American Foreign Policy in A Post 9/11 World

Abstract 

The paper cites the effect of a unilateral approach, as a solution to the problems of the capitalists, on the US foreign policy in a post 9/11 world. The capitalist concern is measured on the value that is directed to forms of production. As such, most of these individuals sought to influence the US foreign policy to protect their interests. The use foreign has undoubtedly caused varying opinion among individuals not only in the United States but globally. This shift has affected the United States and has changed how the country views the world, Muslim world in particular, and how it conducts its foreign policy. The attacks from the terrorist brought forth mass changes in the policies of the Bush Administration. Internal theories offer considerable insights on domestic and internal factors. As such, they do not influence what governs the behavior of foreign policies. Marxism explains the influences of the United States foreign policy in a post 9/11 world by considering the internal economic factors instead of domestic political matters. Further, discussions on the implications are detailed coupled with alternative liberalism arguments concerning the issue at hand. 

Introduction 

The US foreign policy has undoubtedly caused varying opinion among individuals not only in the United States but globally after the September 9/11 attacks. This shift has affected the country and has changed how the country views the world and how it conducts its foreign policy. The attacks by Islamic terrorists brought about mass changes in the policies of the Bush Administration including the government advisers and political figures. To notice these sudden changes, it is paramount to understand at a glance the country’s foreign policy before the 9/11 attacks. These were arguably the most remarkable times of united states as the policy was accommodative and in line with other policies hence preserving international relations. This paper will discuss on Marxism and how it affected and influenced the US Foreign Policy after the 9/11 attacks. 

It is important to debone the historical dialect of the United States foreign policy before the 9/11 attacks to understand the ever-present influence of imperialism a School of thought of Marxism. The main players that affected have affected the US Foreign Policy before the United States 9/11 are war and tough economic times. These changes affected as if to threaten, the United States’ dominancy and supremacy (Crawford, 2004). This is because the country had not much obligation and the preceding were very tough in the country. Thus, to salvage itself during its weakest moments, the United States, after well calculated reasoning from major government advisers decided to adopt few controversial policies to ensure that they will remain at the top of food chain. To influence such decision making it requires well-crafted thinking, and that’s when united states opted to influence other countries through its weakest points; economic hurdles and the weaknesses in its military. 

According to Litwak (2007), the United States has been involved in many wars since its inception. Wars are disruptive in every economy. They disrupt a lot of activities that necessitate the adequate supply of factors of production. Due to the depression of 1930 and the consequent disastrous losses of world war united states went back to the drawing board. In this disorienting form, the United States committed itself to defense and thus altered its foreign policy to accommodate the situation at hand. As such, the adopted a policy of “none intervention or isolationism. The 1930 depression was deepest and longest economic challenges that hit the United States. This is because the stock market crashed in late 1929 and sent the wall street into a panic while at the same time chasing away investors. Once the none intervention or isolationism sanction was integrated into the system, the United States would not become entangled in international politics and conflicts between European and Asian conflicts (US Department of State, 2011). This statement received a lot of criticism; in his book, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, Robin (2002) regarded the statement as nothing but a “myth”. This is because even at the time the United States has always been concerned with supremacy and dominance hence always in messy diplomatic and military disputes between China, Japan, and European countries. 

From the above excerpt the US foreign policy can be seen to have committed itself in political arenas, but in the real sense, it was seeking to protect dominance heritage while at the same time fighting for its position in the global economic market. This is because at that time England was a growing influence in international economic matters. Its global market expansion was dominating the world and thus the United States imperialistic influence saw it was better to divulge the attention of nations to other matters while at the same time trying to recover from the wall street thunder attack. When the Bush administration got reception, it was mainly committed to domestic issues and as such shifted the focus of foreign policy to the implementation of the missile shield program in Eastern Europe (Crawford, 2004). Internationally things sailed smoothly, no conflicts or tough economic times. Politics were at the country’s level, and so was progressive relationships with states. However, after the September 9/11 attacks, there was a sudden shift in paradigm in the country’s interactions with the international community. This was later referred to “regime change” by Litwax (2007). 

Influence of The Chosen Paradigm 

Internal theories offer considerable insights on domestic and internal factors. As such, they do not influence what governs the behavior of foreign policies. Domestic factors within the context refer to political, economic and public opinions which are taken into consideration by the president and his advisers. In this domain, the country’s politics end up affecting, through scope and directions, the nation’s foreign policy. Marxism explains the influences of the United States foreign policy in a post 9/11 world by considering the internal economic factors instead of domestic political matters. Marxists theory gathers information concerning the influence and the impact of the economic troubles to mold imperialism and expansionism. From this point, the theory asserts that the resultant effect of how the policy behaves adds up to the capitalist influence on the society and the economy at large. Robin (2002) asserts that the main reason that the United States have an ever-growing interest in international matters is to expand the country’s domestic economy. 

From the earlier arguments, Kaufman, affirms that the United States has a history of the need to conquer and dominate the world. From this stem, what branches out is imperialism and expansionism or building empires with the support of capitalists. The country has always wanted to be on top of the food chain. Like any other economy founded on capitalist grounds, the absolute effect is high unemployment rate, higher violence rates, overproduction and recession. Thus, the solutions to the issues are looking for market overseas, cheap raw materials and flow capital from overseas. It is through this argument where Marxist theory claim that the US foreign policy main interest is safeguarding its interest. This is to mean that the wars fought in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia and now ongoing in Syria is for the capitalist to be able to secure markets abroad ultimately reaping greater profit; expansionism. Seeking new markets, sources of raw materials and investment opportunities was the main goal of the united states. Thus, from this discussion, the paradigm offers a dialect that domestic factors, pooling from Marxism concepts, are the determinants of US foreign policy. 

Radical Shift That Has Taken Place in The United States Foreign Policy 

Under the Bush administration, one of the radical changes that the US foreign policy underwent since the September 9/11 attack is moving from multilateral involvement to unilateral imperialism. Unilateral imperialism approach refers to a system where one country governs through learning the economy of other nations on one side. The United States were in an endeavor to delegate all its resources so that the global market share favor its system and domestic economic needs. The body that grants authority to indulge on such grounds is the united nations. The United States as a superpower and under the umbrella of United stations decided to wage war against Syria in 203 without prior authorizations. The war saw the deployment of mass United States war veterans to the country. This is because after the release of the admittance tape by Sadam Hussein the country saw it is in the best interest to shield itself from acts of terrorism as they are the ones that negatively affect the economy. 

Traditional approaches to the United States policy include containment, sanctions, and deterrent. The influence of the unilateral ideology imperialism is the one that brought the change in the US foreign policy. The idea was led by non-conservatives who were present during Bush’s administration (Rogers, 208). Former President Bush stated that the country would pursue and hunt down any terrorist hideout and camps regardless their locations. This in international grounds can be termed to as a hostile foreign policy. The meaning of Bush’s sentiments refers to that the country will partake in unilateral attacks in soviet nations across the globe without inquiry of permission. As a result, the impact of his utterance saw the country enter Pakistan without consent and slain Osama Bin Laden. Thus, in Bush’s administration, there was no place for traditional approach of the US foreign policy. 

Further, the impact of this shift in paradigm on the US foreign policy after the 9/11 attacks made united states aggressively attack Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States order was “you are either with us or against us” (Kaufman, 2010). Iraq on the other chose not to oblige, and the resultant effect was the country being attacked, which although was not a legitimate move by America, first because the international law does not offer consent and the united nation's guidelines do not allow. Kramer & Michalowski cite that Kofi Annan, secretary general united nations then, said that the United States had violated the international rule of law and the United Nations Charter (2005). Thus, the united states committed a crime. 

The United States policy can be seen to offer democratization in Iraq. The underlying reason for the country attacking Iraq was the belief that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. It is paramount to note that the belief was not substantive. Before this radical change, the United States were in a cordial inviting relationship with the middle east and Asia as allies. The predecessors of George w. Bush had no objection to the leadership approach in the middle east, that of dictatorship. United states associated with them partly because the regions were loyal allies and partly because they did not want democracy as it would lead to the rise of Islam governments. After, the September 9/11 attack the country decided to change its tactic of implementing forced democratization in middles east countries, Laments Dodge (2008). 

Furthermore, the post 9/11 US foreign policy was not only committed to unilateral approach but also carried out a policy regime change. Lieberfeld (2005) claims that the united states administration affirmed its aim for global dominance through having a strong military presence that cannot be challenged. This can be interpreted that the United States wanted to be seen as still relevant even after the terrorists’ attack. It was also significant that as they keep their military strong they are also on the grounds of continuing dominance of the economy. As such, the invasion of Iraq should be seen as a way of America trying to eradicate the growing pressure of terrorism on an established economic system through acts of violence. Thus, the involvement of United States in Iraq was unavoidable since after the split of Soviet Union united states remained the super power thus in a position to do anything even if it is in the realm of impunity. 

Marxists scholar Dodge (2008), points that the main interest of America attack on Iraq as part of regime change in its policy was primarily because of the oil reserves. The strategic location of Iraq would provide strategic areas for the United States to set up its military bases. Halper & Parkey (2004) in their book America Alone: the neoconservatives and the global order claim that the attacks by the United States were purely on economic grounds. Yes, terrorism acts are destructive, but the other factor was the oil reserves filled in the country. It is hard to maintain economic stability and soar through recessions if destruction of resources proceeds. As such, the capitalists were after protecting their interests. 

Highlighting continuity on the effects of the Bush’s administration change on policy it got well served in the Obama’s administration. When Obama took charge of the nation, one of his goal was to change the foreign policy. Among the changes was the cessation of military involvement in Iraq and to indulge in an open dialogue with Iran concerning the nuclear program. However, there was no significant change seen, but instead, the issue progressed significantly. Although there has been a considerable number of troops withdrawn, excluding those guarding the US Embassy, there has also been a pool of military operations taking place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US foreign policy has also advocated for the country to indulge in NATO military intervention in Libya. The intervention began in April 2011, and at the time it was May 2011 Libya had over 8507 military personnel from America with thousands of military resources based in the country. Earlier indications state that the US foreign policy is committed to diplomacy, but this does not happen in real sense since the country has offered sanctions against Iran. All these activities boil down to the capitalist view and the need to protect their interest; forms of production. 

Implications of Marxism Influence on The American Policy in A Post 9/11 World 

Marxists theory has amounted to far- reaching consequences on the United States foreign policy and the nation as a whole. As the country waged raging illegal wars to other sovereign nations in a quest of establishing itself as the world leader so did they anger their traditional allies. This is because Germany and France opposed the 2003 Iraq invasions by the United States. In the eve of September 11, 2011, attack the country was under tough economic challenges. There were high levels of unemployment and disparity in wealth distribution. Suddenly mid-year in September the country was attacked by terrorists. After, serious contemplation and consultations the administration united states decided to attack the terrorist’s hideouts. As such this effect elucidated negative reactions by United States allies citing that is wrong for the country to carry out unilateral approach on foreign policy as such interfering with international laws founded on international grounds. 

Since the United States is a superpower , it can carry out any crime and walk away with impunity. As such, among the implications of the Marxist theory applications is it provided an avenue for the nation to violate human rights. The extraordinary rendition was first used in the late 1990s against the Islamists (Kennedy- Pipe, 2008). Extraordinary rendition refers to acts of moving around terrorists by criminal investigation agents. The term is not restricted just being moved around for the sake but refers to being transferred from one place to another to face torture later. This is mostly in done to human rights abusing countries such as Egypt, Syria, Morocco to name but a few. The Bush administration seemed to have accepted the CIA to use waterboarding . Further, the administration also authorized illegal secret rendition programs to criminal investigation agents. As such human rights were violated to a great extent thus angering allies affiliated with the nation. 

Alternative paradigm: Liberalism 

From the argument presented above, there is a need for a change in the current paradigm. The trajectory of the indulgence of united states in other nations is affecting the country to the point that it's constraining on resources. Liberalism offers a succinct point that will help eliminate the discrepancies in the current approach to US foreign policies (Kuafman, 2010). The current element of the policy is offering sanctions as a counter attack of terrorism. The United States have sanctioned tough economic sanctions on several perceived and actual terrorists based countries. Liberalism offers the idea that as long as anti-terrorism activities help eliminate the current generation terrorists, it fails in meeting the demands of future generations. As such, the policy is built on liberal grounds that seek to promote sovereignty across nations. Liberals offer insights on what is the ideal policy through following the trajectory of Bush predecessors. 

Conclusion 

From the essay, United States has made considerable changes after the terrorists’ attack on September 11, 2001. These changes made the United States weigh the world, Muslim world in particular, on a different scale after the destructive effects caused by Al Qaeda. Retrospect to the argument, US foreign policy post 9/11 period changed its operations from multilateral to unilateral foreign policy approach. This was in response to wanting to stay on top of the food chain as per the Marxist theory. The events made the United States invade sovereign nations at the same time waging war. Among the products of such events are violations of human rights coupled with overwhelming pieces of evidence of torture. Despite the benefits of the shift in the US foreign policy approach it also undermined the country’s credibility as the world's powerful nation. 

References 

Crawford, N.C. (2004) The Road to global Empire. The Logic of U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 . Cengage Learning 

Dodge, T. (2008) US Foreign Policy in the Middle East. In M. Cox & D. Stokes, eds. US Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press. 

Kaufman, J.P. (2010) Concise History of United States Foreign Policy. Littlefield Publishers. 

Kennedy-Pipe, C. (2002) American Foreign Policy after 9/11 and its Aftermath. Oxford University Press 

Krammer, R.C. & Michowski. (2005) War, Aggression and State Crime: A Criminological Analysis of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. British Journal of Criminology. John Hopkins University 

Lieberfeld, D. (2005) Theories of Conflict and the Iraq War. Cengage Learning. 

Litwak, R. (2005) Regime Change: U.S. Strategy through the Prism of 9/11 . John Hopkins University. 

Rubin, J.P. (2002) Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. John Wiley & Sons