http://www.readourpapers.com/index.php Free School Papers - Posting and sharing en ReadOurpapers.com http://www.readourpapers.com/polisci/our-policy-the-cost-of-benefits.html











The United States' current foreign policy is built off of a preemptive model. Before the
enemy can lift a finger, we would have already taken combative steps to eliminate the threat at
hand, and when we hit, we hit hard. We send out humanitarian aid to countries which can bring
economic or social benefit back to our own country. We use our military strength to influence
countries to trade and set competitive prices. The United States maintains control of many of the
world's primary oil suppliers via military and economic influence. Questions we must ask ourselves
in the quest to determine if our foreign policy is ready for the 21st century include: how can our
country determine what is a true threat, and more importantly, how much benefit is achievable as a
result of a preemptive strike
The Bush preemptive policy was adopted after the Sept 11 attacks which was included in the
National Military Strategy and the National Defense Strategy reports. The NMS (National Military
Strategy) explains what could cause preemptive strike,
"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an
attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces
that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international
jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an
imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air
forces preparing to attack." (Government, 2002).
After the September 11, 2001 attacks our enemy has transformed from countries to extremist
groups. These groups can operate almost anywhere which makes it more difficult to track down
and prevent danger to our homeland. This new enemy has come out of the dark corners of the
world in the past decade which has forced our government to take a stronger anticipatory attack
against any such beings which may be considered dangerous to our well being. One issue with
having a preemptive strategy is that we don't know the full cost of what the strike will amount to;
whether it is our social ties to other allies, economic instability of other countries, or thousands of
deaths for a cause that cannot be proved. We never know if it really benefits us because we attack
before we can be attacked. This strategy also punishes people "not for what they have done or are
doing but for what they might have done or could do" (Galeano, 2003).
Japan has been using preemptive attacks since WWII when they attack Pearl Harbor. It is
said the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to become the dominate power, and to do so they must
weaken the United States. As in the case where Hitler attacked Poland, claiming it was only time
before Poland would send military to attack Germany.
With use of our preemptive strategy we are initiating preventive war attacks while the
enemy is weak, and uses our great military strength to scare and defeat the enemy. In a way, our
preemptive strategy is like two bodies in a knife fight except one cannot see if the enemy has
purchased a knife, but can only see him walking toward the knife store. That one body must
determine if that body is a large enough threat to create enough fear to attack before the enemy can
enter the store. There is also a trust aspect that we must look at, whether there can be level of trust
that the enemy won't use the knife to attack, or whether it's to protect from other forces. Kant
states, "Some level of trust in the enemy's way of thinking must be preserved, even in the midst of
war, for otherwise no peace can ever be concluded and the hostilities would become a war of
extermination." (Kant, 1983), this passage explains what can be the result of preemptive attacks.
The body with the knife watching the other may be paranoid with aggression and strikes first. This
body may be viewed as one who will not allow the possibility. (Crawford, 2003) Another issue at
hand is how much damage one body should cause to the other in a preemptive attack. Our
government must determine how much is at risk, what kind of threat, and how large the threat is to
our country. For example the body attacks the body going to the knife store and kills him without
trying to resolve the issue by merely working out a contract or agreement then that would be an
unethical and immoral decision.
Our past presidents have had this policy in mind while making decisions, however the policy never
became official as it has now become,
Franklin Roosevelt declared it prudent to strike a rattlesnake first, and in
October 1962 John F. Kennedy was hours away from launching a preemptive
war against communist Cuba to prevent the basing of Soviet weapons of mass
destruction there. (Busch, 2003)
Our policy must determine the difference between legitimate preemption and legitimate aggression,
doing so would help us make better decisions in the long run. Running aggression out of revenge
what many Americans wanted after the 911 attacks leaves us in a position to be in fear of the world
attacking, and then having to prove our capabilities.
Trading with our neighbors has been a practice for some time now. Our largest trade
partners Canada and Mexico which both bring hundreds of billions of dollars into the country yearly.
(Institution, 2007) The United States exported around $211 billion in 2005 which has only grown;
the U.S. has also imported a substantial amount toping at around $287 billion in 2005. Free trade
such as the trade where no taxes or barriers are in place is what our capitalist government promotes
across the world. Maintaining our current trade partners and getting new countries to trade would
be ideal. Some argue that our government would be better off not importing and not being as
dependant as are on other countries, though our government is unable to generate all of these
products at the low prices which they've purchased at.
As other countries' trade partner relationship grows, as does the country, in the case with
China's relationship with Japan, and the growth the two countries have found by merely trading
with each other more. In 2004, the trade between Japan and the U.S. was $197 Billion, which was 19
percent of the total trade for Japan. During that time china had increased their trade relationship
with Japan bumping them to $213 billion in imports and exports accounting for 20.1 percent of
Japan's total trade. (Blustein, 2005)
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is well known for their fight for free trade
establishing agreements between the U.S. and other countries to provide a swift medium for trading
without many restrictions. Smaller countries decide to accept trade agreements with the United
States just to stay in the game, to provide a boost to their economy. The boost is nothing to the
United States, if anything helps the U.S. however in many cases for the smaller countries; it causes
irreparable harm to the economy. (Office, 2003)
The United States pushes for the spread of democracy in ways that can be seen as unethical,
for example; threatening a country to change their ways and mend to ours. The use of our military is
a strength the United States has that many other countries don't. A contradiction of which the
United States takes in part of is the aid sent to a "free" Muslim country I which the country is not
truly free, nor democratic. (Haqqani, 2005) Through the belief in freedom should be given to all, our
government impedes on different countries to spread democracy, this democracy usually includes
free trade agreements and yearly aid to continue this path.
The quest for world peace will always be a journey that our society cannot seem to get to.
It's a journey which brings enlightenment as well as instability. Right now our government spends
hundreds of billions of dollars on our military budget; with just a fraction of that amount of money
we would be able to feed entire countries. Spending money on our military gives our country more
economic power, spending on countries without anything doesn't nearly benefit us as much as
spending on ourselves would, or the benefits would take too long to yield. With countries holding
billions of dollars in weapons, and a combination of fear, world peace is unlikely. The United States
continues to wage wars either directly or indirectly. The United States can influence a country to
become a war state through economic aid or lack thereof.
With a preemptive policy, our government acts then asks questions later, meaning we'll
attack before we will ever know all the details. Our current foreign policy will not work with world
peace. If the world was fair, meaning everyone had the same amount of resources, food, and money,
and then world peace would be more likely. As we cannot see that happening anytime in the future,
peace throughout the world is something we'll never see in our lifetime.
Millions have been funneled through to countries which had attacks, or disasters which left
them in need of help. Many of these countries have ties to the United States which speeds up the aid
money, and possibly increases. Groups such as the Human Rights Watch help countries and people in
need, they monitor the mainstream media and help where they can. As Bill Frelick states, "Refugees
fundamentally have the right to return to a country that expelled them. But all refugees also have the
right to make essential choices about their lives without threats and intimidation." (Nepal: US Offer
to Resettle Bhutanese Refugees Sparks Tensions, 2007) The United States is helping Bhutanese
refugees seek better homes, giving them choices of what they'd like to do. As for some, whom
haven't had choices their entire life, being told what to do and being expelled from their country.
Our current U.S. Policy doesn't give much help compared to what we could do. We give millions, but
those millions translate into a small fraction of what damage we've done some damage which
cannot be fixed.
Other organizations such as Amnesty International USA help provide food and shelter for
countries which lack such standards. These groups depend on funding from private organizations;
this is one of many organizations which fight against our government for the sake of people in
hunger and in war zone countries.
Our current policy fills the needs of which they were set, growth and stability. We seek
obtain a better style of life, along with wealth and beauty. While seeking these objects of desire our
society causes countries to fall at our government's wrath and become slaves to our quest for global
domination. As we control oil supplies as well as food and other natural resources, we obtain power,
power which isn't something that should be given up. Our capitalist government seeks profit and no
loss; loss would lead in failure which in our standards failure is not okay, although quite popular.











WORKS CITED
Blustein, P. (2005, January 27). China Passes U.S. In Trade With Japan. Retrieved April 22, 2007,
from Washington Post : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40192-
2005Jan26.html
Busch, A. E. (2003, October 1). Pre-Emptive Doctrine Difficult, But Not New. Retrieved May 2, 2007,
from Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/busch/03/preemption.html
Crawford, N. C. (2003, March). THE BEST DEFENSE . Retrieved April 16, 2007, from Boston Review:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.1/crawford.html
Galeano, E. (2003, September). Make War, Not Love. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from Pax Humana:
http://www.paxhumana.info/article.php3?id_article=280
Government, U. S. (2002, September). The national Security Strategy of the United States of
America. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from The White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
Haqqani, H. (2005, November 18). U.S., Muslims and Democracy. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from The
Indian Express:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17718&prog=zgp&proj
=zdrl,zsa,zusr
Hendren, J. (2005, March 19). Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from Los
Angeles Times: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/0319firststrike.htm
Institution, H. (2007, January 2). FACTS ON POLICY: Top Trading Partners. Retrieved May 3, 2007,
from Hoover Institution : http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/4665961.html
Kant, I. (1983). Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History and Morals. Hackett
Publishing Co.
Nepal: US Offer to Resettle Bhutanese Refugees Sparks Tensions. (2007, May 17). Retrieved May 17,
2007, from Human rights news: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/17/bhutan15936.htm
North, G. (2007, April 4). Iran's Pre-Emptive Strike. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from Lew Rockwell:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north523.html
Office, C. B. (2003, July 3). The Pros and Cons of Pursuing Free-Trade Agreements. Retrieved May
12, 2007, from Congressional Budget Office:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4458&type=0&sequence=0
Rumsfeld, D. H. (2001, October 28). Remarks at Stakeout Outside ABC TV Studio.
The high price of 'free' trade. (2003, November 17). Retrieved May 11, 2007, from Economic
Policy Institute: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147]]> Polisci]]> Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:27:38 -0400 http://www.readourpapers.com/polisci/international-relations-theories-notes.html
3. Why does Walt conclude that ‘realism remains the most compelling general framework for understanding international relations”?

Times change, along with policies, however the fundamental ideas that back those policies are don’t change, only in each case will each policy adapt. Our nation is a hegemony which is dying quickly in economic and military power. China is coming up, if it hasn’t already caught up, will catch up in my lifetime, in which case, our hegemony will lose its power. Under the realist theory, we cannot let that happen, we must provide security to our nation, security for the future. By creating strategies for the future, we’ll be better prepared, or at least be able to slow the last days of our hegemony.


9. What do you think is Goetschel’s central criticism of our cold war policy toward Islamic fundamentalism? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Goetschel’s stance on the US involvement with today’s “terrorists” is the same as most Americans can relate to. The United States intelligence should have foreseen the future, or at least known which countries hate us, and why. During the cold war, the US had allies which were of help to us, but yet were at the same time, were dangerous and ticking time bombs. These same ticking time bombs played parts helping transform certain militant groups, either by arming, providing shelter, or even promoting these groups.






Lecture 2, Questions 1 and 4
1. What is the United States' national interest?
Our nation’s interest is to provide security for its citizens at all costs. In most cases, we strive to provide ‘peace’ which ends up in war, but it is war that is off our grounds. The most power our nation can secure means the longer we can stay the most dominate power to overthrow other countries which try to conquer us. We set the rules, break them, and enforce.

4. Do you agree with the maxim that, in international politics, the "strong do what
they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept"?

To some degree, I believe that the strong must do what the power they have to do, only because they must to keep the power. And the weak may not always accept, they may have hope and aspirations towards gaining more power, but in the end result no having much and accepting.

Lecture 3, Questions 8 and 9
Explain the difference between "high" politics and "low" politics.
Low politics are concerning health and environmentalist issues. High politics are towards defense issues, along with a more international perspective on issues. These different types of politics are brought out upon by different classes in our system.

What aspect of liberalism did the “Yes Men” focus on and did they “hit the
mark” in terms of their theoretical criticism?

The “yes Men” film portrayed how people wish for bettering other countries, as well as bringing profits to companies. The conferences they went to portrayed corporate America, looking for that extra buck, always out for new ideas. The Yes Men brought new radical ideas which would help improve efficiency their company sweatshops.


• Lecture 4, Questions 2 and 8
Which of the critiques of class system theory (a.k.a. globalism) do you find the
most and least compelling?
A critique that catches my eye for being the most compelling would be the

What concepts did you see in the Ungerman and Brohy film that relate to class
system theory? How would other theorists respond to their critique?]]> Polisci]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:59:14 -0400 http://www.readourpapers.com/polisci/charlie-wilsons-war-realist-theory.html Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile reveals one of the single-largest covert CIA operation in the history of the United States. The operation itself was run by a few rogue individuals seeking revenge on the Soviets. The American defeat at Vietnam left many with a bad taste in their mouths, and some decided to take action. Charlie Wilson, a Congressman from Texas, and Gust Avrakotos, a CIA operative, became more than mere acquaintances during the 1980s, when they worked together on a campaign to gather funds and purchase weapons to be sent to the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan (Sullivan, 2005). Charlie Wilson’s sway was a result of his position in Congress; while Gust Avrakotos used his hooligan background to purchase weapons wherever he could.
Gust Avrakotos played a monumental role in the Soviet-Afghan war, though he never received proper thanks or award for his contributions to this operation. Growing up, life in the small steel town of Aliquippa was rough for Gust, a rough life that later helped him become the spy he needed to be to stay alive in the CIA. Gust spoke Greek, and was invited into the CIA for this reason, and sent to work in Greece. Gust worked himself up the chain of command and eventually, through unexpected circumstances was the acting CIA director of that region’s station. His meeting with Charlie Wilson occurred while working near Pakistan in the Middle East. Ever since the day Winston Churchill’s speech claiming the Soviets would “fight on, no matter what the cost, never to be conquered,” Wilson’s journey to bring the soviet empire down began (Crile, 2003).
Gust and Wilson shared similar ideologies, Gust was brought up being taught to always do what you can for your country and not expect anything in return. Surely Kennedy’s words “… not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, were strong in the minds of both men as their journey together began.
The two men combine forces and begin providing funds and weapons to the Afghan Mujahedeen, known as the” freedom fighters.” Together Wilson and Gust would provide billions of US dollars in funding to the mujahedeen. With the millions of dollars provided through Charlie Wilson’s “go get em” attitude, Gust ran a staff of twenty, who reached out to hundreds of other staff members when needed. Things that would normally take a year or two were tackled in two weeks; such was their strength and motivation. Wilson was on both the House of Representatives defense appropriations, and the subcommittee, which granted him power to fight the bills he needed to get passed as they went through the political system. Wilson’s promises were worth more than gold, and words from his mouth were as official as a signed and printed contract.
George Crile, the author of Charlie Wilson’s War, details the lavish life that Wilson led, one without worry or consequence. Wilson used the United States government to provide arms and funds to bring a proxy war to fight against the Soviets. This provided security to our homeland, and our troops. If the US Government released information on its involvement with the Mujahedeen, the most probable result would have been a nuclear war with the Soviets. By financing this covert operation and having the tribesmen fight in place of US troops, the US thoroughly covered its tracks and prevented a Soviet attack. According to Crile’s book, the Saudis matched dollar for dollar, which helped get things going. Brzezinski was a key player in getting the initial funding to Afghanistan, which was not mentioned in this book. Brzezinski was close friends with President Carter which allowed him to discuss foreign policy and possible security threats in the Middle East (Goetschel, 2005).
The current war in Iraq and the operations in Afghanistan during the 1980s relate to the vulnerable paranoia that fueled American involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war. In the case of Iraq, the number of reasons we are there were related to the public, but several years later we watched a President backtracking and changing his words. Whether it be for the control of Oil, or the nation’s security worries about terrorists, the reasons for the war in Iraq and debated by all sides. What we can gather is that our government needs a strong force in the middle east to be ready to fight any growing power which tries to threaten the U.S. By having hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, we control the oil purchases, we can possibly switch currencies to help our economic dollar, as well as slow the growth of some of the new hegemonies. With China’s growth, militarily and economically, China is the largest growing threat we have.
In our efforts to provide arms to the Mujahedeen we brought consequences that we were unaware of at the time. These consequences can be found in the militant groups found in and around Afghanistan, some still using the funds and arms we had provided them. Our role in the Iraq war is to provide a balance of power, balancing the power before any other country can take some of our capability to set and enforce the policies. The fundamental idea behind the realist premise is that we must act with strength and knowledge to overcome our enemies. In the book, Charlie Wilson’s War, and our current situation in Iraq, we must present a realist certainty that if we do not act, others will.




Works Cited
Crile, G. (2003). Charlie Wilson's War. New York: Grove Press.
Genest, M. A. (2004). Conflict and Cooeration. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Sullivan, P. (2005, December 25). CIA Agent Gust L. Avrakotos Dies at Age 67. Retrieved march 17, 2007, from Washington Post : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400871.html]]> Polisci]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:57:31 -0400 http://www.readourpapers.com/polisci/an-issue-of-social-security.html According to Bush’s figures, “by 2018, Social Security will owe more in annual benefits than the revenues it takes in, and when today's young workers begin to retire in 2042, the system will be exhausted and bankrupt” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2005/#2). Such numbers are astonishing, especially considering that Social Security has been around since 1935. With the “Baby boom” generation (those born in the mid 1940s to the mid 1950s) reaching retirement age at the present time or shortly hereafter, the issue of insufficient funds has become an increasingly important worry on the minds of many. During his speech, Bush stated that his plan involves keeping Social Security’s promises for those who are already retired and for those who are nearing retirement, solving the “financial problems of Social Security once and for all” (http://www.whitehouse.gov stateoftheunion/2005/#2), and the option for younger workers to save for retirement in personal accounts. Bush’s basic principles to guide reforms for Social Security include the following; to make Social Security permanently sound, to guarantee that for people 55 years and older there will be no change, to leave payroll taxes as they are, to assist lower-income Americans, to see that any changes are gradual to give citizens time to prepare and plan for their futures, and to offer younger workers voluntary personal retirement accounts.
In presenting these principles, Bush directs his proposals towards the critics; those who do not believe (or refuse to believe) that Social Security is in any danger, and those who feel that the government is incapable of solving this issue. The President recognizes that this is indeed a problem, and one that needs to be addressed and remedied as soon as possible. The voluntary personal retirement accounts appear to be a step in the right direction, attempting to right the irreversible damage that has been done to the Social Security fund. By giving people more control over their retirement money while leaving rules and regulations in place to guide them, the only thing left is to see such a plan in action. Everything appears good in theory, although the specifics as to when and what the reforms will be were a bit vague. Bush’s aim is one that falls under majoritarian politics, to provide benefits for a large number of people, with everyone “paying” for these benefits. A dilemma such as this will certainly take a great deal of thought and effort on the parts of many to solve, and it would be impossible to present a plan that will answer all of the questions asked. Hopefully, Bush will take steps to protect Social Security from recent harm, and to prevent the bankruptcy of a fund that all of America contributes to and benefits from.



Works Cited
Fields, Gregg. “Leaders govern on borrowed money.” Knight Ridder
Newspapers. Contra Costa Times.
"The State of the Union" Saving Social Security for America 's Future
Generations. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2005/#2 February 2, 2005.]]> Polisci]]> Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:23:59 -0400