Paragraph 1- The Intro. The year is 2050 and the United States and the rest of the world have a harmonious relationship. How did this come to be and what does the United States need to do in order to be on this track? Back to reality in 2017 this country is trying to determine what course of action to take so this vision of harmony can become closer to a reality. While the notion of achieving global cooperation is pleasant, it is nigh on impossible. While it is depressing that there cannot be complete global harmony, there are still actions that can be taken to make a more harmonious world.
United States foreign policy has fluctuated between ideologies for as long as it has been a country. The two main ideas are isolationism and interventionism. Countries of the world each employ one of these methods and argue that theirs is more effective than the other is. The two tend to have contradictory views on the use of military force. In the U. S. , there has been many mistakes made while using either ideology. This leads to the question of which is best and which should our country use.
United States foreign policy should be neither exclusively isolationist nor nterventionist, for either ideology can inform an appropriate response to an international issue depending on its circumstances. Paragraph 2- Intro to Interventionism. Woodrow Wilson was the 28th president of the United States and was president from 1913 to 1921, which means he was the president throughout World War 1. The Heritage Foundation describes Wilson’s foreign policy by saying: “Wilson’s foreign policy arose from a set of beliefs that were widely shared among Progressives at the time and continue to exert influence on both the Right and Left today.
The article continued later with: “Heirs to the Progressives tend to emphasize that the primary, if not exclusive, purpose of the use of force abroad should be to promote the freedom and welfare of other peoples (Heritage Foundation). ” Wilson’s use of interventionism is what many of politicians and citizens desire even ninety years after it was used. When the word interventionist is used one tends to think of the policy Wilson emphasized. The ideology of interventionism is very simple; a foreign policy in which one country’s government intervenes in other countries’ affairs.
The military is used more openly in this strategy, meaning that troop deployment and force is spread through more than one country. History proved that interventionism was, and still can be, an effective strategy to use in specific instances. The opposing viewpoint (isolationism) has been proved ineffective at times in history because interventionism was needed its place. There are two examples that demonstrate why the United States should adopt an interventionist policy in specific instances.
The first example is the current use of interventionism with rogue states nd the second is the failure of isolationism historically after the World War 1. Paragraph 3- Example of WMD’s. In the status quo, interventionism is used when interacting with countries such as North Korea and Iran. These countries have tried, or are still trying, to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). The United States has played a role in each of these scenarios by trying to prevent the acquisition of these weapons. Beginning with North Korea, one can look at the way the U. S. has intervened.
This is just a portion of the way the U. S. has prevented this from happening. Next we can look at the way that Iran’s nuclear weapon program was interfered with. Both of these strategies of interventionism have been used and are still used. This policy used by the United States has proved to be effective of maintaining peace and global stability. When a child does something that their parent does not approve of, the parent punishes them. To apply this analogy to the two examples above of Iran and North Korea, the United States would be the parent that disapproves of the child’s (Iran and North Korea’s) actions.
There are instances when people or ountries do not know who will step in and take charge. With an interventionist foreign policy, the U. S. is the one that fills that role. As mentioned prior, the military plays a significant role in an interventionist country. In order to have an effective foreign policy, the use of military force and troop deployment should be more limited than in the past. The way in which the United States acts towards the countries listed above is a great example of interventionism with limited military involvement.
So far, there has been very little military involvement in the rocess of preventing these countries from acquiring WMD’s. While this example seems to show the policy to be effective, it does not mean that it will be in all scenarios. There is a need for an intertwinement of the two strategies because there has been drastic failures in both. Paragraph 4-Iraq and Japan. A cat always land on its feet when dropped, regardless of how you drop it. This is a strange way to introduce another example of interventionism, but is an accurate analogy. There have been many successes of interventionism, but there are also examples of failure.
Towards the end of World War 2, the United States had a very pro interventionist foreign policy. The bombing of Japan signified the end of the war and a new beginning to the global community. The United States stayed heavily involved in Japan, despite the fact they just fought a war against each other. In class, we discussed that the U. S. involvement in Japan is linked to the containment of communism. By providing support and aide in the form of money, friendship, and human resources, the U. S. was able to guide Japan to success, and now they are a global superpower.
This is obviously an example of uccess achieved by interventionism. There is a similar example that occurred fairly recently which exemplifies the flaws in interventionism. Paragraph 4-Iraq and Japan. The United States was involved in Iraq in the 1990’s and 2000’s and used the interventionist policy to deal with the country. The leader of Iraq at the time was Saddam Hussein, and he was a very ruthless leader. The U. S. used its great power and influence to kill Saddam. The difference between this and Japan is that the United States failed to support Iraq afterwards, causing them to become a broken country with no real leader.
After suffering this downward spiral, Iraq became a breeding ground for terrorism and then eventually the origin of ISIS. . As horrible of a leader Saddam was, there is reason to believe that the country was actually more stable when he was in office. The United States used military force and deployed troops without realizing the consequences it could reap. As said before, a cat will always land on its feet. To apply this idea of a cat to interventionism there has to be a realization first. When the U. S. invaded Iraq and removed the leader, they just decided to “drop” Iraq.
Unsurprisingly, Iraq did not “land on its feet”. Countries cannot be interfered with and then be left alone, or “dropped”, and expect to recover quickly and fully. This is an example of when not only isolationism could be used, but also how interventionism failed. Paragraph 5- Intro to Isolationism. Isolationism is a very popular foreign policy in the world today. Isolationism is essentially a policy for a country that largely isolates itself from political affairs and of foreign countries. This is clearly quite the opposite of interventionism. Military force and troop deployment happen very minimally due to the solation.
People that support this agree that money spent on foreign affairs is better off being spent domestically. As explained in the previous two paragraphs, the isolationist policy could have been more effective in Iraq than interventionism. Isolationism was the best choice for Iraq because of the failure of interventionism. However, success of isolationism is not always the case because failure is possible too. Paragraph 6- ww2 Example. After World War 1 and before the second war, the United States had secluded itself from many countries because of the devastation.
The predominant policy used was obviously isolationism, but in retrospect it was arguably the wrong choice. The First World War was devastating to the United States, as well as the rest of the global community. This devastation caused a change in the government that shifted the United States towards a predominantly isolationist country. This foreign policy shift was viewed as a necessity because of the tragedies the country had suffered. While we were rebuilding and focusing our time, effort, and money on our country as a whole, there was another tragedy developing around the globe: World War 2.
It is widely known that the United States’ involvement in ww2 began after the Pearl Harbor attacks. This delay of involvement arguably cost millions of innocent foreign lives. The Holocaust was occurring during the lack of U. S. intervention. This calamity took the lives of millions innocent Jewish people, as well as others. If the United States involved itself earlier than post Pearl Harbor, there could have been a significant amount of lives saved.. Military involvement is specifically what would have preserved the lives of innocents. The deployment of troops is not to be taken lightly, especially nto warzones.
Few scenarios warrant a deployment of troops into foreign countries. Two examples of when troop deployment is an acceptable solution are when massive human right violations or when someone threatens the U. S. or an immediate ally. It is only an acceptable solution when the alternatives have failed or if we are in immediate danger. The United States post World War 1 is the perfect example of failed/unsuccessful isolationist foreign policy, and exemplifies the reason that the United States should use aspects of both.
Paragraph 7- Conclusion. Foreign policies that share aspects of solationism and interventionism seems to be inconceivable due to the drastic difference between the two. The fact of the matter is that each of them have flaws that make it difficult to select just one as a countries sole foreign policy. Empires throughout history have almost exclusively used interventionism, but none of those empires lasted. Arguably, the most crucial proponent of a country’s foreign policy is the use of military force and troop deployment. As shown above, there are times when military force is necessary. The Japan example proves that military force can be mutually beneficial.
Whereas in the Iraq example, troop deployment was a mistake. In order to achieve the best foreign policy, the United States should deploy troops and use military force when there are no other options. To clarify, the U. S. has to be in talks with its allies, and even the United Nations, about what is the best solution. Only after reaching an agreeable resolution with the parties listed above can the United States deploy troops. After troop deployment is also a crucial time to act because, as Iraq showed, a country will be severely unstable and dangerous without support or a leader.
Every international issue requires a different response and the U. S. cannot suitably respond to them without broad foreign policy. The aspects of interventionism used will help prevent rogue states from acquiring weapons, which in turn promotes global stability. The elements of isolationism used will strengthen domestic policy and prevent countries like Iraq from destabilization. Therefore, in order to make the 2050 vision of world peace closer to reality, the United States must adopt a foreign policy of both interventionism and isolationism.