Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 1, No. 2, Feb 2011
Pakistan’s ForeignPolicy: Internal Challenges in New Millennium
Pakistan’s foreignpolicy has always been identified as policy of self-abnegation. It is blamed that external factors particularly USA play a vital role in the shaping of foreignpolicy of Pakistan but there are many internal factors pose challenges to Pakistan’s foreignpolicy. Pakistan is an ideological state hence ideology has a special place in its foreignpolicy and it has been a central focus in the foreignpolicy for all time. There is a famous U-turn in Pakistan’s foreignpolicy in recent era and this shift in policy has provoked an intense debate at home and abroad. Territorial integrity is the foremost important foreignpolicy goal of any country and it deals with the security that may be external or internal or both. Similarly, most important issue in Pakistan’s foreignpolicy is security concerns because Pakistan has one of the most complex threat analyses of any state in the world. There are many problems at home related to grievances against foreignpolicy particularly on the issue and pattern of war...
...President Barack Obama and his administration’s foreignpolicy toward China can be summed up in one word: conciliatory. Conciliatory is not in the form of any weakness or appeasement, but rather the realization that in the 21st century global market, China is a main player on the world stage. Obama’s foreignpolicies are a departure from the previous administration. George Bush’s unilateral foreignpolicies were deemed domineering, even belligerent. From an international standpoint, Anti-American sentiments were at an all-time high during Iraqi War driven years. In America, the domestic stance after 9/11 saw this as an extension of patriotism and commitment. Nowadays, both domestically and internationally, many pundits would argue that Obama’s policy record in China inspires hope and optimism. President Obama is acknowledging the fact of a much more multipolar world exists where America cannot take all of the leadership roles by itself. Yet, at the same time, the world cannot go forward without America. In this respect, China needs a wide open market where they can export all their manufactured goods to consumers worldwide. Thus, it is a mutual benefit for China to have good international relations with other societies to acquire raw materials and sell products to overseas companies. President Obama’s policies toward China reflect a forward marching...
...POLITICAL SCIENCES |
MEDIA AND FOREIGNPOLICY |
SUBMITTED TO |
MR.IJAZ BUTT |
SUBMITTED BY |
AYESHA SADDIQUE (01) |
SADIA ABBAS (29)
MISHA ZAIDI (12)
INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICATION STUDIES PUBJAB UNIVERSITY LAHORE
B.S (HONS.) 3RD SEMESTER (MORNING)FOREIGNPOLICY AND MEDIA
DEFINITION OF FOREIGNPOLICYForeignPolicy can be defined as
“Relations between sovereign states. It is a reflection of domestic politics and an interaction among sovereign states. It indicates the principles and preferences on which a country wants to establish relations with another country.”
WHY IT IS NECESSORY FOR A COUNTERY?
No country today can think of a life independent of other nations. Every country has to develop relations with other countries so as to meet its requirements in economical, industrial and technological fields. It is thus necessary for every country to formulate a sound foreignpolicy. Foreignpolicy is necessary for a country to
* Promote sovereignty & national interest
* Cope up the problems of environment, Terrorism and many others.
* Solve the issues of...
...An Overview of Malaysia's ForeignPolicy As an extension of domestic policy, foreignpolicy is designed with the purpose in mind of defending and promoting the country's national security, economic and other vital interests. Despite the diversity of views regarding the perception and explanation of foreignpolicy, no foreignpolicy can be formulated in a vacuum. It must serve to function in a dynamic environment. Malaysia's foreignpolicy is no exception. Various geographical, historical, social and political determinants contribute to shaping the nature of Malaysia's foreignpolicy and the conduct of the country's international relations. Added to this is the external environment, or what may be termed as the systemic determinant, which becomes increasingly important with the advent of globalisation and in the wake of the epoch of communication and information technology (ICT). But the basic objective remains the same, i.e. the pursuit of Malaysia's national interest at the international level. A critical examination of Malaysia's foreignpolicy since 1957 would show its steady evolution characterised by notable changes in emphasis, which took place with the change in Malaysia's political stewardship. A markedly anti-Communist and pro-western posture with close...