President Bush, in his speech on March 6 th in 1991 before t he Congress following the cessation of conflict on the Persian Gulf, declared “a New World Order” (Bush 1991). This followed one of the US rescue mission of saving the world from terror. Indeed, America is known for upholding justice and protecting the weaker nations from the pangs of terrorist like Iraq (under the reign of Saddam). Nations, under the influence of such superpower (US), had been liberated from the stalemate of cold war setting them free to fulfil the vision of their founding fathers. The essence of the “New World Order” was to establish an international milieu where human rights were protected and respected in the full spirit of freedom (Bush 1991). As an example Americans passed the test of creating this new order by completing their mission in the alluded war at the Gulf. The world’s solution rested upon this great nation. Reagan (1983) asserted that the world’s struggle will not be decided by missiles or military machinery even though US has the capability to do so. Concerns have been raised pertaining to US serving as the world’s policeman in their active global affair. Notably, the American “policing” role has had noble intentions and ultimate success during the Cold War, but in fighting terror it has gotten off track with some severe consequences. Drawing on this issue, this paper aims to explore implications of US involvement in the Global affair since Cold War in an attempt to maintain order around the world.
In the course of Cold War, US robust economic and political power was sufficient to offer stability, security and other public goods to the international community. Moreover, the nation’s preeminence allowed for establishment of an open global economic system. (Tarzi, 2014 p.36). This was a true display of power, indeed a world’s superpower. Ever since US has strived to hold a permanent position as superpower. Policymakers have championed this agenda to the very date. This necessitated a complete overhaul of the department of defense. For instance, the Pentagon’s draft “Defense Planning Guidance” for fiscal years 1994-99, was drafted in 1992 with the aim of preserving US as the only world’s superpower (Klare, 2002). Such implementations have had far reaching implication in the US economy. In 2003 alone, expenditure on military rose by 13% the largest ever witnessed since Reagan tenure (Klare, 2002). Investment in war almost led to economic recession at the time. Nevertheless, US had no choice when it comes to fighting terrorist like Saddam Hussein. It was mentioned that, Hussein’s regime had made efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction ( Powell, 2003 ) and America had the mandate to disarm them from causing turmoil in the world.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
After World War II , US stood as the most powerful state in the world in terms of economic and military capabilities. It was the only nation that emerged strong economically after that war and was by default placed in a unique position to oversee the world’s peace and control international economy from another Great depression under the provisions of UN (Schultz, 2018). Soviet Union posed a threat that led US to create the first principle non-maritime alliance and grew its military to contain dominance of communism (Schultz, 2018). This led to intervention in Afghanistan and other places of the world including rescue of Turkey and Greece under Truman’s administration, thus the notion “Truman Doctrine.” (Tarzi, 2014, p.30).
A number of military changes were made under the Eisenhower’s administration. At that time the common feeling was to transform military strategies. Foremost, there was no prudence in permanently keeping US military force in Asian countries without leaving reserve at the homeland to maintain security. Secondly, permanently support foreign policy and economy of other countries just brought ill will on US rather than good will. Worse off permanent commitment to military expense would result in bankruptcy. In that sense, the administration at the time resorted to strategy of massive retaliation (Dulles, 1954). Notably, mingling in the affairs of Arab States and Palestine with respect to Israel has worsened the regional rift farther. George Herbert Walker Bush advocated for abandonment of the strategy of terror for it led nowhere and embrace diplomacy to bring the rift between Arab States and Israel and Palestinians and Israelis (Bush 1991).
Ambiguity surrounds President Bush’s policy declarations. On September 20 th , 200, he said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” The president emphasized the notion of marking the culmination of world’s tyrannical systems and expanding freedom, thus suggesting the doctrine of “preventive war,” a “freedom agenda,” and fighting global terrorism, including state-sponsored terrorism. (Tarzi, 2014, p.28). Waging war against “global terrorism” under Bush tenure sparked one war in Afghanistan which by extension ignited another war in Iraq (Tarzi, 2014, p.30). Moreover, preempting war are in some scenario have ignited war that was never underway in the first place (Tarzi, 2014, p.38). US had great support from its allies during the confrontation of the expansion of Soviet Union during the Cold War, this imbued American containment policies with a high level of legitimacy. The neoconservative allies of the Bush era and the present administration then were neglectful of the without global legitimacy and with existing outside power restraints on American policies, “a unilateral primacy inherently tends toward coercion.” A typical example is the case of Iraq war (Tarzi, 2014, p.36)
In a nutshell, It is a noble agenda, as is evident from historical records, to wage war against terrorism across the globe as this usually leads to preservation of human life and rights. From the time US rose to power, the nation under different presidency, have championed the agenda of US being the World’s police man. However, caution is key, without which far reaching implications can arise. In this paper, meddling with global affair as seen in the case of US caused serious consequences on US economy, brought ill will on the nation expanding the nation’s level of external threat and sparked fresh war in some states.
.
References
Bush. G., H., W. 1991. Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Cessation of the Persian GulfConflict. http://college.cengage.com/history/wadsworth_9781133309888/unprotected/ps/bushnwo.html
Dulles. J., F. 1954. Secretary Dulles’ Strategy of Massive Retaliation.
http://college.cengage.com/history/wadsworth_9781133309888/unprotected/ps/dulles.html
Klare. M. 2002. Endless Military Superiority.
http://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6926412&site=eds-live&scope=site
Paul. C. 2008. Marines on the Beach: The Politics of U.S. Military Intervention Decision Making. eBook. http://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=275009&site=eds-live&scope=site
Powell. C.2003. Transcript of Powell’s UN Presentation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/
Reagan. R. 1983. Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. http://college.cengage.com/history/wadsworth_9781133309888/unprotected/ps/evilemp.html
Schultz. K., M. 2018. HIST: Volume 2: U.S. History since 1865. 5 th ed.
Tarzi, S. M. (2014). The folly of a grand strategy of coercive global primacy: a fresh perspective on the post-9/11 bush doctrine. International Journal on World Peace , 31 (3), 27.
