Foreign Policy

V

Effect of the Cold War

The direction of U.S. foreign policy was affected further by the onset of the Cold War, the post-1945 struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. In March 1947, when President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would lead a global effort to combat Communism, both U.S. Congress and the American public rallied to his support. Truman’s new policy later became known as the Truman Doctrine. Truman instituted a policy of containment to thwart Soviet expansion efforts. That policy led the United States into forging a series of military alliances around the world. The country also started to provide substantial amounts of foreign aid to friendly nations, and to alert the American public and the world to the perceived dangers of Communism. Truman’s policy led the United States into a series of conflicts, including the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1959-1975).

VI

The Vietnam War and Its Aftermath

The long and unsuccessful war in Vietnam challenged the direction of U.S. foreign policy and the power of the president to conduct it. During the war, an estimated 2 million Vietnamese and 57,685 Americans were killed. Many Americans were horrified by those losses. The war sparked antiwar protests that sometimes turned violent, as well as intense criticism about the waste of money and human life. After the war, the United States reduced its role in global affairs for a time, and U.S. Congress sought to reassert its authority in setting foreign policy.

The country’s diminished involvement in world affairs did not last long. President Ronald Reagan reasserted presidential authority in foreign policy during his time in office from 1981 to 1989. He called for the United States to once again challenge Soviet domination worldwide.

But bigger changes were yet to come. In the early 1990s the Soviet Union dissolved, and the Cold War ended. The United States no longer needed policies aimed at containing the spread of Soviet Communism. The country was faced with developing a new foreign policy. The “liberal internationalist” approach adopted by the administration of President Bill Clinton sought to maintain America’s global involvement, support free trade to enhance U.S. and global prosperity, and promote the spread of democracy to ensure international peace and security. That policy met with some success, especially in opening up the global economy through several free trade agreements. Yet the approach also had to address dangerous ethnic and religious rivalries in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo. The implementation of the Clinton doctrine, which called for U.S. interventions in humanitarian crises around the world, received a more mixed response at home and abroad. As a result, the George W. Bush administration initially sought to limit U.S. involvement globally and to pursue a foreign policy that emphasized national interests. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and on the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, changed all that.

---

---

VII

Current Challenges

The events of September 11 had a profound effect on the Bush administration and U.S. foreign policy. They also affected the attitudes of the American public toward foreign policy and the level of congressional and public support for the president on foreign policy issues.

The events of September 11 increased the public’s support for a more assertive approach toward actions in the global arena and enhanced congressional deference to the president. They also motivated the president to take more interest and control over the conduct of foreign policy. All of these things produced a new U.S. foreign policy strategy. That strategy was designed to fight and defeat “terrorists and tyrants” worldwide, especially those with access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To carry out this strategy, the United States embarked on a comprehensive global effort, utilizing alliances, international organizations, and an informal “coalition of the willing.” Significantly, the United States reserved to itself the right of taking preventive action against these adversaries, if necessary—that is, launching military attacks without evidence of an imminent threat. American actions against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and against Saddam Hussein in the U.S.-Iraq War illustrate two important instances of applying this strategy.

The Bush doctrine, as this strategy came to be called, represented a substantial change in approach from that adopted in the immediate post-Cold War era and from the foreign policy approach that George W. Bush initially embraced upon becoming president. At the same time, the Bush doctrine bore some similarity to the kind of foreign policy pursued by the United States at the height of the Cold War. Much like the Cold War years, the antiterrorist strategy is universal in scope and moral in content. In both eras, U.S. policymakers sought to steer a clear and consistent policy course by focusing on a singular target or goal. Both eras, too, relied significantly on the use of U.S. military capabilities and on the willingness of the United States to act alone if necessary.

The Bush doctrine has received both criticism and support for these very characteristics. Among critics, it is perceived as too unilateralist, especially in an age of globalization and multilateralism. It is also seen as too ideological, especially when it sets the United States at odds with its traditional allies and friends, and too dependent on military capabilities, especially when political, social, and economic actions are also crucial to combating the terrorist threat (see Counterterrorism). Other critics pointed to U.S. “bullying” of other nations to achieve its goals and questioned the validity of the data to support it—for example, the lack of supporting evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Among supporters, the Bush doctrine’s clarity of purpose and its singular focus on the principal international threat today are important sources of its strength. Supporters say the strategy aims to preserve human dignity, a fundamental American value, against the dangers of terrorism and tyrants and to build a “balance of power that favors freedom” against these forces. Furthermore, the nature of the threat justifies U.S. unilateral action, including the reliance upon military means. Since terrorists and tyrants—especially if they gain access to weapons of mass destruction—represent the greatest threat to international peace and stability, the United States has little choice but to act alone if others will not. Because some forces hostile to the United States can only be deterred or defeated through military means, the United States must rely upon these capabilities.

Several domestic and international challenges thus confront the implementation of this new U.S. foreign policy strategy. Will the American public and policymakers continue to embrace this new strategy and continue to allow the president broad discretion in carrying it out? Will the international community support the often-singular focus of this new U.S. policy? Or will the policy produce the opposite outcome that it sought—by undermining confidence in U.S. leadership and weakening global efforts to address the numerous transnational threats, including the terrorist threat.