The nature of the end of WW2 firmly established the current hegemonic stature of the US in international relations. Since then, American values like justice, democracy and respect for human rights have gained significance. Moreover, successive administrations have used America's economic, moral, and military power to, ostensibly advance such values globally, resulting in numerous military interventions and engagements. However, such involvement has been controversial for various reasons, and, by limiting the scope to the last five years, this paper addresses significant changes of American perspective in international matters.
Both economic and military changes have gradually changed the nature of American intervention and international dominance. However, said changes have not replaced the hegemonic model of international relations in either respect (Bryant, 2015). Therefore, as the largest economy, and in terms of self-preservation and mitigating against the negative effects of global instability, policing the world remains a necessity. Moreover, given the hegemonic model of international relations, preserving the status quo is critical for international peace and stability. Put differently, as the largest economy and with, arguably, the best military and the mentioned moral authority, it is in America’s best interest to be the global police officer. Indeed, there have been atrocities in the recent past whose outcomes were exacerbated by the lack of American intervention. Both the Rwandan genocide and Darfur crisis are good examples (Cordesman, 2017). So, whether out of self-preservation or otherwise, American intervention in international affairs remains unavoidable, not just for her sake but for the globe as well.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The propagation and pursuit of mentioned American values, response to direct national security threats and maintaining strategic geopolitical interests have arguably informed American policing. Noteworthy still, is the growth of terrorist activity and radicalism internationally and the growing sense of sovereignty among affected states, both of which add to the complexity of America’s responsibility. The Obama administration is synonymous with changes in the form of military interventions and with the resurgence of international terrorism. The need to reduce the human cost and improve resource use in such excursions informed the former (Cordesman, 2016). Arguably, international terrorism grabbed international imagination around 2001. Since then, the twin threats of terrorism and radicalism have attracted a string of military interventions, both direct and indirectly (Cordesman, 2016). Visibly, Islamist extremism is the most significant component of international terrorism, and much of American military interventions have been directed towards stemming the spread and presence of such elements. Both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan indirectly contributed massively to increased American presence in North Africa and the Middle East regions (Cordesman, 2016). Both increased regional instability, the flow of unlicensed arms and emboldened extremists. The outcome has been singular especially within both Syria and Libya.
Tactical reengineering under Obama meant more air force use, arms transfers to local allies, US led training efforts and limited ground support (Cordesman, 2016). These changes were meant to fight Islamic extremist organization ISIS across Syria and Libya designed to restrict their access to populated areas thus restricting their ability to raise both funds and fighters. They attracted controversy for the incidents involving civilian casualties and fatalities. US military action in Libya, initially, was supporting the removal of Muamar Gaddafi on grounds of poor governance and economic mismanagement. However, the successful removal of Gaddafi created a power vacuum that dragged the nation to civil war with tribal, regional, and extremist elements. Moreover, tragic events of Benghazi captured national attention and featured prominently in the presidential campaigns (Cordesman, 2016). Control of the oil and natural gas fields, Libya’s economic mainstay, is a significant cause of regional tension while extremists seek to control also for revenues. Arguably, global terror informs the opinion that while ISIS may be defeated in Libya, there is need for more action, militarily or otherwise, to eradicate extremism in Libya and similar states (Bryant, 2015).
Similarly, Syria’s civil war began due to years of economic mismanagement and bad governance with a sectarian twist. There exists grave sectarian tension within Syria and with its immediate neighbors. For example, Syrian Kurds near the Turkish border enjoy US support in their quest for political development, an issue that has created cross-border tensions with Turkey. This has brought sharp focus on the lack of regional military or political resources available to America for counterbalancing (Cordesman, 2016). Moreover, the sectarian tensions between the Alewite and the Sunni have witnessed degradation at comparatively advanced stages. Understanding the scale of complexity attached to sectarianism is critical to fighting extremism, ending the civil war, and creating a peaceful cohesive nation thereafter. Such tensions have regional impact for sectarian tensions are also feature in Iraq (Cordesman, 2017). However, the Sunni- Shi’ite tension in Syria is multilayered and regional. The regional element comes in as the largely Sunni combatants fighting against the Assad regime occupy Eastern Syria, whereas the Shi’ite sect, somewhat perceived to be backing the regime occupy the west. Arguably, the influence of Russia, Lebanon and Iran have enabled Assad to maintain control in approximately half the country with rival rebel groups fighting to control the other half while also dealing with ISIS (Cordesman, 2017). Syria has gained much national and international attention for the scale and longevity of the humanitarian crisis since the start of the civil war.
Both Syria and Libya mirror the scale of the changes in America’s role in global policing. At the end of WW2, arguably America had unrivalled economic, military, and moral power in international relations. Thus, historically, it was able to engage in direct military expeditions, unilaterally or otherwise. However, the rise to prominence of international terrorism has, among other factors, complicated America’s undertaking of such a role. The nature of some military action outcomes in both countries have been created controversy both in America and globally (Bryant, 2015). However, the outcomes also reflect landscape changes in international relations as other nations have also experienced significant economic, military and governance development. Arguably, there are strategic outcomes that have suffered from the lack of cooperation, communication, and planning.
While the military victories present America with the advantage of restricting access of extremist organizations to both revenues and new recruits, they fail filling the resulting power vacuum. In other words, while a positive military outcome is significant, developments thereafter bear greater significance on the quality of the outcome (Cordesman, 2016). Moreover, it is readily evident that eliminating ISIS is not tantamount to ending international terrorism or extremist organizations. Therefore, addressing the underlying causes is necessary in creating lasting positive associations of American policing in both countries.
As mentioned earlier, both countries have witnessed regimes that failed to deliver economic benefits despite having vast revenue reserves. However, designing a desirable solution requires a nuanced understanding of the underlying complexities. Both nations are experiencing upheavals at both civil and sectarian levels; significant losses in both revenues and investments; massive refugee and humanitarian crises and largely unemployed yet youthful populations. Moreover, and especially since 2001, intolerance towards Muslims by the West has grown sharply. Collectively, these are some of the significantly visible causes to the conditions of the two states as well being contributors to the growth of both international terrorism and Islamist extremism. Thus, in global policing America faces a familiar undertaking of maintaining global stability, except now the environment has increased complexity and the American public is also better informed or has better access to information.
References
Bryant, N. (2015). The decline of US power? BBC . Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33440287 .
Cordesman, H. A (2016). US wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen: What are the end states? Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-wars-iraq-syria-libya-and-yemen-what-are-endstates .
Cordesman, A. (2017). The changing nature of war in the Middle East and North Africa. Harvard International Review . Retrieved from http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=14493 .
