Waking Up From An American Dream E-Book

Ellias Aghili Dehnavi

• Herausgeber: tredition
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 110

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

The foreign policy of the United States is its interactions with foreign nations and how it sets standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations and system citizens of the United States. The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States of America, including all the Bureaus and Offices in the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community". In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation". U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid have been the subject of much debate, praise and criticism, both domestically and abroad. In this book, we have done our best to analyze the strange but rooted method that Donald Trump has applied and imposed on his department of states' blueprints; a mixture of Jacksonism and the politics of containment can be still seen in Trump's notions; how he deals with the countries of opposition can be named as the politics of containment. If you are interested in reading a book which depicts his strange but yet traditional politics of Donald Trump, this is your book! You may wake up from your American Dream after finishing reading this book!

Leseprobe

Ellias Aghili Dehnavi, ProfessorHossein Deheshyar, Marzieh Iranpour

Waking Up From An American Dream

Copyright © 2020 Ellias Aghili Dehnavi, Professor Hossein Deheshyar, Marzieh Iranpour

Publisher: tredition GmbH, Halenreie 40-44, 22359 Hamburg, Germany

ISBN

Paperback:

978-3-347-12827-9

Hardcover:

978-3-347-12828-6

eBook: 978-3-347-12829-3

Printed on demand in many countries

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher.

A short preface

The foreign policy of the United States is oriented by its international interactions and setting standards for the interaction of its corporations, organizations, and system citizens.

According to the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, the officially stated objectives of the foreign policy of the US, including all the Bureaus and Offices in the United States Department of State includes to build and sustain a more democratic, prosperous, and secure world for the welfares of the American international community and people". Furthermore, according to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, some jurisdictional goals are "export controls such as nonproliferation of nuclear technology and hardware; measures to nurture commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international education; international commodity agreements; and protecting American citizens abroad and expatriation". The foreign policy and aid of the U.S. have been the subject of further debate, criticism, and praise, both abroad and domestically.

In this book, we have done our best to analyze the strange but rooted method that Donald Trump has applied and imposed on his department of states' blueprints; a mixture of Jacksonism and the politics of containment can be still seen in Trump's notions; how he deals with the countries of opposition can be named as the politics of containment.

If you are interested in reading a book which depicts his strange but yet traditional politics of Donald Trump, this is your book!

Keywords: U.S foreign policy, Donald Trump, Terrorism, immigration, Department of state

Chapter one: U.S Foreign Policy in regard tothe notions of terrorism

To all those victims of the American Dreams who losttheir beloveds

My friends from Mexico

And their lovely children.

1. US foreign policy against terrorism

In this section, an attempt has been made to examine US foreign policy in order to confront the terrorism.

1.2 Confronting terrorists and supporting countries beyond the borders

Since the September 11 attacks were asymmetric, they naturally had certain psychological effects, including: First, they shattered the myth of American absolute security like the Twin Towers and plunged the United States into a vortex of insecurity. The attack was organized by a group of semi-civilized people who had taken refuge in the most backward country in the world. With this attack, a group came to the American war that lacked any military and technological capabilities and were not officially supported by a particular country (Bo Lafteh, Yashin: 134-136). Second, the type of weapon used in the events of September 11, apart from being a new method of terrorist operations, gave rise to the perception of how vulnerable the United States is even to non-military means. In this incident, the terrorists used non-military means to make the most horrible weapon of war and, above all, to show the vulnerability of the American security systems. Third, the most important psychological impact of the September 11 on the opinions and thoughts of leaders and the American people was the need for security. In fact, the public's fear of repeating the same events and preventing the US intelligence and security services from making mistakes has led the federal government to think of something more than increasing the security of the country. (Farshad Gohar, 2002-197-199).

It is clear that if the three elements of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and demonic governments are involved in an asymmetric attack, the global security situation, and especially the security of the great powers and their supporters, will be much more unstable than what it is. This means that given the current state of the world, the three above-mentioned elements can work together to carry out a threat, and even force a major power to carry out their demands. On this basis and according to an analyses which were base on the very first days after the events of September 11 and were presented by the American authorities in a more extreme way, if the terrorists were supported by extremist governments to carry out their demands and were equipped with weapons of mass destruction by these governments; therefore, the consequences of a possible attack can be easily predicted (Bund Akhtar, 2007: 140-142).

From the outset, US officials have seen confrontation with the three elements of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and demonic governments as an inevitable necessity, and believe that their security depends on repelling and reducing these three threats. For example, Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, said after the London Underground bombing in July 2005 about the growing need to counter nuclear proliferation: "If the explosions on the London Underground were nuclear and killed several thousand people, what would have happened then?" Thus, considering the aforementioned cases after September 11 attacks, confronting the three elements that the United States has identified as unholy elements was significant as a principle of American strategy, and much of the country's foreign policy is designed to counter these three elements. (Dardaryan, 2003: 1-20).

US military policy of this period was designed on the axis of deterrence. Also, the 9/11 incident, along with its structural repercussions and its psychological effects, is considered a new type of threat called asymmetric threat in such a large scale that this terrorist incident has also changed the concept of security. But in this section, an attempt is made to explain the transition of the US military strategy from deterrence to prevention by quoting the comments of US officials and political experts. The text of the US National Security Strategy for the 21st Century, prepared by the National Security Strategy Committee in 1998, states: "Considering the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, genocide, and terrorism, the United States must reconsider its strong deterrent policy to any attack on its vital territory or interests." If prevention and deterrence do not work, the United States must have strong methods of defense against dangers and threats. The U.S. military, security and military forces, economic, financial, and political methods must work together to achieve the goals "(Land Akhtar, ex: 142-150) Contrary to what is stated in the US National Security Strategy for the 21st Century, no action has been taken until 2001 and the terrorist attack on September 11 attacks, especially in the military dimension. Although September 11 incidents is considered to be the beginning of a shift in US military strategy, the fundamental impact of this incident on the US National Security Strategy was to lead Washington to the field of "attack prevention" and the destruction of prominent and actual sources and bases of terrorism. The United States has changed since 9/11 and has been forced to change its military strategy in the face of this era of terrorism. (Adam, 2003: 777-778)

The term "prevention", which is also used in the context of the US National Security Strategy in 2002, indicates that the deterrent strategy is not effective in the face of new international threats, because deterrence is used against rational actors, while the actor against terrorist is not rational. Of course, this does not mean the complete elimination of the deterrence strategy, because not all threats are summed up in the terrorist threat, and as stated in the US National Security Strategy, the debilitation of deterrence does not mean the ineffectiveness of nuclear weapons which are in the hands of the US. (White House, 2002: 7-12)

"Now, every country in every region has to decide whether it is with us, or with the terrorists and from today, any country that supports terrorism will be recognized by the United States as a hostile regime ", stated Bush in the congress on September 20, 2001, nine days after the terrorist attack in the United States. With the passage of September 11, the US military strategy was gradually completed. US officials have identified terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and demonic governments as a threat to the United States after the invasion of Afghanistan, and emphasized the need to design a preventive strike strategy to counter these three elements. "Preventing the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction is our next priority in the war against terrorism," stated Bush at September 11 commemoration of the Charleston Military Academy in South Carolina. But first and foremost, we want to end government support for terrorism. It is clear that demonism governments supply chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to terrorists. All countries know that we do not and will not accept that some governments harbor terrorists or provide them with financial, educational or equipment assistance. Governments that violate these principles will be considered as hostile regimes ”(Hosseini, Haman, 363-368).

Following Bush's plan for a demonic axis and a limited nuclear attack on its member states, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz, outlined a number of principles: 1. The United States is ready to sacrifice manpower from now on in the valley of War; 2. The United States will take preventive action to defend itself; 3. Because the uncertain hazard is based on uncertainty, the threat cannot be clearly defined. On this basis and the geographical uncertainty of the threat, it is not possible to speak of specific countries; therefore, the asymmetric threat must be considered. (Zahrney: 2001, 78)

"Countries that support terrorism must be destroyed," said Wolfowitz. "This time, not only there will be no retaliatory operation, but the United States will launch a massive military offensive. The main goal is to destroy countries that support a form of terrorism." (2008, 29, Levi).

Based on the above-mentioned issuses, it is clear that the United States has changed its military strategy from deterrence to priventive in the face of terrorism under the influence of asymmetric threats after September 11 .

US defeat in confronting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan

After the end of the Cold War, the United States became the only superpower in the world with the disappearance of its main rival and enemy. The country first achieved a decisive victory against Saddam considering the occupation of Kuwait for the first time in years, restoring the image of a powerful army and a victorious military force to the US military, and President George W. Bush after the victory over Iraq, officially announced in 1991 that Vietnam Syndrome was gone today.

The successive US defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 21st century, and the heavy costs imposed on the United States, pushed the United States backward, once again, a situation like the Vietnam Syndrome once again overwhelmed US foreign and military behavior. Excessive use of the slogan of military options against Iran's nuclear program, without the slightest military use or practical success, the plan to withdraw from the Middle East, no more interference in Middle East issues, not to enter the Syrian war despite heavy allied pressure and the like, all were signs of this passivity and the failure of coercive policies.

The United States has launched a military operation in Afghanistan under the pretext of accusing al-Qaeda of attacking the World Trade Center towers on September

11. The United States occupied Afghanistan for three years under the pretext of destroying al-Qaeda; But over the years, it has failed in its proclamation and action policies. Taliban and al-Qaeda still exist not only in the Afghanistan but around the world.

"Given the inconsistency in the interests, the goals and sources of victory on the battlefield of Afghanistan were preposterous for the United States, and this can in fact be considered as the main reason for the prolongation of the war in Afghanistan and the unsatisfactory end of it." Stephen Walt wrote in an article in Foreign Policy magazine entitled The Real Cause of US Failure in Afghanistan (Walt, 2013).

Iraq was another geography for the military occupation of the Middle East in 2003. This time, the presence of chemical and microbial weapons is an excuse. Three weeks after the occupation of Iraq, the government and the army collapsed and no weapons of mass destruction were found. "We were very concerned about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who made numerous statements about the existence of chemical, microbial and nuclear weapons in Iraq after the occupation; "but when the war came to an end, we did not see the discovery of any arsenal ”(Williams, 2015)