Term Paper on "U.S. Policy"
Term Paper 10 pages (3807 words) Sources: 4 Style: APA
[EXCERPT] . . . .
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle Eastis based Primarily on Securing the Flow of Affordable Oil
A change of policy is needed regarding United States foreign policy
in the Middle East. The current policy is one towards securing oil and
that must change. Oil is not worth American lives and currently American
lives are falling victim to the need for oil. Today, America is deeply
involved politically and militarily in the Middle East. While there are
arguments that terrorism ties in the United States to the Middle East, it
is the need for oil that directly involves the United States. And more
often than not, weapons of mass destruction are an excuse for conflict in
the Middle East and thus excuses for the United States to go to war to
secure oil. There is a great deal of evidence than the United States
trumps up notions of the threat of weapons of mass destruction in order to
go to war. The change in United States foreign policy must be to look for
other alternatives to securing energy, either through alternative energy
sources, collaboration with friendly regimes, and greater energy
efficiency. As of now the United States foreign policy towards the Middle
East is highly contradictory and hypocritical. Securing oil cannot be the
sole motivator in American foreign policy and a change is needed in which
the United States has to be upfront about its relationship towards rogue
regimes in the Middle East. This involves being honest with itself and
understanding the role that weapons of mass
download full paper ⤓
within United States foreign policy.
A major argument for the United States going to war was that Iraq not
only had the capabilities to build weapons of mass destruction, but that
the program was well under way and that Iraq had connection to terrorist
organizations that were capable of utilizing those weapons on American
soil. This was a lie and this has been proven to be a lie. No weapons of
mass destruction were found and there were no ties between the Iraqi Regime
and Al Qaeda. But before we discuss the current war lets go back a few
years and take a look at America's decisions or perhaps a lack of decisions
to show that the current conflict in Iraq was not because of security risks
inherent to the area, but because of American imperialist tendencies. It
should be noted that foreign policy intended to further America's
acquisition of oil is imperialist as imperialism is defined as: "the policy
of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign
countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies"
(Dictionary.com). And that is exactly what the United States is doing-
extending its rule over the Middle East to acquire oil under the guise of
preventing the development and threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Let us take this issue back to the 1990s when the United States
fought its previous war with Iraq. While this war was justified because of
Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the actions of the United States show the
lack of threat that Saddam had towards the United States. For example the
United States did not dispose of the regime but instead did not risk
further casualties (Lewis 2001). Furthermore, the United States in the
years after the Gulf War did not support Kurdish resistance towards
Saddam's oppressive regime thus "making the position of the Iraqi
democratic opposition increasingly difficult and the government of the
United States increasingly reluctant to become involved" (Lewis 2001).
This means that if the United States today is in Iraq because of the
spreading of democracy, that this reason is obviously a lie. According to
this ideal, the United States intended to protect regime stability, and not
democratic ideology or its own security, because they wanted to send the
following message: "Don't touch Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or in any other way
interfere with the supply of oil" (Lewis 2001). Not only does the United
States not care about what government supports as long as it retains its
supply of oil, but it is willing to alter its notions of what it does
support in order to ensure it has oil.
Then there is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. "The Bush
administration and the US media harped on the likelihood that Iraq's
military would use weapons of mass destruction," reflecting the notion that
the issue of weapons of mass destruction was considered a reason for going
to war with Iraq in the 21st century (not the 20th) (Martin 2003). Yet in
no uncertain terms, "these claims have proven to be lies" (Martin 2003).
Thus the administration has lied to the American people as no weapons of
mass destruction have been found in Iraq. It could be argued indefinitely
how wrong the administration was and how a mistake was made to involve the
United States in such a mess, but none is necessary. The fact that there
have been no major discoveries of weapons of mass destruction and no ties
to terrorist organizations between the previous Iraqi regime and the
current shows the extent of the lies involving weapons of mass destruction.
Furthermore, it is perhaps evidence that United States actions towards
Iraq at the time suggests to nations in the middle east that conventional
warfare is impossible for them to fight against a superpower like the
United States. The argument is that Iraq, and more recently Iran, "cannot
equal the army of a modern state, and, therefore, that a head-on military
confrontation with such a state or states would inevitably end in defeat"
(Lewis 2001). Thus they need to develop weapons of mass destruction to
counter the United States and its imperial policies, and means that the
United States causes these nations to develop weapons of mass destruction
and not vice versa. Also, weapons of mass destruction are a sign of
prestige in today's world, as for example the nations that were the victors
in World War II and those on the Security Council have weapons of mass
destruction. North Korea once acquiring weapons of mass destruction has
been given greater respect from the international community. This means
that the United States has shown that weapons of mass destruction are a
necessity to evade American imperialism and therefore the United States has
encouraged the development of weapons of mass destruction because its quest
for oil and taking power of other sovereign nations has forced others to
seek alternative means to prevent American invasion. Our imperialist
policy is therefore encouraging other states to seek rogue methods to
counter our invasive policies.
This means that America' foreign policy towards the Middle East is
wrong and that a change is necessary. The United States treats Iraq and
other countries in the Middle East with disrespect and thus receives it in
return. This is because the Iraqi war is part of a larger policy towards
the Middle East, one not only of disrespect, but one that intends to
enforce American imperialism. "The administration sees the invasion as
only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the
entire Middle East," it is argued and this is the truth (Marshall 2003).
Weapons of mass destruction are not the issue. The administration that
went to war with Iraq admitted this. In 2003, the "Undersecretary of State
John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United
States would 'deal with' Iran, Syria, and North Korea," which shows that
the United States has intentions reaching farther than the weapons of mass
destruction lie that was given to the American public (Marshall 2003).
This means that lies are not only being told, but something that is not
right is governing America foreign policy.
What is governing American foreign policy is oil, and America's
foreign policy should not and cannot be dictated by a natural resource.
Oil is used everywhere in America, sure, but it should not influence our
policy towards an entire region. Granted that oil problems can cause an
"economic crisis" and thus risk your administration and those that rely on
the administration, other alternatives need to be sought (Buckley Jr.
2005). Promoting stability, or encouraging instability for a natural
resource and using weapons of mass destruction is a mistake that has and
will continue to be compounded by more mistakes. It is obvious that Iraq
is a center of oil as it has been referred to as the "112 billion-barrel
Iraqi bonanza," and given the inherent excuses to go to war with it, Iraq
is the obvious first stepping stone of American foreign policy in which
weapons of mass destruction are used as an excuse (Vesely 2002).
This is because without a doubt, the Middle East is a region that is
incredibly influential in regards to oil prices. It controls so much of
the oil flow. So therefore much of American foreign policy towards the
region is related to oil. This cannot be told any other… READ MORE
Quoted Instructions for "U.S. Policy" Assignment:
This paper is about a united states public policy related to weapons of mass destruction. I need to write a thesis that develops my theme and calls for a change in policy I've selected. It has to be my opinion, but it has to be based on the research done on this topic. i need to address my arguement to the President of the united states and his key lobbyists.(oil men, automobile moguls etc.)The topic I have Chosen is: "U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East is based Primarily on Securing the Flow of Affordable Oil." I have to somehow relate it to WMD.I have to argue CONVINCINGLY for a change in policy. Some points are: greater energy efficiency; alternative energy sources;stop supporting corrupt arab governmentsetc. please do not use just website articles; maybe site a book or journal article or encyclopedia in addition to websites.
How to Reference "U.S. Policy" Term Paper in a Bibliography
“U.S. Policy.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2007, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/us-foreign-policy/3144408. Accessed 5 Jul 2024.
Related Term Papers:
U.S. Federal Policy on Abortion United States Essay
U.S. federal policy on abortion
United States Federal Policy on Abortion
In understanding the workings of the United States federal government, it is critical to have an understanding of the… read more
Essay 2 pages (661 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Abortion / Pro-Life / Pro-Choice
U.S. Latin America Relations State Departments Leading Essay
U.S. Latin America Relations
State Departments leading expert on the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan, sent his famous "long telegram" to the state department from his post in the U.S.… read more
Essay 4 pages (1773 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Latin America / Mexico / Caribbean
U.S. Foreign Policy After 911 Term Paper
U.S. Foreign Policy After 911
Has the U.S. foreign policy changed since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? Most certainly, the… read more
Term Paper 5 pages (1891 words) Sources: 3 Style: MLA Topic: Terrorism / Extremism / Radicalization
U.S. Foreign Policy US Middle East Thesis
U.S. Foreign Policy
US Middle East Foreign Policy
The United States (U.S.) as the sole superpower in a multipolar world system operates under its own set of rules and guided… read more
Thesis 8 pages (2218 words) Sources: 10 Style: APA Topic: Terrorism / Extremism / Radicalization
How Is the U.S. Army Utilizing the Human Resource Model Today? Term Paper
U.S. Army Utilizing the Human Resource Model Today
A human resource model is a performance framework that oversees conduction of tasks from an efficient point-of-view with the intention of attaining… read more
Term Paper 7 pages (2504 words) Sources: 7 Style: MLA Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines
Fri, Jul 5, 2024
If you don't see the paper you need, we will write it for you!
We can write a new, 100% unique paper!