Deciding future US foreign policy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Deciding future US foreign policy - Essay Example The United States would seem to occupy an enviable position in the world. Even as others must constantly account for the U.S., it would appear that the U.S. need not account for others. Compared with all other states, the United States is in a class by itself.No other country can match the health and productivity of its economy, the extent of its scientific and technological resources, its ability to sustain massive levels of defense spending, or the power, sophistication, and global reach of its armed forces. With these capabilities, the United States has enjoyed a unipolar if not a hegemonic state in world affairs. However, in light of the recent September 11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq war and Afghan conflict and the non-involvement of former strong allies, many critics have pointed out that the position enjoyed by the United States in world affairs is in danger and that a re-evaluation of foreign policy is called for. What should be the foreign policy adapted by the United States in the future.To a large extent, George W. Bush's administration has generally embraced primacy and the unilateralist foreign policy beliefs and preferences that underlie it. Early on, there were indications that the administration might exercise restraint in its foreign policy (e.g., Rice 2000; Zoellick 2000). Whatever the early indications, after 9/11, the administration quickly shifted gears to more aggressive and unilateral efforts, displaying a penchant for "bombing alone." This foreign policy has proven itself largely ineffective. While the United States has been successful in dismantling unfriendly nations who they accuse of having weapons of mass destruction, it has not prevented the increasing hatred for America and its nationals. The world still remains much the same with two differences- suicide bombings targeting US nationals or allies have intensified and US finds itself fewer allies. In the spirit of Neo-conservatism, the US embarked on a global war on terror to prese rve human rights for all the righteous people in the world only to face greater threats. If Henry Kissinger had his way, the US should have a 'realist' foreign policy wherein decisions are made based on material or military power rather than on ideals. It also involves an appraisal of the cultures and tendencies of other nations and not acting based on domestic feelings. Before the state acts, it must first question whether it is both practical and ideal. Kissinger's Realism aimed at defending American national interests by balancing adversaries and not promoting American hegemony or transforming the global order. The idea of the United States acting only if it benefits them with minimal harm is increasingly becoming popular but such a policy would only project further the image of the United States as an opportunistic nation filled with self-gratifying individuals both of which are two propaganda materials for terrorist organizations. America has been formerly isolationist up until the middle of the 20th century due to its reluctance to meddle directly in European affairs. It was only after the two world wars where the United States saw it fit to assume the role of a watchdog. Should America isolate itself by withdrawing its troops stationed in other countries and become a passive observer of events in other countries According to Sachs (2001), the hatred for Americans stems from its seeming disregard for national sovereignty by intervening in local affairs. Unable to remain separate or immune and feeling overwhelmed by the unwelcome forces, people lash out against their perceived chief source of ill feelings - the United States. Isolationist America finds further support from Huntington (1993) who argues that actively intervening in world affairs forces cultures and civilizations into greater contact with each other, increasing the likelihood of conflict. The Defense Department's Joint Visio

Consensus Between Violence And Argument Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Consensus Between Violence And Argument - Essay Example Eristic dialogue covers argumentation, a social debate where victory over an antagonist is the primary goal. This art of right argument protects their self-interest incoherent dialogue and in the process of dialogue. The art of argumentation is used in law, in trials when preparing arguments for court presentation and in the testing legitimacy of evidence.Right argument comprises identifying premises where conclusions are derived, the establishment of â€Å"burden of proof† to determine the person who made an initial claim and identifying goals of contributors in dialogue. At the end of an argument, a valid conclusion must be given with good reason explaining the same. A good argument must be built with two premises and one concluding remark. Argumentation is good in a situation where evidence does not exist especially in handling scientific, epistemic, nature, and moral where science cannot apply. Violence is good in handling dispute like border disputes, insurgency, and host ility.In politics, some kinds of argumentation are morally wrong, and some kinds of violence are morally right. Argumentation is never a solution in many nations since it only works when there is peace in the nation, and no other nation wants to attack the nation in question. Argumentation is morally upright only if the nations under conflict also handle disputes through argumentation. If the nations under disagreement handle the dispute in different angles, then violence is morally right for a nation to defend itself from intrusion.