America As A Super Power Discussion By the mid-20th century, the United States had become the dominant force in international relations. Some have argued t

America As A Super Power Discussion By the mid-20th century, the United States had become the dominant force in international relations. Some have argued that the United States’ military functions as the world’s “police.” This assignment covers the manner in which this shift occurred and the consequences the United States faces as a result of its status as “policeman of the world.” One can identify early steps this direction well before World War II, but in this paper focus on the period from the 1940s to the present. Examine the statement below and drawing from provided sources, present a paper with specific examples and arguments to demonstrate the validity of your position.

Statement—in which you can take a pro or con position:

The American international “policing” role developed because of the Cold War, but now terrorists or any power having or trying to get weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are the potential targets of such a role. By examples from different decades since 1950, it is clear that the policing strategy was once essential but should be discarded as ineffective and counterproductive. (Or you can argue the opposite—that the policing strategy is more necessary than ever; or you can argue for a more moderate position.) Use specific examples—two from the Cold War years and two from the past two decades.

After giving general consideration to your readings and your research, select one of the positions above as your position—your thesis. (Sometimes after doing more thorough research, you might choose the reverse position. This happens with critical thinking and inquiry. Your final paper might end up taking a different position than you originally envisioned.) Organize your paper as follows, handling these issues:

The position you choose —or something close to it—will be the thesis statement in your opening paragraph.
To support your position, use four (4) specific examples from different decades between 1950 and the present. However, two (2) examples must be from the Cold War years (before 1991) and the other two (2) examples must be from the past twenty (20) years.
Explain why the opposing view is weak in comparison to yours.
Consider your life today: In what way does the history you have shown shape or impact issues in your workplace or desired profession? (This might be unclear at first since it is foreign policy. But, super-power status does inevitably provide advantages in a global economy.)
750 Words

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.t…

One reference link above. Other two in Word documents. Secretary Dulles’ Strategy of Massive Retaliation
January 12, 1954
(Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXX, pp.107-10)
The Eisenhower administration made two changes in the nation’s military policy.
First, the size of the military establishment was cut. Second, a new emphasis was
placed upon atomic weapons in the nation’s military planning. Secretary of State
Dulles explained these changes as a new approach to military strategy, declaring that
the United States planned in the future to rely on the threat of “massive retaliation” to
“deter” Communist aggression.
We live in a world where emergencies are always possible, and our survival may
depend upon our capacity to meet emergencies. Let us pray that we shall always have
that capacity. But, having said that, it is necessary also to say that emergency
measures — however good for the emergency — do not necessarily make good
permanent policies. Emergency measures are costly; they are superficial; and they
imply that the enemy has the initiative. They cannot be depended on to serve our longterm interests.
This “long time” factor is of critical importance. The Soviet Communists are planning
for what they call “an entire historical era,” and we should do the same. They seek,
through many types of maneuvers, gradually to divide and weaken the free nations by
overextending them in efforts which, as Lenin put it, are “beyond their strength, so
that they come to practical bankruptcy.” Then, said Lenin, “our victory is assured.”
Then, said Stalin, will be “the moment for the decisive blow.”
In the face of this strategy, measures cannot be judged adequate merely because they
ward off an immediate danger. It is essential to do this, but it is also essential to do so
without exhausting ourselves.
When the Eisenhower administration applied this test, we felt that some
transformations were needed. It is not sound military strategy permanently to commit
U.S. land forces to Asia to a degree that leaves us no strategic reserves. It is not sound
economics, or good foreign policy, to support permanently other countries; for in the
long run, that creates as much ill will as good will. Also, it is not sound to become
permanently committed to military expenditures so vast they lead to “practical
bankruptcy.”
Change was imperative to assure the stamina needed for permanent security. But it
was equally imperative that change should be accompanied by understanding of our
true purposes. Sudden and spectacular change had to be avoided. Otherwise, there
might have been a panic among our friends and miscalculated aggression by our
enemies. We can, I believe, make a good report in these respects.
We need allies and collective security. Our purpose is to make these relations more
effective, less costly. This can be done by placing more reliance on deterrent power
and less dependence on local defensive power.
This is accepted practice so far as local communities are concerned. We keep locks on
our doors, but we do not have an armed guard in every home. We rely principally on a
community security system so well equipped to punish any who break in and steal
that, in fact, would-be aggressors are generally deterred. That is the modern way of
getting maximum protection at a bearable cost. What the Eisenhower administration
seeks is a similar international security system. We want for ourselves and the other
free nations, a maximum deterrent at a bearable cost.
Local defense will always be important. But there is no local defense which alone will
contain the mighty land power of the Communist world. Local defenses must be
reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power. A potential aggressor
must know that he cannot always prescribe battle conditions that suit him. Otherwise,
for example, a potential aggressor, who is glutted with manpower, might be tempted
to attack in confidence that resistance would be confined to manpower. He might be
tempted to attack in places where his superiority was decisive.
The way to deter aggression is for the free community to be willing and able to
respond vigorously at places and with means of its own choosing.
So long as our basic policy concepts were unclear, our military leaders could not be
selective in building our military power. If an enemy could pick his time and place
and method of warfare — and if our policy was to remain the traditional one of
meeting aggression by direct and local opposition — then we needed to be ready to
fight in the Arctic and in the Tropics; in Asia, the near East, and in Europe; by sea, by
land, and by air; with old weapons and with new weapons …
Before military planning could be changed, the President and his advisers, as
represented by the National Security Council, had to make some basic policy decision.
This has been done. The basic decision was to depend primarily upon a great capacity
to retaliate, instantly, by means and at the places of our choosing. Now the
Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff can shape our military
establishment to fit what is our policy, instead of having to try to be ready to meet the
enemy’s many choices. That permits of a selection of military means instead of a
multiplication of means. As a result, it is now possible to get, and share, more basic
security at less cost.
Let us now see how this concept has been applied to foreign policy, taking first the
Far East.
In Korea this administration effected a major transformation. The fighting has been
stopped on honorable terms. That was possible because the aggressor, already thrown
back to and behind his place of beginning, was faced with the possibility that the
fighting might, to his own great peril, soon spread beyond the limits and methods
which he had selected.
The cruel toll of American youth and the nonproductive expenditure of many billions
have been stopped. Also our armed forces are no longer largely committed to the
Asian mainland. We can begin to create a strategic reserve which greatly improves
our defensive posture.
This change gives added authority to the warming of the members of the United
Nations which fought in Korea that, if the Communists renewed the aggression, the
United Nations response would not necessarily be confined to Korea.
I have said in relation to Indochina that, if there were open Red Chinese army
aggression there, that would have “grave consequences which might not be confined
to Indochina.” …
In the ways I outlined we gather strength for the long-term defense of freedom. We do
not, of course, claim to have found some magic formula that insures against all forms
of Communist successes. It is normal that at some times and at some places there may
be setbacks to the cause of freedom. What we do expect to insure is that any setbacks
will have only temporary and local significance, because they will leave unimpaired
those free world assets which in the long run will prevail.
If we can deter such aggression as would mean general war, and that is our confident
resolve, then we can let time and fundamentals [work] for us….
“New World Order” Speech
George Herbert Walker Bush
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Cessation of the Persian
Gulf Conflict
March 6, 1991
Speaker Foley: Mr. President, it is customary at joint sessions for the Chair to present
the President to the Members of Congress directly and without further comment. But I
wish to depart from tradition tonight and express to you on behalf of the Congress and
the country, and through you to the members of our Armed Forces, our warmest
congratulations on the brilliant victory of the Desert Storm Operation.
Members of the Congress, I now have the high privilege and distinct honor of
presenting to you the President of the United States.
The President: Mr. President. And Mr. Speaker, thank you, sir, for those very
generous words spoken from the heart about the wonderful performance of our
military.
Members of Congress, 5 short weeks ago I came to this House to speak to you about
the state of the Union. We met then in time of war. Tonight, we meet in a world
blessed by the promise of peace.
From the moment Operation Desert Storm commenced on January 16th until the time
the guns fell silent at midnight 1 week ago, this nation has watched its sons and
daughters with pride, watched over them with prayer. As Commander in Chief, I can
report to you our armed forces fought with honor and valor. And as President, I can
report to the Nation aggression is defeated. The war is over.
This is a victory for every country in the coalition, for the United Nations. A victory
for unprecedented international cooperation and diplomacy, so well led by our
Secretary of State, James Baker. It is a victory for the rule of law and for what is right.
Desert Storm’s success belongs to the team that so ably leads our Armed Forces: our
Secretary of Defense and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dick Cheney and Colin
Powell. And while you’re standing — [laughter] — this military victory also belongs
to the one the British call the “Man of the Match” — the tower of calm at the eye of
Desert Storm — General Norman Schwarzkopf.
And recognizing this was a coalition effort, let us not forget Saudi General Khalid,
Britain’s General de la Billiere, or General Roquejeoffre of France, and all the others
whose leadership played such a vital role. And most importantly, most importantly of
all, all those who served in the field.
I thank the Members of this Congress — support here for our troops in battle was
overwhelming. And above all, I thank those whose unfailing love and support
sustained our courageous men and women: I thank the American people.
Tonight, I come to this House to speak about the world — the world after war. The
recent challenge could not have been clearer. Saddam Hussein was the villain;
Kuwait, the victim. To the aid of this small country came nations from North America
and Europe, from Asia and South America, from Africa and the Arab world, all united
against aggression. Our uncommon coalition must now work in common purpose: to
forge a future that should never again be held hostage to the darker side of human
nature.
Tonight in Iraq, Saddam walks amidst ruin. His war machine is crushed. His ability to
threaten mass destruction is itself destroyed. His people have been lied to, denied the
truth. And when his defeated legions come home, all Iraqis will see and feel the havoc
he has wrought. And this I promise you: For all that Saddam has done to his own
people, to the Kuwaitis, and to the entire world, Saddam and those around him are
accountable.
All of us grieve for the victims of war, for the people of Kuwait and the suffering that
scars the soul of that proud nation. We grieve for all our fallen soldiers and their
families, for all the innocents caught up in this conflict. And, yes, we grieve for the
people of Iraq, a people who have never been our enemy. My hope is that one day we
will once again welcome them as friends into the community of nations. Our
commitment to peace in the Middle East does not end with the liberation of Kuwait.
So, tonight let me outline four key challenges to be met.
First, we must work together to create shared security arrangements in the region. Our
friends and allies in the Middle East recognize that they will bear the bulk of the
responsibility for regional security. But we want them to know that just as we stood
with them to repel aggression, so now America stands ready to work with them to
secure the peace. This does not mean stationing U.S. ground forces in the Arabian
Peninsula, but it does mean American participation in joint exercises involving both
air and ground forces. It means maintaining a capable U.S. naval presence in the
region, just as we have for over 40 years. Let it be clear: Our vital national interests
depend on a stable and secure Gulf.
Second, we must act to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
the missiles used to deliver them. It would be tragic if the nations of the Middle East
and Persian Gulf were now, in the wake of war, to embark on a new arms race. Iraq
requires special vigilance. Until Iraq convinces the world of its peaceful intentions —
that its leaders will not use new revenues to rearm and rebuild its menacing war
machine — Iraq must not have access to the instruments of war.
And third, we must work to create new opportunities for peace and stability in the
Middle East. On the night I announced Operation Desert Storm, I expressed my hope
that out of the horrors of war might come new momentum for peace. We’ve learned in
the modern age geography cannot guarantee security, and security does not come
from military power alone.
All of us know the depth of bitterness that has made the dispute between Israel and its
neighbors so painful and intractable. Yet, in the conflict just concluded, Israel and
many of the Arab States have for the first time found themselves confronting the same
aggressor. By now, it should be plain to all parties that peacemaking in the Middle
East requires compromise. At the same time, peace brings real benefits to everyone.
We must do all that we can to close the gap between Israel and the Arab States — and
between Israelis and Palestinians. The tactics of terror lead absolutely nowhere. There
can be no substitute for diplomacy.
A comprehensive peace must be grounded in United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for peace. This principle must
be elaborated to provide for Israel’s security and recognition and at the same time for
legitimate Palestinian political rights. Anything else would fail the twin test of
fairness and security. The time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict.
The war with Iraq is over. The quest for solutions to the problems in Lebanon, in the
Arab-Israeli dispute, and in the Gulf must go forward with new vigor and
determination. And I guarantee you: No one will work harder for a stable peace in the
region than we will.
Fourth, we must foster economic development for the sake of peace and progress. The
Persian Gulf and Middle East form a region rich in natural resources with a wealth of
untapped human potential. Resources once squandered on military might must be
redirected to more peaceful ends. We are already addressing the immediate economic
consequences of Iraq’s aggression. Now, the challenge is to reach higher, to foster
economic freedom and prosperity for all the people of the region.
By meeting these four challenges we can build a framework for peace. I’ve asked
Secretary of State Baker to go to the Middle East to begin the process. He will go to
listen, to probe, to offer suggestions — to advance the search for peace and stability.
I’ve also asked him to raise the plight of the hostages held in Lebanon. We have not
forgotten them, and we will not forget them.
To all the challenges that confront this region of the world there is no single solution,
no solely American answer. But we can make a difference. America will work
tirelessly as a catalyst for positive change.
But we cannot lead a new world abroad if, at home, it’s politics as usual on American
defense and diplomacy. It’s time to turn away from the temptation to protect unneeded
weapons systems and obsolete bases. It’s time to put an end to micromanagement of
foreign and security assistance programs — micromanagement that humiliates our
friends and allies and hamstrings our diplomacy. It’s time to rise above the parochial
and the pork barrel, to do what is necessary, what’s right, and what will enable this
nation to play the leadership role required of us.
The consequences of the conflict in the Gulf reach far beyond the confines of the
Middle East. Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war.
Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice
before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man. Until now,
the world we’ve known has been a world divided — a world of barbed wire and
concrete block, conflict, and cold war.
Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very
real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a world order
in which “the principles of justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong. . .
.” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to
fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for
human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf war put this new world to its
first test. And my fellow Americans, we passed that test.
For the sake of our principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our
ground. Because the world would not look the other way, Ambassador al-Sabah,
tonight Kuwait is free. And we’re very happy about that.
Tonight, as our troops begin to come home, let us recognize that the hard work of
freedom still calls us forward. We’ve learned the hard lessons of history. The victory
over Iraq was not waged as “a war to end all wars.” Even the new world order cannot
guarantee an era of perpetual peace. But enduring peace must be our mission. Our
success in the Gulf will shape not only the new world order we seek but our mission
here at home.
In the war just ended, there were clear-cut objectives — timetables — and, above all,
an overriding imperative to achieve results. We must bring that same sense of selfdiscipline, that same sense of urgency, to the way we meet challenges here at home. In
my State of the Union Address and in my budget, I defined a comprehensive agenda
to prepare for the next American century.
Our first priority is to get this economy rolling again. The fear and uncertainty caused
by the Gulf crisis were understandable. But now that the war is over, oil prices are
down, interest rates are down, and confidence is rightly coming back. Americans can
move forward to lend, spend, and invest in this, the strongest economy on Earth.
We must also enact the legislation that is key to building a better America. For
example, in 1990, we enacted an historic Clean Air Act. And now we’ve proposed a
national energy strategy. We passed a child-care bill that put power in the hands of
parents. And today, we’re ready to do the same thing with our schools and expand
choice in education. We passed a crime bill that made a useful start in fighting crime
and drugs. This year, we’re sending to Congress our comprehensive crime package to
finish the job. We passed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. And now
we’ve sent forward our civil rights bill. We also passed the aviation bill. This year,
we’ve sent up our new highway bill. And these are just a few of our pending proposals
for reform and renewal.
So, tonight I call on the Congress to move forward aggressively on our domestic front.
Let’s begin with two initiatives we should be able to agree on quickly: transportation
and crime. And then, let’s build on success with those and enact the rest of our agenda.
If our forces could win the ground war in 100 hours, then surely the Congress can
pass this legislation in 100 days. Let that be a promise we make tonight to the
American people.
When I spoke in this House about the state of our Union, I asked all of you: If we can
selflessly confront evil for the sake of good in a land so far away, then surely we can
make this land all that it should be. In the time since then, the brave men and women
of Desert Storm accomplished more than even they may realize. They set out to
confront an enemy abroad, and in the process, they transformed a nation at home.
Think of the way they went about their mission — with confidence and quiet pride.
Think about their sense of duty, about all they taught us about our values, about
ourselves.
We hear so often about our young people in turmoil — how our children fall …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment