Summary: In his speech, Winston Churchill tried to inspire his fellow British citizens to go to war against Germany. He was a member of the parliament in England and later he became the Prime Minister of that state. He lived during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, who presented him many awards. He went through World War II. Churchill then realized that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi were coming to England to invade the state.
George H.W. Bush envisioned a “new world order” for the United States that was “freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace” (Dower, 77). Therefore, what followed was the expansion of overseas bases, modernization in weapons, a revolution in military affairs, and a fixation on oil in the Middle East. Dower continues in the next chapter with the declaration of the “global war on terror” after the al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. On September 15, the CIA began a “Worldwide Attack Matrix,” or an antiterror campaign that reached eighty countries (Dower, 88).
Under the term ‘external pressure’ Truman implied the expansion of USSR. The Truman Doctrine must also be considered in general as the policy of deterrence, whose author was George Kennan, one of the diplomats who once worked in Moscow and published in the Foreign Affairs journal an article on the need to contain the expansionist tendencies of the USSR. The Truman Doctrine existed in one form or another virtually throughout the entire Cold War period. However, it is worth to highlight two episodes - the war in Korea, which in the opinion of some researchers led to the truly global US policy and the Vietnam War, which in its turn sufficiently changed the views of the American ruling elite. The aim of this essay is to analyze the text of the Truman Doctrine and its application in practice.
In his “Moscow and the Marshall Plan”, published in 1994, Geoffrey Roberts seems to have combined his research interests by writing about the origins of the Cold War and particularly the role of the USSR in it. To be more precise, he argues that the ideological shift within the Soviet Union after the World War II with the following misinterpretation of the U.S. foreign policy in general and the Marshall Plan in particular led to the USSR “embarking on its Cold War” (Roberts 1381; italics added); i.e. since “Soviet ideology, like any other, was more than a set of beliefs”, but “a language of political communication” (1382), it influenced the USSR’s reception of the Marshall Plan and led to the eventual estrangement of the two superpowers and, finally, to the Cold War. He also argues that prior to 1947 both sides – the USSR, as well as the USA – were trying to cooperate and coexist peacefully with each other (Roberts 1382).Thus, as well as Leffler, Roberts does not seem to believe in the inevitability of the Cold War proceeding only from the mutual exclusiveness of the USA’s and the USSR’s ideological natures from the very beginning. Yet, as already mentioned, the author claims that ideology was the main reason why the Soviet Union did eventually launch the conflict.
5. Reasoning the theories The official story was that Osama bin Laden was the terrorist mastermind behind the attack, but some believe 9/11 was a smokescreen for a far bigger American conspiracy and that the Bush administration is the one, behind the vicious attack. 5.1. Justifying war The events of 9/11 ultimately led to war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and allowed the United States access to Iraq’s most prized commodity, oil. America declared war on Iraq to gain control of Iraq’s oil but in order to do so it had to cover up its track.
If the policy of containment was purely humanitarian, it would be expected that the actions of all US agencies would follow this ethos. However, this is not the case. Perhaps the best example of this would be the CIA’s assistance in a royalist coup in Iran resulting in the expulsion of its then Prime Minister. The coup was primarily organized in reaction to the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry as well as fear of Iran joining the Soviet Bloc. This is a clear example of the dubious nature of facets of the containment policy, after all, there is a strong argument that the coup was arranged in order to secure American access to resources as opposed to halt the advance of communist ideology.
The Kenyan Bombing issue evolved into a broader issue over time, creating polarization between opposite sides due to the complex pre-existing history and relations in the area. Slowly, America was portrayed around the globe as the new Soviet Union, engulfing nation states for their own benefit and spitting them back out in worse shape than before. The solutions to the issue of terrorism involved intrusive military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the surrounding areas to flush out the problem. Through the lenses of military, government and politics, the Kenyan bombings marked a turning point in the American foreign policy agenda. Not only did the issue of terrorism increase significantly from that point, legitimacy in the American government was weakened, evocative of early 1970 's America after Nixon 's Watergate
Not only did Americans do this, but so didn’t our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. Additionally our British allies joined us in a bombing campaign in early October 2001 once the Afghanistan regime let it be known that they wouldn’t surrender the leadership. By mid-November NATO occupied Kabul. They followed our Presidents vision, making him a visionary
In his textbook American Anthem: Reconstruction to Present, David Ayers states that the Cold War was a time of immense tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War brought new foreign policy decisions from the United States to combat the new perceived threat of the Soviet Union and communism. Among these was the policy of containment created by George F. Kennan (Ayers 819). The policy of containment was the idea that the United States should use military force and give economic aid to countries in order to strengthen them against the Soviet Union (Ayers 819). This idea would affect the decisions and policies of presidents for years to come.
This essay will critically assess whether 9/11 represented a paradigm shift in international politics. A ‘paradigm shift’ can be defined as a change in the dominant worldview of an era.This would henceforth outline that it carries a strong connotation of a change in the times. The 9/11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks carried by 19 suicide hijackers who were later identified as being in association with the Islamist terrorist organisation, Al-Qaeda. “Within hours of the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington D.C, American commentators were already comparing the event to a “new Pearl Harbor.” (Philip Gordon, 2001) As the aftermath of these four catastrophic attacks led to over 2,996 casualties and