The foreign and military policy has been a longstanding contentious issue in the United States since World War II and the Cold War (Trubowitz, 1993). The U. S. leaders managed to rally massive support for their policies following WWII, during which the policy-making processes were regarded as non-politicized and the nation’s security and economic interests were prioritized. According to Trubowitz, (1993) the broad national consensus that once existed became elusive from the 1970s onwards as the nation became divided along geographic and political party lines on the issue of foreign and military policy. Since then, it has become increasingly difficult for the American leaders to mobilize broad support their predecessors enjoyed. The national interest that inspired the policy has now been replaced by bitter divisive political and geographic stances with each party involved striving to appeal to their interests (Trubowitz, 1993). The WWII and the Cold War ended, but a national salient war on the paramount issue on the foreign and military policy has taken center stage in almost all American debates within the borders and globally. If not well checked, this chasm may lead to the passing and ratification of undeserving laws that will put the future of America and the whole world in jeopardy. The intensity of the issue is witnessed on the party platforms rolled out in the run-up to presidential elections. Of particular focus in this paper is the foreign and military policy as outlined in the 2016 Democratic Party platform, and how the platform related with Trubowitz’s model of political conflict and foreign policy in the U.S.
The 2016 Democratic Party platform recognized the threat of terrorism posed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremist groups as a significant threat to the economic and social prosperity of not only the United States but also the whole world. In its introduction, the platform highlighted the need to defeat the terror groups, most of which are rooted in the Middle East (Party, 2016). The existence of the global network terror provides a thriving ground for the terror organizations and their affiliate groups. If allowed to exist, these terror organizations will encroach into the U.S. inhabited regions all around the world. According to the Democratic Party, (2016) the Authorization for Military Force (AUMF) that was passed by Congress in 2001 has become ineffective in the fight against internationally-posed terror. This is one cause for the U. S. geopolitical slack that needs to be updated. The large-scale deployment of America’s combat troops that has been widely adopted in previous regimes following the 9/11 attack has internationally been criticized for its large number of civilian casualties and destruction of property. Despite the heavy military deployment in U.S.-led country insurgencies, the terror networks still somehow manage to survive. The vile tactics that cause the nation more harm than good depict the inherent errors existing in the U. S. military policy and the fight against terrorism. The fragile state of America’s foreign and military policy abroad is in part exacerbated by the failure to embrace diplomacy and peace talks with the threat organizations (Party, 2016). However, the platform does not squarely place the existing geopolitical slack on the Republican or previous governments’ policies. It is worth mentioning that the ratification of the 2001 AUMF and the “zero-tolerance” to terrorism policies got the U.S. back on the map as the world’s most stringent nation against terrorism following the 9/11 attack.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The U. S. approach to the Syrian crisis, in particular, is crucial in revealing the fails within the U .S. governments and predisposing the country to risks of retaliatory terror attacks. In its description, the Democratic Party platform asserts that a reckless approach to the Syrian crisis would potentiate the war and allow ISIS to set a strong foot in the region (Party, 2016). This in return jeopardized global security. The platform admonished the Republican’s approach to alienating America’s allies. The fight against terror would be more effective by bringing every ally on board. Not only would isolationism escalate the international criticism of the U. S, but also slows down the fight against terrorism and perforates the nation’s defense systems. Partnerships and rallying allies in the fight against terrorism transcend the Syrian crisis. The platform proposed working with the NATO-led coalition in other terrorist hotbeds like Afghanistan to bolster the fight (Party, 2016).
In its repudiation of the current AUMF policy and the proposal to amend it, the Democratic Party platform seems to incline to the use of minimum military force in the fight against terrorism (Party, 2016). However, the platform’s position on the use of guns or butter remains somewhat obscured. On one hand, the platform refutes the use of excessive military combat in thwarting the terror networks. It vilifies the bellicose approaches proposed by Donald Trump and used by other regimes in enhancing national and global security against terrorism. On the other hand, the platform calls for the stepping up of the fight against the terror groups in the Middle East and rallies for support from the NATO-led coalition and the U. S. allies in the region (Party, 2016). Part of the platform’s tone took a defensive tone on the Pentagon’s approach to the war on terror. This perhaps signifies the Democrat’s change of stance in their historically acknowledged “butter stance” on the fights against terrorism. The platform criticized the sequestration introduced by the Republican Congress which led to the arbitrary cuts. It further asserts the need for the U. S. to have the strongest military power in the world. Despite its criticism of the sequestration, the platform fails to make actual reference to the Pentagon’s budget allocation. The platform’s overall language tells of a need for a highly military response. The support of the Pentagon’s military undertakings, particularly the F-35 bomber, benefits most of the districts and constituencies with links to these projects. Vermont, for example, is a big beneficiary of the F-35 bomber project because the places planes are stationed in the State’s military base.
The Democratic Party’s platform closely inclines with Trubowitz’s Janus-faced grand strategy of geopolitical approaches to foreign and military policy. In its dispositions, the party’s platform takes the approach of stringent military strategies in the terrorist-infested regions abroad, while at the same time ensuring that the party’s ability to lead at home and influence domestic policies remains unperturbed (Party, 2016). The platform emphasizes the need to create meaningful alliances and only engage in foreign policies that are of interest to the U. S. This depicts the party’s geopolitical stance – to ensure that the country’s internal affairs are unaffected by its military involvement abroad. The party remains conservative on the issue of its traditional allies, pointing out that breaking old ties and creating new ties with nations such as Russia and North Korea would be a great threat both America’s national and foreign policies (Party, 2016). It goes against the expansionist strategy adopted by some previous regimes, in which a lot of resources were allocated to the foreign policies at the expense of the nations’ economic progress and urgent domestic needs and problems.
The party’s strategic choices were formed on the precepts of a combination of various party ideologies, preferences, and geopolitical slacks. In the platform’s analysis, it is evident that the party is bent on addressing the existing the gaps and errors existing in the U. S. defense systems as well as strengthening the already established ties that are in the interest of the country. A long-standing strategy of the Democrats in tackling all crises has been a forward engagement, taking proactive measures to guide their military and foreign policy. This means the Democrats are proponents of addressing a crisis before it escalates. This party preference is highlighted in the 2016 platform, in which the need for forming a formidable military force is stressed (Party, 2016). The party draws on all the three main sources of American power – a democratic political system, progressive economy, and military strength. These three issues form the foundation upon which the 2016 platform is built. The emphasis on the nation’s vigorous and growing economy is highlighted by the Democrat’s Janus-faced grand strategy of ensuring that the military and foreign policy is not addressed at the expense of the domestic needs. The platform does not explicitly address the issue on budget cuts to the Pentagon but expounds on the need for a national economic growth enhanced by a progressive national defense approach.
The Democratic Party believes in strengthening the alliances with its traditional allies. The 2016 party platform analysis points out a strong inclination for rallying its allies in the fight against terrorism. The platform strongly criticizes Donald Trump and the Republican’s approach of alienating its allies and creating ties with Russia and North Korea. According to the Democrats, the U. S. NATO allies form an important part in combating terrorism (Party, 2016). Russia, in particular, sabotages these achievements made, and a coalition with Vladimir Putin would not be in the best interests of the U. S.
In conclusion, the geopolitical divisions that exist within the foreign and military policy have caused a long-standing strife not only amongst the leaders and politicians but also among the citizens. The Democrats have different approaches to tackling the issues of military and foreign policy from the Republican’s approaches. The 2016 Democratic Party platform that was unveiled in the run-up to the presidential elections emphasized the need for a hardening of the military forces in the fight against terrorism while minimizing the civilian casualties and collateral damage as a result of the combat with the terror networks. Trubowitz’s geographic and political strategy explains the political and geographical rifts on military and foreign policy. These rifts are depicted in the 2016 Democratic Party platform, in which the Republican’s approach to this issue was heavily criticized.
References
Party, D. (2016). Democratic party platform. OrlandoL FL: Democratic Platform Committee.
Trubowitz, P. (1993). Political Conflict and foreign policy in the United States: a geographical interpretation. Political Geography , 12 (2), 121-135.
