The debate over whether or not the United States should continue to interfere in the affairs of other countries has raged since the United States first began to involve itself in World War One. This issue has led to strong opinions on both sides, from those in the highest echelons of government and academia to the average American citizen concerned about the direction the United States has been taking. I would like to argue that the U.S. should not choose to pursue a less activist foreign policy in the years to come. There are a few factors to consider when making this argument. I will begin by explaining how the U.S.’s acitivsm in foreign policy positively correspond to Bruce Jentleson’s “Four P’s” of foreign policy, and then move on to specific
…show more content…
Firstly, we should discuss what we mean when we talk about an “activist foreign policy”. Many opponents of this type of policy will use words such as “aggressive” or “assertive” to describe it, intending these words as slurs. I would agree with their content, but not with their characterization. I argue that aggressiveness is exactly what made the U.S. into the world power we are today and have been for much of our history, and this viewpoint explains why the U.S. has succeeded in obtaining and retaining “power” as Professor Jentleson explains it. It takes a certain kind of naiveté and a misplaced idealism to assume that being aggressive in terms of foreign policy is a bad thing for the health, growth, and prosperity of a nation. We can see that the U.S. became less and less isolationist than it was in the period prior to the first and second world wars. As the United States has become more activist, it has only become a stronger and more prosperous nation. Prior to WWI and WW2, the U.S. practiced mostly isolationist policies, and they were not considered a superpower at this time. After WWI, …show more content…
I am arguing that we should continue to pursue an activist foreign policy, NOT that our current activist foreign policy is perfect and should not be tweaked for the better. I am arguing that our policy should remain just as activist as it is now, but not that it is flawless and not subject to improvement. I concede that the wars fought in Vietnam and Iraq yielded negative consequences that, in hindsight, indicate that perhaps we should not have fought those wars in the way that we did. There will inevitably be certain instances in which the U.S. intervening in other countries’ affairs does not work out, but this does not mean that we should abolish a policy that has led to the U.S. becoming the single most dominant country on the planet, and the one most in a position of power to help other countries as well as itself. Opponents of an activist foreign policy like to bring up the wars in Vietnam and the more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still painfully fresh in peoples’ minds, and attempt to use these isolated examples as a way to disparage the activist policy. But hindsight is 20/20, and people tend to forget the positive in order to focus only on the negative. Even something like the Vietnam War, which I’ve conceded to be largely a failure in terms of foreign intervention, is misunderstood and underrated in terms of its positive effects. Contrary to belief,
Firstly, we should discuss what we mean when we talk about an “activist foreign policy”. Many opponents of this type of policy will use words such as “aggressive” or “assertive” to describe it, intending these words as slurs. I would agree with their content, but not with their characterization. I argue that aggressiveness is exactly what made the U.S. into the world power we are today and have been for much of our history, and this viewpoint explains why the U.S. has succeeded in obtaining and retaining “power” as Professor Jentleson explains it. It takes a certain kind of naiveté and a misplaced idealism to assume that being aggressive in terms of foreign policy is a bad thing for the health, growth, and prosperity of a nation. We can see that the U.S. became less and less isolationist than it was in the period prior to the first and second world wars. As the United States has become more activist, it has only become a stronger and more prosperous nation. Prior to WWI and WW2, the U.S. practiced mostly isolationist policies, and they were not considered a superpower at this time. After WWI, …show more content…
I am arguing that we should continue to pursue an activist foreign policy, NOT that our current activist foreign policy is perfect and should not be tweaked for the better. I am arguing that our policy should remain just as activist as it is now, but not that it is flawless and not subject to improvement. I concede that the wars fought in Vietnam and Iraq yielded negative consequences that, in hindsight, indicate that perhaps we should not have fought those wars in the way that we did. There will inevitably be certain instances in which the U.S. intervening in other countries’ affairs does not work out, but this does not mean that we should abolish a policy that has led to the U.S. becoming the single most dominant country on the planet, and the one most in a position of power to help other countries as well as itself. Opponents of an activist foreign policy like to bring up the wars in Vietnam and the more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still painfully fresh in peoples’ minds, and attempt to use these isolated examples as a way to disparage the activist policy. But hindsight is 20/20, and people tend to forget the positive in order to focus only on the negative. Even something like the Vietnam War, which I’ve conceded to be largely a failure in terms of foreign intervention, is misunderstood and underrated in terms of its positive effects. Contrary to belief,