Don't know if I'm putting this in the correct forum or not (so please forgive me) but here goes. I'm completing an online quiz and one of the questions that I have is-- How did American foreign policy change from 1933 (FDR takes office) to the present? (2000s) Things to consider are: World War II and superpower status, fighting the Cold War, facing the challenges of the post-9/11 world, and the costs of American foreign policy. I'm reading some articles on the subject and beginning to answer to the best of my ability, any input would be appreciated! I'm not a slacker who is looking for an answer here... just someone who is looking for input since I'm filled with a bit of self-doubt, realizing that I am not the most educated person in the world when it comes to foreign policy.
Well Pre-WW2, especially during the 20's and early 30's the US had a very isolationist stance, one of the reasons the League of Nations failed so awesomely. I'd say WW2 to the fall of communism became "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" First our alliance with the Soviets to take down Germany, then our will to support any crackpot dictator who wasn't communist. During Nixon-Ford-Carter we cooled off more, dente and all that, negotiations, arms treaties. Reagan took a more confrontational approach to the Soviets. During the 90's terrorism at least in America wasn't on anyone's mind nor were there any percieved threats and the US kind of took on celeb status. We were the good guys who took down communism and brought you the internet and we rolled around in money. Anything that didn't have wide international support we didn't get involved in. Post 9/11 we became the world's policeman and basically said fuck you to international cooperation, we're the most powerful, we do it what we want. As for now it seems we're trying to go back to international cooperation, America wants to work with the world but at the same time wants to keep the world recognizing that we're number 1 as new(China) and old(Russia) try to assert their influence
I think what's more important is to follow the money. Wars are more about controlling resources than anything else. I often ask myself what was it we were fighting communism for, what threat were they to American life, they threatened our constitution less than the last administration? Or was it that were quickly controlling more of the worlds resources by absorbing third world economies? Someone please why did the US take over the France's fight in Vietnam? Who told us this was a good idea? France was trying to retrieve a colony. But it was not an American colony. Did American business have an interest there? No one ever mentioned it. http://michael-hudson.com/books/super_imperialism_II_press_release.html Interesting take on foreign policy, and one your professor will probably see as novel.
This still doesn't really apply to many countries in the cold war, most notably Korea and Vietnam. The domino effect was a very common thought among policy makers. When taken into context is it really that far fetched though, between 1948 in Europe and the mid-60's how many countries became communist.
I think the question is searching for a response to national security measures, times of war, threats to the nation during terrorists attacks and such. Because in 1933 there was an attempted assassination on President FDR and there was also a prominent coup d'etat planned to oust the president by politicians, administrators, and businessmen. Major General Butler, who was one of the leading military leaders that executed missions to democratize several countries in the South Americas was asked to help overthrow the president. You can read about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
From FDR to the 9-11, the size of the army and interventionist policy in the USA ballooned. Socialism was seen as incredibly dangerous and communism was feared. Foreign policy in the USA changed in an evolutionary manner, centered around building up the military, weaponry, and arms. This is part of the national security measures - to have a strong defensive military in anticipation of a war against all threats to the nation. But steadily, this policy became offensive and pre-optive.
You can apply this type of hyper-sensitive mentality and policies undertaken with the Cold War. EDIT: The spying, the gadgets, the propaganda, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the time of JFK and Nixon. In the 60s, the USA led large-scale operations to democratize and eliminate communist governments around the globe. The fear of the public was one key element that backed public opinion and helped to legitimize interference in sovereign countries and their affairs. Because of WWII, people thought "Shit, we can't have another Holocaust or another dictator like Hitler!" And the USA government fed on these kinds of public blanket politics. So in order to "free" the Dominican Republic as just one of many examples, from the dictatorship of Trujillo during the 60s, the CIA and US military coalitions overthrew him, delivered the people a promise of democracy and fair elections, but then enshrined a hand-picked dictator of their own to lead and replace Trujillo. Dominican Republic becomes a high export country, sugarcane, forestries, and minerals are allocated and the entire economic system is re-designed to better participate in a globalized world economy already being created by the US-led interests. You can see parallels with the USA "freeing" the Iraqi people - the Operatives and contracts the Bush Administration handed out to companies and corporate cronies who have re-structured post-911 Iraq to do just the same in a world economy. The US Empire is no longer just about borders, it became a monopolized game of power-house economics using governments as tools to secure footholds for resources and profit.
Have you looked through the various doctrines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_doctrines
