Sources of the American National Style in Foreign Policy

The Nature of America’s Foreign Policy
Name:
Institution:
Course code:
Date:
American's foreign relations with its neighbors are unpredictable. The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs is tasked with ensuring democratic benefits for the people of America and the global community. (IT’S RELEVANT BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE US FOREIGN POLICY) Interactions with the foreign state is encouraged to build allies and safeguard Americans and American jobs in foreign nations. The constitution allows the President and commander in chief to negotiate treaties with foreign leaders, but for the treaty to come to effect, the senate needs to back it by two thirds. America's foreign policies have changed over the years since the American revolution; thus, the essay seeks to examine those relations.
Americans policymakers have for years functioned with the belief of exceptionalism, and might of the American nation, and this pride has ensured that American policies are more geared towards self-preservation. This coherent style is effective as it deals with the most pressing matters of national interests by leveraging all instruments of national power exercised by U.S. government departments and agencies, CITATION Dav19 \l 1033 (David H and Philip 2019) Due to the allure of the prosperous nation of the United States, immigrants have been flocking the nation for greener pastures. America has had policies designed to keep out the immigrants, most notably the Mexican wall border which was one of Trump’s main campaign policies. Starting with President Bush, who ordered the interception of boats ferrying immigrants from Cuba, President Reagan faced a similar in 1980 when an estimated number of 125000 Cuban immigrants crossed the border with the blessings of their premier Fidel Castro. The Mexican situation started decades ago when Bill Clinton authorized operation Gatekeeper in 1994, which was designed to secure the nation's borders. The Secure Fence act was another policy signed by George W. Bush with the same intentions of improving the border. The other two presidents, Obama and Trump, have also made efforts to increase the fencing in the border with Mexico. ( QUESTION ONE REQUIRES US TO EXPLAIN STYLE OF AMERICAN FOREIN POLICY AND IN THIS CASE, I HAVE TERMED IT AS COHERENT, WITH REFERENCE FROM CHAPTER 3)
The self-preservation nature in their policies is further highlighted by the recent decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw troops in Syria. The much-criticized move has left American Kurdish allies at the mercy of the Turkish offense opening up the country to more violence; as a result, the IS members being held by the Kurdish forces are said to have escaped and are in the process of regrouping. The betrayal by the United States could have significant future repercussions on America as nations will be skeptical about allying themselves with America. The president believes that the Islamic State holds no further threat to the United States and has left the responsibility of preventing a resurgence to Turkey, Russia, Syria and European countries CITATION The19 \l 1033 (The Washington Post 2019) (QUESTION TWO IS OPEN AND TO EXPLAIN FURTHER, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT RECENT EVENTS REGARDING AMERICAS FOREIGN RELATIONS)
Today’s American policymaker doesn’t seem to have learned from the past as any form of aggression, no matter how organized and justifiable it is still an act of aggression. Adolf Hitler may be the most ruthless dictator of our time, and during his reign, he claimed that he brought peace. Failure to stop the tyrant, Hitler in his early days proved costly as by the time the world knew his true colors, it was too late. The Munich analogy came into play in genocides all over the globe, and after 9/11, the case of Saddam Hussein raised questions of what would have happened if no action was taken. The American army was already in the war for a quarter of a century conducting operations in Vietnam and Kosovo. At the time, Saddam Hussein was already a ruthless tyrant leading to president George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to accuse him of having weapons of mass destruction. His party got disbanded, and his reputations tarnished further with claims that he was involved with al-Qaeda. CITATION Kap07 \l 1033 (Kaplan 2007) The analogy was used to justify numerous actions in 1954 during the Vietnam war. American troops were not directly involved in the fighting as they only provided transportation training and backup. However, they were constantly involved in the war; as a result, requiring president Kennedy send troops in Vietnam.CITATION Gle03 \l 1033 (Glenn 2003) (QUESTION TWO REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION IF TODAYS POLICY MAKERS HAVE LEARNT FROM ...