The Major Schools of American Foreign Policy

The major schools of American foreign policy have seen many changes in the way that they are executed over the years. However, in the past six years, the changes have been more drastic than certainly I can remember. The invasion of Iraq and regime change of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship moved rather suddenly from a reactive policy to a preemptive policy that was clearly riding on the heels of the disaster of September 11, 2001. Since then we have settled down into a non-stable military occupation that is waiting for the next policy of the Bush doctrine, or possibly even the next administrations'.

The future of Iraq is an unforeseen one, and it is possible that only years will ease the debate on whether the conflict has escalated into a civil war. The next policy could be one of isolationism, liberal internationalism, realism as seen by Henry Kissinger, democratic globalism, or even democratic realism. The school that is most closely associated with my own personal ideals in our current situation would be the use of liberal internationalism, but I am afraid that the seriousness of this conflict might prevent us from practicing it in the field.

The prevailing outlook in 1920s and 1930s United States was from the isolationist school. This was also a very popular worldview during much of the 1990s. However, this outlook is definitely making a strong comeback (The New Republic). Isolationism suggests that we should close our borders and fortress ourselves from much of the outside world. It prides itself in our way of life and therefore we do not want anyone to penetrate or possibly even alter it. This is a theory of reaction and in this day and period in history it is a weak attempt at a policy (paratext). The events on September 11^th clearly show us that we can be penetrated when we become a reactionary government and I do not believe that our country can ever fully return to an extreme policy such as this. Isolationism as a rising policy has repercussions on some citizens' disdain for almost any foreign policy.

"As might be expected, the public is also increasingly hostile to international institutions. Since 2002, the percentage of Americans believing that the United States "should cooperate fully with the United Nations" has fallen from 67 to 54 percent, and the proportion wanting the United States to go its "own way in international matters ... whether countries agree or not" has risen from 25 to 32 percent" (The New Republic). The results of these specific sentiments could offer a great challenge to the next President; as he/she would be hard pressed to sell a foreign policy that might contain their own initiatives. Isolationism also might be the policy that is most dictated by fear; the fear of infiltration of our values and way of life. And as far as I am concerned, major decisions like this should never be dictated by fear.

Liberal internationalism is a school that originated with Woodrow Wilson and favors free trade and relatively open borders. It emphasizes American leadership through alliances with international organizations (The New Republic). This is the dominant school of foreign policy for the American left-wing (paratext). Many political analysts are now predicting that because of President Bush's plans are seen as failed by much of the United States, liberal internationalism will be the next school of thought for the next president and therefore the public during the election. The American people have heavy sentiment for working with foreign allies and supporting global organizations. The liberal internationalist policies that set the tone for successful relations in the future had four components. The first was a commitment to open trade with capitalism organized internationally without any national boundaries.

The second was a new reliance on inter-governmental mechanisms to institutionalize international cooperation. Governments need to stabilize the international market by regulating and managing it, thus preventing the collapse of this market. The third involves a social bargain that would create a safety net. Liberal internationalism should be linked with the idea of a welfare state to offer support. The last component of this particular school of foreign policy rests on cooperative security, in which the core democratic states would be tied together in a mutual security protection pact. The formal expressions of this component were the U.S.-Japan alliance and NATO (America Abroad). Many of these suggestions can work in today's society with the addition of one key feature; trust. Other nations must take part as well as the United States holding up our part of the bargain. President Clinton's humanitarian military interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti (paratext) during the 1990s could be called successful and it is possible for others to work in the future.

The former secretary of state Henry Kissinger was known for a type of realism that emphasized the international arena as a state of nature. This enforces a community of values and norms, which is generally lacking in the international community. Realism clearly helped ease the situation of leaving Vietnam even though the outcome was not what American officials had in mind. Preemptive use of power is allowed if needed, which causes problems for the public and our current situation among others (paratext). Realism tends to downplay ethical issues and focuses on the overall countries and electorate instead of the individuals who have deal with its results. This school of thought goes against much of what President Bush has said since he took office, but I would not be surprised if the policy is changed for the current situation because of the now known meeting with Henry Kissinger himself. However, this would clearly be the wrong formula for Iraq during this entire era. Especially engaging ourselves in another conflict or dire situation with a preemptive action is a move that would cripple the defense of the United States.

Democratic globalism has several different interpretations stemming from its title. Does globalism mean that as an idealistic country, it is our duty to "help" other struggling nations build democracy (The National Interest)? Or does it mean to simply regulate the international community into supporting democratic values? Personally, I hope it does neither. Democratic globalists know that fellow democracies provide the most secure alliances in the international arena, which then gives the school geopolitical value since it supports the ideas of limited government and individual minority rights. This is the general school of thought for the alliance of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair who speak on the idealist values of their policies without mentioning the realist components. I believe that is one of the major problems with this type of democratic globalism; the realism that is also needed is missing.

The enemy is defined in broad terminology as "the terrorists", who could literally be anyone in the world. Is a terrorist group that wishes for the destruction of Israel, like Hamas, our enemy as well? The same question could be directed at Syria and other countries that harbor terrorist activities. And if they indeed are seen as our enemies, how do we deal with them (The National Interest)? Do we attack them with preemptive strikes, or just monitor and wait for a catastrophe? These are the questions that the democratic globalism alliance needs to ask themselves and realize that their policy needs to be much more specific according to each new situation.

"We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity-meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom" (The National Interest). This quote is the epitome of democratic realism, a relative of democratic globalism, which stresses a more focused approach toward areas that have a more realistic outcome. The policies of this school of thought deal with ideas that were expressed in the past by George Kennan. These targeted areas are defined as "regions where the defense or advancement of freedom is critical to success in the larger war against the existential enemy".

The democratic realist perspective sees the danger of democratic globalism as its commitment to being open-ended (paratext). As I believe is seen with the current policy of the Bush administration and its exploits in Iraq, the outcome of a democratic globalist policy can have grave outcomes. American resources are moving closer to being over-stretched and the morale of the home front as well as the troops. This dire situation that faces the United States now is what is pushing the policy changes in the white house away from democratic globalism. And while we might not end up with an entirely democratic realist school of thought, I am sure that at least the idea of carefully choosing our conquests will be heavily considered.

The major school of American foreign policy that most comports my critical analysis is the school of liberal internationalism. The idea that of democratic globalism that involves even choosing a province to attack preemptively or exploit for resources does not sit well with me whatsoever. The United States should never practice such a method of proclaiming us the best country in the world with the best policies and thus pushing our ideals on others. We need to be a partner in worldwide alliances and organizations that can actually create meaningful change while forming solid allies in the process.

However, I am afraid that in Iraq we are completely past that entire aspect of foreign policy. The policy that was used by the Bush and Blair administrations was clearly a democratic globalist policy without regard for worldwide organizations as seen when they bypassed the negative vote from the United Nations. This idealist strategy has done us wrong by creating a more vulnerable America that can now not sufficiently defend itself as well as our preemptive actions being a rallying cry for our enemies. Even the Taliban, who we previously drove from power have become relatively stronger and are now fighting our forces in Afghanistan. The results of this policy have clearly shown that it was the wrong move from the start, and we need to completely overhaul our administrations thinking.

Works Cited

Paul S. Boyer. Promises to Keep. 3^rd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. (Boyer)

Canedy 3^rd, Charles R. (compiler). AUCW 212 Coursebook. A volume in the Paratext series, 2004.

(paratext)

Judis, John B. "World Weary". The New Republic Online. November 23, 2005. The New Republic. December 15, 2006. through (the new republic)

Ikenberry, G John. "The Future of Liberal Internationalism". America Abroad. 2005. TPM Café. December 15, 2006. (America Abroad)

Krauthammer, Charles. "Neoconservatism and Foreign Policy". In the National Interest. 2004. The National Interest. December 15, 2006. (The National Interest)

Avery, Steve. "World War 2 Rationing". U-S-History.com. 2005. Online Highways. December 15, 2006. (U-S-History)

"United States Home Front During World War 2". Answers.com. 2006. Wikipedia. December 16, 2006. < http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-home-front-during-world-war-ii> (Answers.com)