U.S. foreign policy has always been a poignant aspect throughout the world in recent history. The actions of the U.S. government can directly affect entire nations at a time, and this is why the world as a whole closely inspects our every move. Our authoritative stature in foreign affairs has given the United States an ironic label as “policemen” of the world. This label began when President Harry Truman swore to protect free people from attempted oppression. The Truman Doctrine’s original purpose was to counter the communist ideals of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Doctrine provided a foundation for the United States foreign policy that is unaffected by technology and the ever changing political, social, and economic world. It enabled the U.S. government to have an authoritative military presence in places such as Guam, Iraq, and other various countries during the Arab Spring when their assistance was not always viewed as necessary. On July 12, 1948, just a year after the doctrine was first announced, the U.S. government pledged to defend countries like Greece and Turkey against the Soviets by offering financial aid.. Credible sources are willing to argue that the Truman Doctrine’s establishment helped solidify their title as a world power. However, the United States’ history of forcing democracy on countries can be found at times before the doctrine was even put in place. In a period after the Spanish-American War, The United States captured Filipino revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo. President Roosevelt felt that the unstable Filipino government was incapable of governing itself, and he appointed William Taft to be the first governor general of the Philippines.  The islands were appealing to the interests of the United States because of their strategic refueling stations used by the navy in the Western Pacific. In 1906, he officially announced a ceasefire of the Spanish-American War and the islands of the Pacific remained under U.S. fortification and oversight up until 1946. 

These two historical events both occur around eras where the U.S. government became federalized in a time of strong feelings of national unity around World War II. During the “Baby Boomer” era is when America’s economy began to take off and people got to hustle for their money in an economic paradise of free spirited American nationalism. American lifestyle changed forever after the war because of newly appointed regulations and a tough American mentality. American nationalism is the nationalism within the U.S. and many scholars can declare that the government of the U.S. actually implemented a civic nationalism within the country post-war. This means citizens of the nation provide national unity by agreeing on legal and rational concepts toward being a citizen. The American people agree on the laws within the U.S. along with the fact that America is the world’s most diverse hypothetical cultural melting pot. The reason all of this information is so important is because this is where America as a whole obtained the pride seen today. America started basing their nationalism off the country’s founding father’s values of freedom after World War II. The citizens of the U.S. can all relate over aspects of freedom because of how America was founded. Having a strong sense of nationalism among the citizens of the nation can only influence government officials to feel as though they have an even broader sense of security. The label of “policemen” of the world seems to work for American citizen’s security. The American citizens must question if the current foreign policy will continue to work. The cost of our foreign policy is valued by foreign countries effected by it. Of course this dominant strategy makes America public enemy number one for a lot of countries, for numerous reasons. Although to a lot of other countries we try to bring peace and charity while stationed there. We must determine whether America’s ideal foreign policy of “policing” the world is beneficial to bringing about peace in the world. There is also a point where the government must focus its attention on the safety of the U.S. and put aside their interest in foreign affairs. Being a world superpower means it is viable to look after other nations especially those allied with the United States. This may appear to be about a paper on just how foreign policy works, however we must analyze and compare key situations in which America interferes in a country’s affairs and how it effects them as well as other stakeholders. Also we must review situations where America did not interfere in a countries affairs and their outcome. We must accumulate a general consensus as to whether America’s intentions throughout its history and current affairs are not self-centered, and that they uphold values sought within the U.S. I am not saying everything in America’s recent history is politically correct, however I question if there have been multiple instances where the U.S. government’s decisions can be justified from a world perspective. 

From 1949 to present day the U.S. has used Guam almost as a demilitarized naval base. They have the ability to continue to be stationed in Guam because of the Spanish-American War which was resolved in the 19th century. Despite the people of Guam’s lack of grit for legitimate freedom 

“the people of Guam remained loyal to the United States despite the fact that Guam is an American colony without full self-government. Now, as of 2014, Guam is being prepared for redeployment of a Marine Corps brigade from Okinawa, additional Air Force units, and regular visits from Navy aircraft carriers as America continues a slow withdrawal from its forward deployment around the Asian region”(Guam’s Strategic Value)

Although the people of Guam have a great devotion to the United States, the Governor of Guam explains that the U.S. territory does not get to reap the benefits of an independent nation. After over a century of being stationed in Guam can the U.S. still justify its presence there? Although the people of Guam get automatic U.S. citizenship, the government nor it’s citizen get a vote in any elections or in Congress. America’s interactions with Guam seem to promote peace. Guam does not seem to have any huge internal problems. With this situation the dominant strategy of U.S. foreign policy seems to benefit both countries. This leads us to question whether Guam would be in a better or worse position in the world if it did not have the U.S. as guidance. This topic is very complicated because there are so many factors that are affected when the United States involves itself in other countries. Using Guam as a naval base is a huge asset toward the “policing” of the world in the Pacific. It has been used for major wars and conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq. As well as a safe haven for South Vietnamese refugees during the war. America’s actions in Guam have not solely been for the benefit of our own country, but we must realize there is a growing population of just under two hundred thousand that all have their own lives and families to care for. Having a naval base allows the U.S. to have a presence over 6,000 miles away from the continental United States. Guam helps the U.S. government feel they are retaining world order with other major world super powers like China, Japan, and North Korea in the Pacific. However, this situation with Guam exploits how the U.S. uses its military power to deter war and promote peace by just having a presence there. For a country founded on values of freedom and independence owning a territory seems a bit hypocritical. Although, it can also be said that the U.S. is what evolved Guam as a nation because of U.S. military and tourist spending.

Throughout the history of the U.S. we have seen that war eventually helps the economy. It is a commonly known fact that war creates jobs and money for the government to deal with. However, as citizens of a country founded on freedom we must ponder whether the U.S. government has ever intentionally gotten involved with foreign affairs for the economic value of the U.S. as the main intention. 

 It is hard to argue the justification of the United States foreign policy when talking about their own territory. Nonetheless, an anonymous female writer documented her experience during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in 2006 turned her blogs into a book called “Baghdad Burning.” She recounts everything from leaving her home to the violence between different militias that were formed during the invasion. She insults the Iraqi government a lot throughout the book and even refers to them as “American puppets.” The invasion of Iraq was warranted because of the apparent weapons of mass destruction that President Bush saw as an imminent threat (which there was no real evidence of.) The invasion was also a response to the 9/11 attacks as well. Bush devised a grand strategy for foreign policy in 2002 and it was the first real grand strategy since the Cold War and the Containment policy. “9/11 allowed them to come into force, to come out and take a public role, in a way they never could have otherwise” (Cook, Steven A.). The policy seems to be an “elaborate justification” for invading Iraq. Karen Deyoung of the Washington Post explains the strategy of how the doctrine was built around the main purpose of invading Iraq and killing Suddam Hussein. It just so happens this strategy of preemption can be justified to fit all sorts of different policies that may occur in the future. Since the beginning of this preemptive policy the major criticism it receives is due to the lack of real knowledge of the U.S. actually acting in self-defense. This document allows the U.S. to preempt an attack to any country that they see as an imminent threat without giving any evidence as to why. The National Security Strategy is what told the world that the U.S. will use its power to pursue objectives of peace.  The invasion of Iraq was necessary in protecting the well-being of the nation. The U.S. could not just sit back and watch after the attacks on 9/11. However, was it reasonable to invade and search an entire country for one man? This seemed like America’s last option for safeguarding our own country because using diplomacy tactics would have been counterintuitive. In “Baghdad Burning” there a scenes described within it that are the complete opposite of peace. “Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her” (Baghdad Burning). These are the same forces that the U.S. government partnered with to counter terrorism. This is just one of the many cases of rape that was documented in the early stages of the invasion of Baghdad. On December 31st, 2006 the anonymous author explains that the U.S. did not contribute anything toward the reconstruction of Iraq or its government. However, she writes that they contributed nicely towards the lynching of the ex-president which would ultimately become America’s biggest accomplishment in Iraq. She explains 2006 was a dreadful year and the average day for a citizen in Iraq during this time was identifying corpses, avoiding car bombs, and keeping track of how many of your family members have been detained. A lot of citizens of the U.S. were in favor of the irrational invasion of Iraq because they experience first-hand terror on 9/11. They fail to realize how detrimental this invasion was to the country of Iraq and the innocent civilians that live there. Civilian casualties are an unwarranted aspect to all wars, however the rape and abductions of innocent civilians in Iraq is unnecessary.  There is a logistical way of thinking when it comes to war, where in order to save lives one musts sacrifice lives to end conflicts. This is seen when the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs in Japan. This immediately ended the war and ultimately saved a lot of U.S. lives.  This way of thinking is not poignant in the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to try and keep peace in the world. However, American citizens do not get to experience first-hand how American soldiers treated civilians while stationed there.

The Arab Spring is the name that indicates the democratic uprisings that occurred throughout several countries in the Middle East. Countries that are included in these independent uprisings are countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya. During the Algerian Revolution, which claimed over 100,000 lives, America and other European nations protected the demanding regime and advanced military. However, in the Arab Spring that occurred in 2010 and 2011 the U.S. government opted to “separate” themselves from the catastrophe's ensuing in the Middle East. By separating themselves meant they did not station troops there, but they were still very much involved with supporting the crippling governments. The U.S. stayed disengaged during the first two revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even after losing their ally, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.  President Obama was quoted saying that getting involved in the Arab Spring was “not about America” (Hamid, Shadi). America plays a critical role in affairs with the Middle East. Also President Obama failed to realize the responsibility America had in supporting some of these dictatorships in the 1990’s. We see the drastic change in foreign policy in a matter of years when dealing with the Arab World. Does it make sense for America to stay disengaged from civilian formed movements that seek freedom? Strategy plays a major role in America’s decision to stay out of the Arab Spring. If America got involved in one of these country’s affairs it would be unfair to not get involved in all of them. A lot of the countries actually did not need our assistance. A lot of people fail to realize that staying neutral during the Arab spring does not contradict the foreign policy President Bush recently instated. The Arab spring caused no imminent danger to the well-being of the United States therefore getting involved would have only created more enemies. However, by not helping the revolutionists goes against the values we try to uphold within the country. President Obama took up a strategy of “prodding other influential nations…to help shoulder the burdens of fostering a stable, peaceful world order.”(Hamid, Shadi) Basically Obama did exactly what every president did in affairs with the Middle East since World War II and trusted U.S. cliental in those regions and increased shipments to the crippling regimes. One day after the police in Egypt threw tear gas canisters at crowds of protestors, “Made in the U.S.A.” was reportedly printed on the canisters. There is a scene in the movie “The Square” that accurately portrays this. Even though America never stationed troops in Egypt during this time does not mean they did not support the regimes through other methods.

With every new president there are new policy’s they promote. Foreign policy is always changing. By analyzing these historical events of America’s history we can see that there have been questionable situations of corruption when America involves itself in foreign affairs. However, it is clear that the protection of the United States has always been the government’s first priority. At this point in America’s history they cannot retract their oath to “policing” the world because too many countries rely too heavily on America’s aid. If America never had a history of being involved in so many foreign affairs they would not be in the situation today where they feel the need to “police” the world. In war there is corruption everywhere and it is almost inevitable to avoid. America probably does not abide by the values they try to uphold within the nation when station elsewhere. Although, as long as the priority of the U.S. as a whole is to bring about peace in the world there is nothing more the government can do to fix these instances of corruption abroad except pursue offenders of these war crimes. 
