Current neoconservative foreign policy was born out of the end of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall, which saw the destruction of the Soviet Union. With the fall of the Iron Curtain came the creation of the US as the world’s sole superpower, and it is upon this status that neoconservative foreign policy centers, no longer focusing on global conflict, such as the Cold War, and focusing anew on various regional conflicts. Neoconservative foreign policy also concentrates on strengthening ties to democratic nations, and spreading democracy to nations under the auspice of dictators, tyrants, and kings in an effort to forge new and better alliances. This democratization and the creation of alliances with established democratic nations is also
…show more content…
This would have the effect where people would choose against hostility and aggression against outside nations more often than a dictator or tyrant would. As Boot says, this would have a pacifying effect, as democratic nations generally choose against hostility and aggression against outside nations. Democracy is seen by neoconservatives as being almost uniquely American, and to export democracy would be the first step in the export of American values, another key tenet of a neoconservative foreign policy.[2]
The overriding concern of neoconservative foreign policy is to maintain the US status of sole-superpower by any means deemed vital or necessary, extending this “advantageous position as far into the future as possible.”[3] With the fall of the USSR, the United State’s primary goal should be to use its influence to contain any nation deemed hostile to US interests, and prevent them from dominating a region whose resources could lead a country onto a course to becoming a regional or global power.[4] In order to keep America first, a very specific military policy was enumerated, with specific goals in …show more content…
Bush administration to establish new principles of foreign policy. Very different from the post World War I policies of Woodrow Wilson, the Bush Doctrine minimized the importance of diplomacy in favor of a “go it alone” attitude. This unilateral attitude alienated U.S. allies and enemies
This would have the effect where people would choose against hostility and aggression against outside nations more often than a dictator or tyrant would. As Boot says, this would have a pacifying effect, as democratic nations generally choose against hostility and aggression against outside nations. Democracy is seen by neoconservatives as being almost uniquely American, and to export democracy would be the first step in the export of American values, another key tenet of a neoconservative foreign policy.[2]
The overriding concern of neoconservative foreign policy is to maintain the US status of sole-superpower by any means deemed vital or necessary, extending this “advantageous position as far into the future as possible.”[3] With the fall of the USSR, the United State’s primary goal should be to use its influence to contain any nation deemed hostile to US interests, and prevent them from dominating a region whose resources could lead a country onto a course to becoming a regional or global power.[4] In order to keep America first, a very specific military policy was enumerated, with specific goals in …show more content…
Bush administration to establish new principles of foreign policy. Very different from the post World War I policies of Woodrow Wilson, the Bush Doctrine minimized the importance of diplomacy in favor of a “go it alone” attitude. This unilateral attitude alienated U.S. allies and enemies