War as Foreign Policy and Annotated Bibliography

Invention Notes

During the course of my work on this paper, I realized that I needed to change the way that I conceptualized my approaches to research. There are, importantly, no short cuts or summaries when it comes to the creation of the United States stance with regard to foreign policy abroad. Instead, the best one can hope to do is collect a multitude of viewpoints which work together in answering similar questions. In this way, it is essential for critics and analysts to let down their guards and drop their biases before even beginning to look for sources.

Interrogating my own positions was a crucial first step in the writing process. As my meta-writing note reveals, this included gaining a better sense of my own idealizations and conceptualizations about the United States and its role in the development of its foreign policy through wars like the Second World War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Cold War. Only in this way can individuals today get a better sense of how war works to manifest new foreign policy.

After releasing myself of these biases, I found that the U.S. in concept had changed for me. Rather than a gentle giant, casually effectuating new change, the United States has regularly realized foreign policy through acts of aggression such as war, and even the threat of it. In order for the United States to effectively manifest a presence throughout the world, it is clear that a change in the foreign policy tactics which have worked heretofore must be pursued. 

Meta-Writing Note

After first learning about the United States' involvement with the War on Terror, I recognized in myself a great degree of patriotism. Following the attacks on Washington and New York City in 2001, the United States began establishing more aggressive positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. These ventures appear to be, on the surface, in the service of democracy and the betterment of life for all those involved in struggles for religious freedom, among other things. As such, America's values rose to the surface for me as those which I believed that I, too, should cherish accordingly. 

This was an essential consideration for me when approaching the concept of patriotism for the first time. Not only did I realize that I was patriotic for the things that I loved about my country. In a larger sense, I appreciated the vision that the United States had for the rest of the world, as well. Progressiveness, I thought, was in opposition to the values of many of the U.S.'s enemies. Only later, for instance, would I realize that this struggle was subtler than I had originally assumed.

The United States, far from being only interested in the betterment of other countries, moreover cares about the prospects of its citizens. This is, from the perspective of a citizen, a meritorious goal. When considering the plight of those that are negatively affected by the U.S. involvement in overseas battles, however, it becomes clear that idealizations of patriotism may actually prevent thorough analysis. 

Beginning with a sense of the United States as it presently operates, I had to work backward to determine a more rounded, complete conception with parallels in the Soviet Union. These, importantly, centered around war. From my research, I realized that supporting my ideas with sound considerations from experts would be an essential first step in this way.

The Use of War as a Tool of Foreign Policy

The use of war as an instrument of foreign policy is not limited to the enactment of violence. Rather, war must be thought of as a threat provoked by escalation in tension. In this view, war becomes something of a quagmire. In order for the United States to effectively manifest a presence throughout the world, it is clear that a change in the foreign policy tactics which have worked heretofore must be pursued. 

In the United States, the use of armament to influence other countries is well-known. This has been periodically demonstrated by the United States involvement in major conflicts since the end of the Second World War. At that point in time, the United States adapted a character which it maintains to this day. Recently, however, the U.S. position with regard to its influence has been shaky. In this view, it is essential to consider that the U.S. has maintained its character through threat of engagement. As two scholars assert, "[t]he success of the US foreign policy depends upon the mutual cooperation of President and the Congress" (Khan and Sabir 145). Thus, it stands to reason that when one says war is an effective means of foreign policy, even the threat of it from an aggressor must be recognized as innate to the actions of war and the concerns of the state.

Images related to war, then, have considerable bearing over the way in which populations understand and generate support for war efforts. Lene Hansen, author of "How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the Case of Abu Ghraib," suggests that the photography and wartime as well as postwar video work that is often associated with instances of heated public opinion with regard to foreign policy is even more impactful than direct engagement from governments, as with war initiatives or cases of threatening. She contends that while politics are often recognized in a constellation with identity and progress on the inside, “on the outside are power, war, difference, and repetition” (Hansen 462). Repetition here is an essential consideration. Only through repeated demonstrations of power is the U.S. able to posit its own goals for other countries. 

Add to this the fact that the U.S. has military bases all over the world, and the stretch of the U.S. influence can be recognized on nearly every continent. The United States in this view is not merely a country which subtly suggests to other nations the right ways of conduct. Instead, the U.S. plays two roles at the same time: that of peacemaker and aggressor. Recognizing the contrasting effects of these two must first consider how the playing field came to be what many citizens of the world recognize. 

War today is not simply an effect of the battlefield. Instead, it should be recognized that war is an effective tool merely as a monetary threat. What exactly does this mean for countries that are subject to the power and influence of the United States? There are no effective retaliations for other countries against the U.S. considering its allies and arms. As much as it helps rebuild countries, the U.S. also helps level them through military engagement. Following this assertion, even the threat of destruction can be recognized as a potential detriment to the individuals that people the area effected as well as the local government. 

Allies and Establishing Influence  

The United States is recognized as a formative force in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. NATO, though recently disparaged (and then rescinded) by president Donald Trump in remarks that decried the established cooperative alliance as “obsolete,” (Liptak and Merica par. 1) offers protections to countries that may be tempted by the influence of larger and more aggressive countries, such as China or Russia. NATO, importantly, was developed in part by president Harry S. Truman following the end of the Second World War. Since that period of time, the U.S. has been recognized as a dominant international force because of its engagement in the war.

Here, one must consider war to be a tool of ideological persuasion as much as it is a collection of tactics and technologies. Taking this example, for instance, the United States participation in the Second World War must be closely examined. The U.S. did not, for instance, intervene on behalf of other countries merely on moralistic grounds. This is not dissimilar from what others have noted as a result of the U.S.'s belligerent presence throughout the world. In the recognition of what one theorist finds to be an “undemocratic globalist agenda” (Daghrir 45), the U.S. ultimately favors a version of free market capitalism that benefits itself first and its allies second. Taking such an assertion like this, the Second World War involvement of the U.S. is more an instrument of foreign policy than an act of aggression.

When war is able to proliferate in favor of one country, involvement in terms of aggressive acts like that by the U.S. in the Second World War can be provoked to a particular effect. The Holocaust, while raging throughout Europe, had not yet negatively impacted the United States enough to warrant participation. Instead, a deliberate attack on the U.S. naval base located in Pearl Harbor effectively drove support for U.S. participation against Axis forces. 

Going as far back as the Second World War reveals that the ideological influence that the United States has exercised since is a direct result of its involvement and role during this conflict. Harry Truman, in addition to helping devise and form NATO, allowed for the development and deployment of the first atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One might notice here that Truman chose to retaliate against a specific enemy: those which attacked Pearl Harbor. Even though the technology for the atomic bomb was developed in response to a warning about Germany’s advancing war technologies, Japan became the cite of an example for the rest of the world. 

The effect of the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, like the events themselves, two-fold. Not only did the United States utilize a brutal, unparalleled force that was strong enough to cause lasting damage, both environmental and architectural, as well as widespread death and lingering health issues. The U.S. in this move sent a message to Germany and the rest of the axis powers. Were escalations to take place with regard to the invasion of other countries, consequences would be had for their respective national citizenry in the form of an atomic bomb. Clearly, war was an effective policy in both forcing Japan to end its involvement in the conflict by way of mass destruction. Additionally, however, and more importantly, America was hereafter recognized as the country which championed the solution to foreboding fascism. 

Since then, the allies in total have been recognized in one way or another as the victors of the war. NATO is not just a collectivity of nations which benefit from one another through trade. Their collusion and cooperation creates an atmosphere that effectively guarantees the success of the free market. In this way, the United States could be said to have utilized the war to better its position with other countries on a global stage. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, also developed around this period of time, evidence a similar take. By donating through the latter grant an unprecedented sum of money for the development and reconstruction of Europe, bettered international relations later in history for the U.S. were guaranteed.

Truman's effect would prove lasting for foreign policy. In one essay titled "Foreign Policy of the Truman Administration," Dr. Wilson Miscamble recognizes that "the Marshall plan and the Korean war [laid] the groundwork for four decades of US foreign policy" (479). This assertion resonates with significance. If, after all, Truman pursued agendas which were believed to be in the best interest of his own country at this point of time, investing in other areas like Europe would prove essential during the soon-to-come Korean conflict. Importantly, this struggle saw the United States vying with an adversary, the Soviet Union, through a proxy war.

Establishment in other countries and areas throughout the world has been an essential, primary effect of wartime engagement. This has allowed the United States to influence other countries by way of a somewhat vague association with the postwar period. A submission to the journal Contemporary European History helps bring this to light. The author of one article contends that, while "often overlooked in studies of US foreign policy," (Messenger 461) the denazification of Spain following the Second World War was an important consideration with respect to the way in which the United States would represent itself globally. In this way, the United States first became an essential police force in its effective means of reasserting the sovereignty of nations following the end of the war. In this way, repatriation is one positive, internal effect that was recognized in Spain. 

The success of the United States here allowed for a more beneficent reputation throughout the European continent that has lasted domestically and abroad. In another article concerning international affairs, one author recognizes that the United States' position in policy-making following the Cold War recognized a surge in nationalism. The author realizes that "this policy trend is significant" (Brice 59) though difficult to discern because of the amorphous quality of support. Clearly, however, the war effects of a conflict during which time no arms were deployed could be discerned with historical retrospective. In other words, only by realizing how far the U.S. had come in terms of a sense of security and international influence since the Cold War was Brice able to make such a distinction concerning thought within the country.

Arms and Change 

There is no limit to the United States’ nuclear arsenal. While, for instance, there have been armistices between countries like Russia with regard to the development of more nuclear weapons, the U.S. effectively levels the playing field by way of its influence. This is, importantly, an influence that is based on more subtle techniques of war that are sometimes on the cutting edge of technology.

It should also be recognized that, as an effective means of generating foreign policy, the United States' threat of war is one that has created effects in the handling of foreign policy in other countries. Even in the Soviet Union, for instance, the pressure of the Cold War recognized certain effects that have been palpated in Russian legislation then and now. Historian Michael Grossman, for instance, notes that during the early 1990's and immediately following the Cold War, “the Russian delegation sided with the US on so called 'important votes,' more frequently than most NATO states” (336). In this way, the US aggressive posturing during the Cold War could be recognized as giving the United States a sense of global power, particularly when a recent rival was willing to succumb to direct influence. 

Clearly, foreign policy can be executed and realized through war by countries throughout the world. In the view of the twentieth century, meanwhile, the United States and Soviet Union were recognized as rivals in the fundamental battle between capitalism and communism. This often found the two arm-bearing countries fighting over territories in regions in which each did not hold significant presence. One author states that “[t]he war in Vietnam gave the Soviets an opportunity to throw their support behind the communist government of North Vietnam” (Bigerson 217) and this support would be realized by the United States as a threat all its own. Spurn from the original effects of the Second World War and the Korean War, the Vietnam War recognized even more of an influence in terms of global power.

Following the ideological influences that could be noted through the threat of war, some researchers note that foreign policy is itself propelled by dialogues about war. The authors of one contribution to the peer-reviewed Political Research Quarterly claim "greater diversity of foreign policy thought in the post-Vietnam and post-Cold war political environments" (Rosati, Link and Creed 470) is largely attributable to the influence of the spread of thought during this period of time. 

While the United States and the Soviet Union recognized considerable differences during the Cold War, their actions since have dominated the geopolitical atmosphere. With consideration of the way in which Russia and U.S. relations are maintained today, considerable questions have arisen recently with regard to the expansion of the latter through the use of aggressive tactics. It is evident that beginning in 2014 in Crimea, for instance, Russia military forces operating under the command of Vladimir Putin were able to regain control of an area lost during another conflict. 

Other countries, as well, maintain themselves through potential acts of aggression that are linked inherently to escalations of war. Take, for instance, the divided country formerly known as Korea before the U.S. and Soviet Union conducted their proxy war upon the peninsular nation. In this case, a country which had a rich history of its own that had been allied with Josef Stalin following the Second World War became the battleground for one of the most violent wars in recent history. 

War for the United States thus has taken on the form of threatening even more than it has through acts of actual aggression. Seen this way, the U.S.'s ability to influence others through its executions of foreign policy is predicated on the success of its ideological initiatives both at home and abroad through its military bases. 

It could likewise be said that, while the United States effectively uses threats as a way of guaranteeing influence, this tactic may have a certain limit. In order for the U.S. to hold onto the respect of allies, for instance, its initiatives need to regularly align with those of other countries. This can sometimes take the form of trade benefits or embargo, or most recently through the travel ban to the United States enacted by Donald Trump. 

In order for the U.S. to continue to hold onto its influence that it has established through threatening, posturing, and war-mongering, a change-up in technique may be an absolute requisite. Rather than funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars into efforts that happen overseas, domestic infrastructure may need to be bolstered first. This could, in effect, create a friendlier environment for Americans hoping to rekindle that same sense of patriotism that allowed for foreign policy initiatives following the Cold War.

War is an effective foreign policy even just in ideation. It must be recognized that the power any country has to wield influence over another ultimately comes down to a matter of betterment for the lives of that nation's populations. For those in the Western world including the United States, this looks something like an increased amount of disposable wealth. In this view, more Americans are afforded a greater number of opportunities by way of the kind of influence the country holds on the geopolitical stage.

Herein, the apathy that fuels economic disparity becomes a common characteristic of all nations willing engage in war. There are no general traits that underscore such an assertion better than jealousy and greed. In the United States, for instance, the free market encourages competition and, in this way, the advantaging of one individual over another. Hereby, all individuals in the country are treated to a basic view where another's success is viewed as a detriment. Seen from a vantage such as that, there is no wonder why Americans are complicit with engaging in war in order to maintain present economic standing and even to better it.

War is clearly an element of foreign policy that has been utilized by the United States since the September 11th attacks, though its history stretches back much farther. Indeed, it is apparent that the United States is willing, like other major players including Russia, to utilize scare tactics and other methods of manipulation in order to better geopolitical standing and, in turn, social standing for its citizens. By remaining aware of the limits of these impositions, Americans can maintain a better sense of political engagement.

Annotated Bibliography

Birgerson, Susanne. "The Evolution of Soviet Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia: Implications for Russian Foreign Policy." Asian Affairs: An American Review 23.4 (1997): 212-234.

This source gives a basic run-down of the influence of Soviet foreign policy in the area of Southeast Asia. As another major player on the global stage, modern-day Russia’s actions during this period of time prove an essential consideration. What if, after all, Soviets were able to have made a push during or following the Cold War? This source allows for some comparisons both modern and old to be made. With regard to the development and use of war as a means of foreign policy, Russia's territorial conquest recognized a major threat to the U.S. presence around the globe.

Daghrir, Wassim. "An Ethical Foreign Policy? Globalism as a Threat to the US National Interest." Journal of Arts and Humanities 4.7 (2015): 45.

This source examines the power of the United States as it concerns the U.S.’s ability to influence other countries with money, in service of what the author identifies as an “undemocratic globalist agenda” (Daghrir 45). This is not to render the United States in such a way that its role is confused, however. Daghrir instead offers up the conception of the United States that still centers on its power and ability to help other countries. Helping foreign countries, however, always comes with an added benefit for the United States' interests, as well. Taking this source into account, a more rounded conception of the effects of foreign policy is offered.

Hansen, Lene. "How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the case of Abu Ghraib." Review of International Studies 41.2 (2015): 263.

In this essay, the author recognizes the poignancy of graphic imagery that is a result of engagement with the enemy, or other. Taking the case of photographs from the inside of a prison opted for during the War on Terror, Hansen recognizes major issues for the potentials of public engagement and foreign policy interest. Following the author’s analysis, a thorough consideration of the events of the prison recognizes that popular opinion influences politics a great deal. By contrasting this kind of outrage with the way that public support was recognized for the country through Russia's support (Khan and Sabir) and national support (Brice), the importance of threatening war and realizing it is demonstrated.

Messenger, David A. "Beyond War Crimes: Denazification, ‘Obnoxious’ Germans and US Policy in Franco's Spain after the Second World War." Contemporary European History 20.04 (2011): 455-478.

This source provides a different view not often considered of the United States following its involvement in the Second World War. Messenger effectively details that the U.S. presence established throughout Europe and particularly Spain had wide-reaching as well as lasting effects for the region and the globe. Taken this way, it is clear that the United States’ foreign policy is at once the same war-faring entity, even when it holds presumably peaceable bases in other countries. 

Rosati, Jerel A., Michael W. Link, and John Creed. "A New Perspective on the Foreign Policy Views of American Opinion Leaders in the Cold War and Post-Cold War Eras." Political Research Quarterly 51.2 (1998): 461-479.

Rosati’s article details some of the most influential publications concerning foreign policy since the Second World War. He renders a landscape that is, necessarily and by design, plain. Views domestically and abroad of leaders following the Cold War were drastically effected by the events of the conflict. This is an essential characterization of the Cold War that underscores the need for a multitude of perspectives concerning a struggle that was as ideological as it was cultural. Ideology factors considerably into the portrayal of war as a foreign policy tool that this essay hopes to effectuate. In this way, the way popular and political figures are realized contributes to a citizenry's perception of a leader's effectiveness, and thus the nation's effectiveness.

Khan, Zahid Ali, and Munawar Sabir. "President Vs Congress in US Foreign Policy: Cooperation or Confrontation." Journal of Political Studies 20.1 (2013): 143.

In Khan and Sabir's article, the role of the United States president during the Obama years was held up to scrutiny. At a period of time when Congress held views that were in diametric opposition to those that were being touted by the president in speeches, inaction became a recurrent theme. Even into the president's second term, these issues pervaded. Here the authors assert that without agreement between the two branches, little foreign policy change could be realized.

Miscamble, Wilson D. "The foreign policy of the Truman Administration: A post-Cold War appraisal." Presidential Studies Quarterly 24.3 (1994): 479-494.

In this article, the author recognizes that Truman's goals during the first years of his presidency were realized by the end of the Cold War. In effect, this means that the trajectory that the United States has been on since was first posited before the mid-twentieth century. For the purposes of this essay, recognizing the U.S.'s first major forays into foreign policy relies on a conception of Truman's ideals.

Grossman, Michael. "Role Theory and Foreign Policy Change: The Transformation of Russian Foreign Policy in the 1990s." International Politics 42.3 (2005): 334-351.

While the end of the Cold War saw tensions between the United States and Russia slowing waning, Michael Grossman realizes an even more important effect. Russia started siding with the U.S. more frequently following that period of time. Thereby, it stands to reason that the anxious situation that lasted between the two countries for years ultimately resulted in favorable international relations with even a former enemy. Clearly, the Cold War was an effective tool. 

Brice, Benjamin. "A Very Proud Nation: Nationalism in American Foreign Policy." SAIS Review of International Affairs 35.2 (2015): 57-68.

This piece is an important work for the sake of recognizing the effects of threatening war. Effectively, the U.S. was able to not only quell international conflicts through the threat of war and increased armament. Indeed, nationalism demonstrates national support for the initiatives pursued. In this way, the U.S. government betters its standing among Americans by sending some of them to fight. With consideration of the kind of support that nationalism fosters for international agendas, it becomes clearer that certain initiatives may well have been inspired by a race against insecurity in terms of armament. 

Liptak, Kevin, and Dan Merica. "Trump Says NATO No Longer 'Obsolete'". CNN, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/donald-trump-jens-stoltenberg-nato/index.html.

This final article provided by the major news outlet, Cable News Network (CNN), demonstrates Donald Trump flip-flopping on his position against NATO. NATO, an essential figure in the maintenance of the United States' influence abroad, was recently recognized as such by one of its critics, and current president of the United States. For this essay, an article such as this draws parallels between the past and the present.

Works Cited

Birgerson, Susanne. "The Evolution of Soviet Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia: Implications for Russian Foreign Policy." Asian Affairs: An American Review 23.4 (1997): 212-234.

Brice, Benjamin. "A Very Proud Nation: Nationalism in American Foreign Policy." SAIS Review of International Affairs 35.2 (2015): 57-68.

Daghrir, Wassim. "An Ethical Foreign Policy? Globalism as a Threat to the US National Interest." Journal of Arts and Humanities 4.7 (2015): 45.

Grossman, Michael. "Role Theory and Foreign Policy Change: The Transformation of Russian Foreign Policy in the 1990s." International Politics 42.3 (2005): 334-351.

Hansen, Lene. "How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the case of Abu Ghraib." Review of International Studies 41.2 (2015): 263.

Khan, Zahid Ali, and Munawar Sabir. "President Vs Congress in US Foreign Policy: Cooperation or Confrontation." Journal of Political Studies 20.1 (2013): 143.

Liptak, Kevin, and Dan Merica. "Trump Says NATO No Longer 'Obsolete'". CNN, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/donald-trump-jens-stoltenberg-nato/index.html.

Messenger, David A. "Beyond War Crimes: Denazification, ‘Obnoxious’ Germans and US Policy in Franco's Spain after the Second World War." Contemporary European History 20.04 (2011): 455-478.

Miscamble, Wilson D. "The foreign policy of the Truman Administration: A post-Cold War appraisal." Presidential Studies Quarterly 24.3 (1994): 479-494.

Rosati, Jerel A., Michael W. Link, and John Creed. "A New Perspective on the Foreign Policy Views of American Opinion Leaders in the Cold War and Post-Cold War Eras." Political Research Quarterly 51.2 (1998): 461-479.