After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the US was forced to examine and alter its foreign policy. In previous years, the world was less complicated. During the Cold War era, we had only one country, Russia, to worry about. In recent years and still today, we find ourselves trying to defend our country against a large number of small groups that hide in countries around the world. This new world order has brought with it a much more unstable environment for the remaining super power, the US, to deal with. The question that will be examined in this paper is whether or not the US government can realistically expect these rogue states and the groups they sponsor to cooperate and how we will deal with them when/if they decide not to. Several opinions will be considered, focusing primarily on Professor John J. Mearsheimer’s “Offensive Realism Theory” and the Bush administration’s current foreign policy.

I will start by analyzing the attached documents. Robert W. Tucker’s “One Year On: Power, Purpose and Strategy in American Foreign Policy” discusses the changes that have occurred since the September 11th attacks. He views them as a good thing

John Mearsheimer’s Core Theory: Offensive Realism, from his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics , basically says that an idealistic approach simply will not work in dealing with the war on terrorism. It is Professor Mearsheimer’s belief that every state wants power and control. This is especially true of countries like Iraq, who have built up their militaries and taken extreme acts of violence and force to show their commitment to their cause. It can also be said that the US falls into the category of a power hungry nation. The US is definitely the world’s only superpower, and dominates the western hemisphere (some would say dominates the whole world). Most people would say that the difference between the US and countries like Iraq is that the US is a rational actor and does what is best for the interests of the international community. However, Mearsheimer contests that this is only because we are the superpower and that we are much stronger than any of our adversaries. He says that it would not be a stretch to say that Iraq is acting as rationally as it can. If they didn’t resist the US, they would be abandoning their goals for power in the Middle East, they’d be showing weakness to their competition, and they’d basically be surrendering their state. That sounds a lot more irrational and unlikely than the idea that Iraq would resist us at any chance they get.

I disagree with anyone who says that our current actions are going too far. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all part of the problems in the world today. We are focusing most of our attention on Iraq, and rightfully so since they pose the greatest threat to disorder. Saddam Hussein has been challenging the US for over a decade to take him down. He constantly defies our wishes in an attempt to make us look weak in the international community and to gain support for his cause. He is a lunatic who experiments with biological and chemical weapons on his own citizens, refuses to allow anyone to check on his inventory of such illegal weapons, funds terrorist groups, and is constantly trying to hoard/destroy the oil reserves in his region in order to disrupt the international community. You would think that the US would get more support from other allies; all we are trying to do is rid the world of a problem that affects everyone in every nation. But I feel this is why Bush has opted to do most of his war on terrorism by himself. He knows that the fight is best for the entire international community, and it is our duty as the world superpower to determine where our responsibilities lie.

My opinion of the current Bush Administration Doctrine is that it’s what is best for the current international situation. After the attacks on September 11th, President Bush acted quickly and decisively, taking out an entire terrorist network in months. This showed our adversaries that we would not stand by and watch as the terrorist threat grows. It showed the world that our response will happen quickly and will obliterate entire forces if necessary, and it showed that we are not afraid to commit our resources and troops to a fight.

The main problem with countries like Iraq is that if they ever did reach global power status, they would not be able to act responsibly because their ways would not change. Saddam Hussein is a major disruption in the balance of the international community, and should be seen as a criminal. His constant military buildup only encourages the nations surrounding him to do the same, making that region even more unstab

Some topics in this essay:
Saddam Hussein, Foreign Policy”, Bush Administration, Bush Administration’s, Roman Empire, Professor Mearsheimer’s, East Mearsheimer, Gary Schmitt’s, Taliban Al-Queda, Cold War, international community, war terrorism, bush administration’s, countries iraq, john mearsheimer’s, bush administration, offensive realism, bush administration’s policy, rid world, “strategic pause”, country iraq,