US Foreign Policy

The US foreign policy is the policy through which the US interacts with other nations. The overall goal of this policy is to secure democracy for the benefit of both the American and international communities.

2,574 Questions
Cold War
US Foreign Policy

How did McCarthyism affect US foreign policy?

By making the united states once again go through another "witch hunt" and showing that we were a nation growing paranoid of communism and socialism.. combined with all the factors of arms races, nuclear fears of war..

335336337
Politics and Government
WW1 Homefront
US Foreign Policy

Why is foreign policy so important?

The world is increasingly inter-connected or "globalized" as some might say. We are no longer a handful of individual states. In large part we rely on one another for both economic and military support. How the rest of the world views one state is very important. Harsh foreign policy is often coupled with military action or economic embargoes. One might suggest that we shouldn't be complicated with foreign policy and not deal with the complications of other countries and become isolationist. What these people don't realize is that the very act of becoming isolationist is in fact foreign policy.

305306307
History, Politics & Society
Chile
History of South America
US Foreign Policy

Why did the US support the Chilean Coup against Allende in 1973?

The 1970s were times of great change in South America, with peasants and workers organizing for what they thought was a better life, looking up to communism. This was a severe threat to American corporate interests, and Salvador Allende, (Chile's President before the coup d'état) was a socialist on the side of the workers.

Allende supported the strike of copper miners, and nationalized the copper mines. These were controlled by American corporate interests, and they did not take this threat lightly. Allende was also a strong supporter of Fidel Castro.

The US accused the Allende government of promoting Soviet interests in Latin America as Allende nationalized US companies. Investors from the US company International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), who owned 70% of the Chilean Telephone Company (Chitelco) thought that the Chilean government would nationalize its assets there, and pressured ITT to put the US government through their connections and lobby groups.

Export income fell due fell in both production and price on international markets of copper, the most important export of Chile.

From Wikipedia: "Chilean politics ascended to a state of civil unrest amid strikes, lockouts, economic sanctions, CIA-sponsored propaganda, and a failed coup in June 1973".

There was a annual inflation rate of over 900%. Some people think Allende would have been overthrown by the Chilean army with or without US support.

According to the CIA, although they supported the military Junta, after the overthrow of Allende they had reservations about Pinochet being President. However, he ruled Chile for 17 years. Later it was recognized worldwide he was a brutal dictator and attempts were made to prosecute him in courts.

For further information check the declassified documents from the US Government in the George Washington University Webpage (See related links)

276277278
History of the United States
US Foreign Policy
The Monroe Doctrine

What was the Monroe Doctrine?

The Monroe Doctrine stated that European nations should not intervene in countries to the south of the U.S.

The Monroe Doctrine (actually written by John Quincy Adams), declared in December of 1823, was a superlative U.S. foreign policy statement. It was precipitated by various independence movements in South America and the U.S. government's desire to discourage European nations from colonizing the Americas, and a growing American nationalism. The doctrine claimed that the Americas ". . .are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." However, the American failures throughout the War of 1812 made the doctrine laughable to Europeans.

In the early 1900's, the Monroe Doctrine proved it's power. President Theodore Roosevelt aggressively enforced it during the Venezuela Border Dispute and in securing the independence of Cuba from abusive Spanish rule.

To sum it up in a short version, the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would defend the Freedom of other nations.

The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy document passed around 1820 saying that any further attempts made by European countries to colonize the United States would be deemed necessary of US intervention.

It warned European nations that the United States would not take further colonization or puppet monarchs..... December 2, 1823

188189190
Israel
European Union
US Foreign Policy

Who are allies of Israel?

Israel has several allies, the main ones include USA, UK, Germany, Turkey and India. Amongst others are Canada, China and Czech Republic. While, USA is the biggest ally, India is fast emerging as the second biggest strategic partner.

777879
History of the United States
US Foreign Policy
League of Nations

Why didn't the United States of America join the League of Nations?

Despite all US President Woodrow Wilson's efforts in establishing the League of Nations, the USA did not join the League because of objections raised in the Senate, especially from Republican politicians William E Borah and mainly Henry Cabot Lodge, and Wilson's refusal to compromise ensured that the US would not ratify the Covenant of The League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles.

Joining the League of Nations would be like signing a blank cheque - America didn't want to have to ship its troops half way across the world for disputes that didn't concern them. It didn't want to risk its economy or any more American lives after the losses of WW1. The Republicans wanted to return to Isolationism - being an independent country and not involving itself in other countries affairs.

America also strongly disagreed with the Treaty of Versailles. Many Germans lived in America and Americans felt it was far too harsh. One of the Leagues aims was to uphold the Treaty of Versailles which made some Americans very averse to joining the League.

137138139
World War 1
War and Military History
US Foreign Policy

What was the US foreign policy in the World War I and 2 era?

The U.S. policy for WWI was isolationism and for WWII it was also isolationism until Pearl Harbor was attacked.

128129130
Vietnam War
History of France
US Foreign Policy

Why did the US not get involved in the Vietnam situation at first to help the French but decided to fight later?

Pres. Eisenhower, former clerk of Gen. MacAuther who said "the U.S. should not get involved in a land war in Asia." Ike was advised by some of the joint chiefs to enter the war along with the French in order to secure Camron Bay that was later (after the Nam war) used by Russia as a sub base. Jobs! Ike told them "we do not need Camron Bay." Kennedy said Nam was a civil war, not U.S. biz ;then was assassinated. Johnson took over and expanded the U.S. roll in the Asian theater.

AnswerThe U.S. was involved from way back. In WWII, the U.S. promised a young nationalist leader that in return for his help against the Japanese, they would help Vietnam achieve independence from French colonialism after the war was over. That promise was broken, and the French re-occupied Indochina. The war for Independence started, and although it was French troops that bore the brunt of the fighting against what was perceived to be communism, most of the costs for the French forces were paid by the U.S. gov't. It was only after the great French defeat in 1954 when the French said they needed more money to continue, did the U.S. cut off their funds.

We fought over the way the government in Vietnam was being run. They had communism which means if someone needed something in Vietnam like food or money, it was given to them.

124125126
American Revolution
History of Spain
UK History
US Foreign Policy

What problems did the United States have with Spain and Great Britain?

The problems that U.S. experienced with Spain was that Spanish officials closed the lower Mississippi river to U.S. Shipping also that Spain broke off the negotiations. The problem the U.S. experienced with Great Britain was that the Britain's forced American merchants to pay high tariff which is taxes on imports or exports.

100101102
Cold War
US Foreign Policy

What were the goals of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War?

As I'm not privy to White House documents, I'll have to go with what the government STATED was the primary goal...Containment of communism. The idea was that A) The U.S. would not invade communists countries, but they would do whatever it took to prevent communism to spread into other countries and B) Would use counter-intelligence to undermine the government of countries under the Soviet.

107108109
World War 2
History of the United States
US Foreign Policy

How did World War 2 affect American foreign policy?

Prior to World War II, American foreign policy was isolationist. We felt that other nations problems, particularly their wars, were their own business and we avoided getting involved unless we felt directly threatened. As a result of WWII though we decided that threats to peace and freedom elsewhere in the world did affect us, that if we ignored serious trouble in the world it would probably eventually find us. Thus after the war we became internationalist using our power and prestige to help and protect our friends and acting to prevent wars wherever possible or to minimize them when they did break out.

Another issue that drove foreign policy post WWII was the spread of communism from both the Soviets and Chinese. No longer could the US afford to be isolationist. The African continent saw decolonization and by the 1960s the fight was under way for countries between democratization and Marxism. Therefore the US supported autocracies and not "freedom fighters" generally aligned with Marxist regimes.

After the second world war, the US emerged as the a "super power" its economic infrastructure was untouched by the war and the US was the only nation with an atomic bomb. Based on these factors and the ones cited earlier in this answer, US foreign policy was shaped upon the US's ability to have a huge influence on world affairs.

139140141
Iraq War
US Foreign Policy

Why is America at war with Iraq today?

The US attacked Iraq in 2003 based on either misformation or disinformation, and the stated reasons have changed over time. Since December 16, 2011, the US has not been militarily involved with Iraq save a few dozen military advisers who are helping the Iraqi government coordinate its response to Islamic State. The Iraq War has ended.

The Initial Justification : Weapons of Mass Destruction

The primary reason given by the administration of George W. Bush was that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, was engaged in the production or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (examples are the anthrax letter attacks in the US and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo--neither of which had any connection to Iraq). It was suggested that Hussein might provide these weapons to terrorists to attack the US. He had already used chemical weapons sold to him by the US against Iran, and also against Iraqi Kurds. Before the war UN inspectors announced they had found no evidence of WMDs, despite unfettered access. After the war was under way, additional investigation concluded Saddam did not have WMDs.

The war continued, however, because the occupation forces of the US were attacked by Iraqi guerrillas, many ironically supported by Iran, Iraq's enemy in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The US supported a new democratic government within Iraq, which was opposed by various Islamic groups that traditionally held power in the country. Other factions sought to aggrandize their share of the power to be had in the new political system.

It was suggested early on the conflict was predominantly an attempt by the US to control the flow of oil from Iraq, one of the largest petroleum producers in the Middle East.

Secondary Justification: Fostering a Democracy in Iraq
Initially when the US commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, it was a war against the regime in Iraq; to remove Saddam from power, as the US had failed to do in 1991. The goal of the 1991 operation was to drive Saddam from Kuwait, at which the US and its allies succeeded. When no WMDs were found, the US asserted that its mission in Iraq was two-fold: to create a modern democracy and to stop the persistent genocides that took place in that country. The US enfranchised the Shiite Majority, provided for Kurdish autonomy in the North, and assembled a Constitution for the entire Iraqi population. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own population and was responsible for committing genocide against the Shiite Arabs, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Azeri, Assyrians, Yazidi, Bahai'i, and Chaldeans among others.

919293
Iraq War
Iraq
US Foreign Policy

What are arguments for and against the US intervention in Iraq?

Sadly enough its going to go on for a long time. Saddam was not a good ruler but his rule did have a functioning country... If you opposed him life was not good! However, Bush felt compelled to divert our military assets from fighting Al-Queda in Afganistan and to divert them to a country where Al-Queda was not tolerated to carry out dads unfinished business. The power vacuum he created in Iraq has led to much unrest and a welcome location for Al-Queda operatives to come in and join the Jihad. The Arab world is interesting in that the many different sects often do not get along with each other however, throw in Israel or their ally the US and see how quick they join together to fight a common enemy. This is going to go on for a long time. The problem when you get leaders in control who have never been in a war who really want a war they often pick a fight with no winning and no end.

AnswerThe only reason why Sadaam Hussein is not worse than Hitler is because Sadaam Hussein had Iraq and Hitler had Germany. These are precisely the type of people that need to be put in prison. But while most agree that Sadaam Hussein shouldn't be in power, many people argue over the means to accomplish the just end. Never forget, at the end of the day, many innocents were killed, maimed and hurt just for the purpose.

Lets not forget since the Invasion there's been an excess of 600,000deaths as of 2006, if the invasion did not happen they wouldn't have died.

many innocents were killed, maimed and hurt just for the purpose of "liberating" Iraq and its still ongoing, in fact compared to the amount the Americans killed Saddam is a saint in comparison

AnswerMany reasons why we should have done it.

1) Their top nuclear scientist still had the blue prints in his garden per Saddams orders.

Designing a nuclear bomb is easy, a university grad named Google John Aristotle Phillips of Princston in the 70s built one as a junior paper, anyone with a degree in physics can do it. The trouble is creating weapons grade uraninum which is quite a complex process.

2) Genocide against the Kurds

So the 2000 kurds Saddam killed with chemical weapons is horrible compared to the 50,000 American casualties and 600,000 Iraqi civilians?

3) Genocide against the Shi'ites

Same as number 2

4) "Food for Oil" was nothing more than a scam with pockets from France, Germany, Russia, and China being lined.

False, it was trade, there was nothing illegal except the embargo by the states with made the common Iraqi families suffer.

5) Al-Queda training camps in the north with Zarqawi

Saddam hated Osama, and Osama hated Saddam. In fact if you actually looked into this issue you would find that Osama offered to fight with Saudi Arabia against Iraq in the First gulf war.

6) Saddam paid martyrs families from acts of jihad on Jews $25,000.

There's alot more but this should be enough. MANY military people say that you would find the WMDs in the deserts of Syria.

In case you haven't noticed, people can lie. It's not real just because somebody claims it is real, evidence is needed, maybe you can get that in an another invasion of Syria.

And if i recall America helped pay the Contra death squads, the taliban in the 80s-90s, the Irani dictatorship before it got overthrown and so on... please I'm getting tired of answering your ignorance, read some history before replying.

Reasons we should NOT have done it:

1) I have nuclear weapons blue prints. So do many people. It is a long, LONG way from blueprints to weapons grade fissionable isotopes, and from there to a functional bomb.

2) We encouraged genocide against the Kurds, by provoking them into rebellion with promises of military support, and then abandoning them as we did Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Winston Churchill was the first person to advocate the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, and Turkey doesn't like them either. We also permitted Turkey to bomb Kurdish populations in northern Iraq during the last three years. Why would the US endorse killing Kurds?

3) The Shi'ites are the major population of Iraq. This "genocide" was very much unlike the genocide of serbian christians against bosnian Muslims. Saddam endorsed a secular government, and his actions were just fine with us until France and Germany won lucrative oil contracts, and Saddam bought most of his weaponry from Russia.

4) The biggest part of the "oil for food" scam was that Iraq refused to give US oil companies cheap contracts since they could get more for their oil from Europe.

5) There were no Al Queda training camps in Iraq prior to our invasion. The United States occupied a large portion of northern Iraq, ostensibly to protect Kurdish populations there. We enforced the no-fly zone (except for when we permitted Saddam to gas kurds) and had sealed off the region protecting Mosul and Kirkuk.

6) Saddam paid the families of palestinian suicide bombers, as did many members of the Saudi Royal family. This was not to encourage further bombings, but as compensation for the fact that Israel knocked down their homes with bulldozers. Only one member of Al Queda passed through Iraq seeking medical attention in the year preceding our invasion--and was denied. Al Queda had no operations in Iraq until after our mismanaged war. As for supporting international terrorists, Abu Nidal was in Iraq from time to time, though he never received financial support from Saddam, and was executed him in 2002. So much for Iraqi support of international terrorists. Some two hundred thousand (200,000) Iraqi civilians have died from the violence caused by our invasion and occupation, and a million more have been displaced.

AnswerThe war is justified because, historically, weak countries with lots of resources always fall prey to stronger countries that want them.

Forget any moral justifications that is merely the pretence in politics to make out the aggressor is still the good guy.

There are and were no WMDs and the government knew this before the invasion. If WMDs were the justification then why hasn't North Korea (who we know for a fact has them) been invaded yet.

If use of chemical weapons 20 years ago to put down an uprising (killing 2000 people) was the issue that made Saddam bad how does this stand against Americas murder of 10s of thousands of people by chemical weapons in the Vietnam war 30 years ago. Or even its current use of chemical weapons in Iraq today (as admitted by the US government).

It certainly cannot be because of Saddams use of torture as currently the CIA has been found to be flying terror suspects to Eastern Europe and other destinations where they can be tortured by third parties.

The CIA admitted before the war that there was no link between Saddam and al Quaeda. Saddam and Bin Laden despised each other. The only part of Iraq with links to Al Quaeda was the northern kurdish part were Saddam didn't have control. The bit which America allied itself with.

I'm sure no one believes that we went to war because of how Iraq supposedly treated its women. That really was just mud to be slung to keep the American public onboard with the whole adventure. If truth be known of all Arab states Iraq was one of the most progressive when it came to womens rights. Women could vote and proportionately Iraq had more female representatives then America. Women made up a higher percentage of university students then anywhere in the Arab world and was inline with western gender distributions.

It wasn't even the fact the Saddam was a bad man (which he is) but so are most leaders if you dig enough dirt and sling enough mud. There are dozens of leaders around the world who are far worse, who have caused far greater attrocites and human rights violations. In Zimbabwe 100s of thousands of people have been hacked to death by machettes because they belonged to the wrong tribe, the women are taken to army camps where they are serially raped and mutilated (I bet they would wish to be Iraqi). The US government doesn't even speak out against these countries let alone invade.

The one true charge that could be put against Iraq and Saddam was that they had more oil then they could defend and that is, historically, indefenceable.

AnswerI disagree with the comment involving the US invading Iraq due to the fact that they have oil. If this were the case, the US would be taking over Iraq, not building and Iraqi democracy. The United States will not be getting free oil out of the deal by any means. I think they main motivation behind this was, #1 Sadaam Hussein was not cooperating with the UN, had no action been taken, it would discredit the UN's integrity, what motivation would other countries have to listen to them? #2 The everlasting quest to spread democracy, in the eyes of the US government, the more democracy found around the world and the less dictatorships...the better. And lastly #3 Sadaam Hussein has caused his share of trouble, including mass genocide of the Kurds and others as well as the invasion of Kuwait, etc. Hussein gave the US government plenty of reason to believe that he was hiding weapons of mass destruction when he chose to not cooperate with UN officials. And there still could very well be WMD's hidden in Iraq, this is something we may never know...

First of all the UN is not a global dictatorship, its members willing commit to the organization, members can choose not to obey and USA has used its veto powers alot.

Second of all in the last hundred years the USA has created more dictatorships than democracies, take a brief history in South Americas, Africa, and the Carribean, and the term American interests. Promise does not reflect practice .

Third of all, as stated above, Saddam did bad things, but while he was in power there was order, water, electrcity, no street war between millitants and the US army, and at least 600,000 Iraqis were alive.

So if we never know if there's WNDs then its just a theory and therefore not a valid reason, oh i think Obama is actually hiding inside the Lincon memorial , lets cut him up and find out since we'll never know otherwise and we can't take that chance, if you can't find Osama then oh well the memorial will fix itself like the 600,000dead iraqis

Final thing, America has never had a major war on its land for 150 years, it's easy for those who never been to war, lost friends, family,or an arm to it to support it.

Concindentally BUSH, wolfgang, and channey had all never been to war. (bush was in a champagne regiment)

105106107
US Constitution
US Senators and Representatives
US Foreign Policy

What was the purpose of the Bricker Amendment?

The main theme or purpose of the Bricker Amendment was to ensure that treaties and executive agreements should have no domestic standing without internal legislation. This was a hot topic in the 1950's.

838485
Politics and Government
US Foreign Policy

How did John Foster Dulles plan to change US foreign policy?

== == John Foster Dulles believed that communism was evil. He found it impossible to consider the Soviet Union anything but an enemy of the democratic beliefs of the United States. He did not believe a nation could be neutral in the Cold War. One must be for democracy and the ideals of the US Constitution, or support communism. Dulles divided the world into "us" and "them." You were either a supporter of the US foreign policy ideals, or an enemy of the US. Dulles believed the US should use such agencies as the CIA to ensure a pro-US government in nations. An example was seen in 1953 when the US helped the Shah of Iran overthrow a government disliked by the US. Dulles advocated a policy of brinkmanship--taking the US to the brink of war in our relations with communism and the USSR in particular.

959697
Korean War
US Foreign Policy

What effect did the Korean War have on US foreign policies and military policies?

US polocies after/during the warThe Korean war was followed in accordance with the Truman Doctrine and NS68, which both basically were ultimatums that the U.S.S.R. was trying to take over the world- and that the US would help any country that was under the threat of falling under Soviet Communism. The war in Korea made the US realise that affirmitive military action was the only way to win the war on communism, and the war could not be fought half-heartedly. The War in Korea made the US respect China as a military power to reckon with. All future diplomatic actions would take China's reactions into consideration. An interesting note to make is that even though heavy, aggressive, carpet bombing did not work in Korea, it was still followed in the War in Vietnam.
737475
US Foreign Policy

How was American foreign policy decisions impacted by anticommunism?

loads of mad stuff happened

some guys died

some managed to survive

but all in all

the price of tea in communist America was scandalous

so they kicked those commy chaps back to Russia

939495
Iran
History of the Middle East
US Foreign Policy

What was the Iran hostage crisis?

The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis that lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981. Members of the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, a group of militant university students who were supported by the new Islamic regime, held 63 diplomats and three additional U.S. citizens hostage inside the American diplomatic mission in Tehran, Iran. Fifty two people, not including those who were released, were held hostage until the conclusion of the crisis. The United States attempted a rescue operation named Operation Eagle Claw. The operation failed, resulting in the deaths of five USAF Airmen and three US Marines. Some political scientists argue that the crisis was one of the primary reasons for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the U.S. Presidential Election of 1980. The crisis reached its conclusion with the signing of the Algiers Accords. On January 20, 1981, the hostages were formally released into United States custody after spending 444 days in captivity. The release took place just minutes after Ronald Reagan was officially sworn in as president.
In November of 1979 55 americans were taken hostage.They were kept for over a year.On January 20,1981 the hostages were released.It was the same day that Ronald Reagan became the 40th president of the United States.

757677
Vietnam War
US Foreign Policy

What US foreign policy was used to justify US involvement in the Vietnam War?

The "Domino Theory".

808182
Iraq War
Iraq
US Foreign Policy

How and why did the war in Iraq start?

The US attacked Iraq in 2003 based on either misformation or disinformation, and the stated reasons have changed over time.

The Initial Justification : Weapons of Mass Destruction

The primary reason given by the administration of George W. Bush was that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, was engaged in the production or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (examples are the anthrax letter attacks in the US and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo--neither of which had any connection to Iraq). It was suggested that Hussein might provide these weapons to terrorists to attack the US. He had already used chemical weapons sold to him by the US against Iran, and also against Iraqi Kurds. Before the war UN inspectors announced they had found no evidence of WMDs, despite unfettered access. After the war was under way, additional investigation concluded Saddam did not have WMDs.

The war continued, however, because the occupation forces of the US were attacked by Iraqi guerrillas, many ironically supported by Iran, Iraq's enemy in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The US supported a new democratic government within Iraq, which was opposed by various Islamic groups that traditionally held power in the country. Other factions sought to aggrandize their share of the power to be had in the new political system.

It was suggested early on the conflict was predominantly an attempt by the US to control the flow of oil from Iraq, one of the largest petroleum producers in the Middle East.

Secondary Justification: Fostering a Democracy in Iraq
Initially when the US commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, it was a war against the regime in Iraq; to remove Saddam from power, as the US had failed to do in 1991. The goal of the 1991 operation was to drive Saddam from Kuwait, at which the US and its allies succeeded. When no WMDs were found, the US asserted that its mission in Iraq was two-fold: to create a modern democracy and to stop the persistent genocides that took place in that country. The US enfranchised the Shiite Majority, provided for Kurdish autonomy in the North, and assembled a Constitution for the entire Iraqi population. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own population and was responsible for committing genocide against the Shiite Arabs, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Azeri, Assyrians, Yazidi, Bahai'i, and Chaldeans among others.

848586
Japan
US Foreign Policy

What act of US expansion was the direct result of Mathew Perry's naval journey to Japan?

The United States took possesion of the Midway Islands.

757677
Countries, States, and Cities
Natural Disasters
US Foreign Policy

Is it true that Aid by itself is not a problem and in fact it is a necessity to the developing countries The problem has been the nature of the aid the context and purpose for which it is given?

This is a question of analysis, so there is no clear "true/false answer" here. Most people and political scientists would agree with the statement that "AID to developing countries is necessary as a general principle but improperly allocated", but just about everyone would disagree about why "AID to developing countries is necessary as a general principle" and for what particular reasons "AID is improperly allocated". However, there are some political scientists who argue that AID is in principle wrong and others who hold that AID is more-or-less properly allocated.

555657
US Foreign Policy

What did fruit merchants and US foreign-policy makers have in common?

Both were intrested in opening new markets around the world.

Apex

707172
War and Military History
Judaism
History of the Middle East
US Foreign Policy

If the present day clash between Arabs and Jews is a religious conflict why and how does it carry over to affect America?

Thinking of it as a religious conflict only confuses things. Israel is an attempt by the Jews as a people to have their own country in their historic homeland. They did not do this by stealing the land, but by buying it and developing it. Most of the people who did this were not religious. Because most of the land had been owned by (Ottoman) absentee landlords, (Arab) tenant farmers did get displaced when the Jews began farming it. But the fundamental issue is that Arabs did not want to share the land with a non-Arab country. Although Arabs have been successful in portraying it as a religious battle, and in getting the support of most Muslim countries, it's really a conflict between Arabs and Jews, not Muslims and Jews. Probably the results would have been about the same if instead of Jews it had been (Muslim) Turks or Persians.

America is on the receiving end of this due to its need for oil and regional security. Israel has promoted American values and engaged in high-level diplomatic, military, technological, and economic exchanges with the United States. As a result, the United States has become a primary ally of Israel's and vice versa. Since the conflict is a national or ethnic one and not actually a religious one, it makes sense that America's grounds for supporting Israel are strategic, not religious.

747576
Gulf War
US Foreign Policy

Why did the US go to War with Iraq in 1991?

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait and Kuwait is an ally of the US. Iraq's invasion also was a major threat to Saudi Arabia and under no condition could the Western world allow such a concentration of the world oil reserves to be controlled by Saddam Hussein.

676869

Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.