Introduction
US Foreign Policy determines how the United States interacts with foreign nations. Its mission statement/purpose, according to the Foreign Policy Agenda (U.S. Department of State) is “to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.” Domestically and internationally, it has been praised yet remains the topic of much criticism, debate, and controversy. The only remaining superpower, its influence in the international arena has been paramount and phenomenal. September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the US ignited a new phase the Global War on Terror, and have been the primary focal point of US Foreign Policy to the present.
Main body
This War on Terror is a militaristic, ideological, political as well as legal paradigm whose fundamental target is Islamic terrorism under the auspices of Al-Quaeda – a Sunni Islamist movement. In the document, The Global War on Terrorism: The First 100 Days, President George W. Bush states “We are supported by the collective will of the world.” He further expounds that “The message to every country is, there will be a campaign against terrorist activity, a worldwide campaign.” NATO, established primarily by the U.S. in 1949, is the world’s largest military alliance. It is comprised of 26 nations whereas fourteen nations have been granted non-NATO major status by the United States. The U.S. has utilized its NATO and non-NATO allies to assists with this “worldwide campaign” to counteract terrorism. Official U.S. counterterrorism policy is founded upon the following tenets – “make no concessions or deals with terrorists; bring them to justice for their crimes; isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism, and bolster the counterterrorist capabilities of countries willing to work with the United States.”
The unique paradox to the War on Terror is that the same countries the US depends on to act following its policy on terrorism knowingly and unknowingly promote the problem. U.S./Pakistan alliance illustrates such a paradox. Culture and in particular, religion plays a major role. Pakistan is an Islamic nation. It would stand to reason that the situation would be multifarious since the main target or thrust is the elimination of Islamic terrorism. It exemplifies the impact of religion and diverse culture in terms of trying to successfully implement policy in a foreign country.
In his book, Terrorism and U.S. Policy, former CIA intelligence officer and Georgetown University Visiting Professor, Paul R. Pillar, examines this issue in-depth based upon his experience and expertise. Terrorism and U.S. Policy examines the current condition of terrorism in world politics, contemporary terrorist threats, state sponsors of terrorism, and methods of counterterrorism available to the United States as well as how to constructively educate the public about terrorist threats and counterterrorism. Pillar hypothesizes that the U.S. has become a principal terrorist target and conveys why rigid counterterrorist policies are not productive or effective. His fundamental premise is that the total defeat of terrorism is not realistically attainable. Pillar deduces that it can only be controlled to some degree, reduced, and attenuated.
Conclusion
The U.S. government’s actions abroad via the use of military force often contradict foreign policy ideology in terms of supporting peace and respect for the sovereignty of nations. This incongruence oftentimes serves as the impetus which ignites various extreme militant factions in countries such as Pakistan. How can this dilemma be resolved? The answer lies in a consistent and honest convergence between ideology and action in regard to U.S. foreign policy.
Bibliography
- Pillar, Paul R. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
- The Global War on Terrorism: The First 100 Days. 2001. Web.
- US Department of State – Foreign Policy Agenda – Web.