| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "U S COLD WAR POLICY": |
|
|
U.S. Cold War Foreign Policy Failures, 2002.
This paper discusses that the foreign policy failures of the U.S. in Cuba and Vietnam were the results of a foreign policy based on Cold War ideology.
2,040 words (approx. 8.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the American failures in Cuba and Vietnam in the 1960s were due in large part to the fear, arrogance and ignorance of Cold War containment policies that developed in the aftermath of World War II. The author believes that the problem was the assumption that all political and economic reform movements in Third World nations were not indigenous but were inspired instead by the evil Communist leaders of the Soviet Union. The author states that once this Cold War policy was in effect, no leader of the U.S. had the courage, wisdom or political independence to try to alter fully that policy.
From the Paper
"Kennedy certainly entered office under the pall of the same Cold War ideology and its containment policy, as evidenced by his "missile gap" rhetoric, his increase of advisors in Vietnam, and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. It will never be known whether he would have averted a war in Vietnam, but his test-ban treaty with the Soviets, his denunciation of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs disaster, and his plan to withdraw some troops from Vietnam indicate at least a willingness to consider more flexibility in that policy."
| |
|
Post-Cold War Global Policy of the U.S., 2000.
An assessment of policies using U.S. armed forces in peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian operations. Includes theories, concepts, examples and recommendations.
4,500 words (approx. 18.0 pages), 14 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Section I
Introduction
The end of the Cold War ushered in a new strategic era for the United States. As a consequence, the roles and missions of the United States armed forces have been revised, or at least, are in a transition period where new roles and missions are being assessed (9:1). One of the most controversial of the roles and missions being considered and, in some instances, implemented for the United States armed forces in this transition period is the conduct of Military Operations Other Than War, or MOOTW (4:1). MOOTW is not a new concept for United States armed forces, as the Berlin Airlift in the 1948-1949 period will attest (4:1). The framework of MOOTW in the contemporary period, however, includes such activities as peacekeeping, peacemaking..."
| |
|
Cold War and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
A comparison of the global operating systems of the Cold War and globalization and the U.S. role in these operating systems.
2,476 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay focuses on the Cold War era to provide a picture of what global society was like during that epoch and attempts to draw parallels between that status quo and the emergence of a new Cold War era in foreign policy represented by the War on Terror. The existence of clear-cut walls and borders is assayed in addition to the differing economic systems in existence during the Cold War. Concepts of realism and totalitarianism are discussed, alongside concepts of cultural hegemony and soft power and the idea of cultural transcendence through material considerations and methods of foreign policy dissemination. The defining systems of the Cold War era are addressed in terms of economic and ideological certitudes that have since been challenged with the onset of what many are calling a new epoch of globalization in foreign policy. They have also been counter-construed by the present administration's focus on the polar separation of "good" and "evil," internationally, and the importance of the American perspective.
From the Paper
"Much extant literature on the Cold War focuses on the ord "perceived," in terms of the perceived threat represented by the Soviet Union to interests of the United States along lines of ideology and control. This became a global issue in which the ideologies of communism and free-market capitalism were perceived to be in a locked battle, the stakes of which were heightened by the positions of the Soviet Union and the United States as oppositional superpowers possessing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The Cold War as an ideological construction itself can be traced to the United States, which did most of the perceiving in terms of threats to its interests in Europe after the second World
War, but the Soviet Union also did its share of perceiving, as when Reagan's absolutist rhetoric and international acts of state-sponsored terror in the 1980s were seen by the Soviet Union to be acts that presaged a confrontation of the two ideologies. Although there were many clashes throughout the Cold War, such as the Cuban missile crisis,
which brought the nations to the brink of this confrontation, it never actually occurred, and with the breakup of the Soviet Union as a reaction of heightened nationalism spurred on by Gorbachev, the Cold War Ended."
| |
|
U.S. Cold War Policy, 2002.
Examines the U.S. foreign policy in the 1960s.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 6 sources, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Examines U.S. foreign policy in the 1960s. Contends that policy was based on Cold War ideology & policy of containment, especially of Communism. & the Soviet Union. American failure in Cuba & Vietnam. Actions of Presidents Kennedy & Johnson. Cuban Missle Crisis, Bay of Pigs, escalation of war in Vietnam.
From the Paper
"The American failures in Cuba and Vietnam in the 1960s were due in large part to the fear, arrogance and ignorance of Cold War policies that developed in the aftermath of World War II. By the 1960s, the foreign policy of the United States was based on Cold War ideology and the policy of containment of communism, especially Soviet Communism. This policy held sway in Cuba and Vietnam in the 1960s, from Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon. Containment as a policy became so increasingly entrenched through the succeeding administrations that it carried the strength of an addiction for the leadership of the country. The basis of U.S. foreign policy was the conviction that the world was controlled by two forces---the U.S., representing goodness, and its evil enemy the Soviet Union.
Once this Cold War policy was in effect, it had a life of ..."
| |
|
U.S.-Canada Relations and the Cold War, 2005.
Examines relations between Canada and the United States during the Cold War era.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 15 sources, APA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This two-part paper examines how the emergence of the Cold War affected the relationship between Canada and the United States in a positive way, allowing for an advancement of trade policies, as well as defense policies, while at the same time causing increasing tension between the two nations in terms of independence. Secondly, this paper discusses the foreign and defense policies of Canada during the Cold War era years of 1945-1957 and shows that, although Canada may have followed U.S. policy in some areas, it also created and maintained its own foreign and defense policies. This paper shows that the beneficial, albeit rocky, relationship that emerged from the Cold War era between the United States and Canada allowed Canada to maintain its own foreign policy and to dictate the future of its country.
From the Paper
"Part of this decision was due to the newly created United Nations, in which Canada was a key member. Created in 1945, the United Nations treaty, much of which was drafted with the prime assistance of Canada, was designed to promote peace and security in the world. It also served to promote human rights, and security policies. At the time, Canada saw the UN as a guideline for their foreign and defense policies, aiming to promote peace, and avoid aggression (?Canada and the UN?, 2003). As part of this policy, the Canadian government was focused on reallocating resources to assist in post-war recovery efforts, and diverted monies from the military for that purpose."
| |
|
U.S.-U.S.S.R. Relations during the Cold War, 2005.
A look at the rise in the Soviet Union's power and the deterioration in U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations after WWII.
819 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses and analyzes three important events before and during the Cold War period that chronicle the eventual erosion of the ?Grand Alliance? between U.S. and U.S.S.R. These three events are enumerated as follows: (1) the breakdown of U.S.-U.S.S.R. ties after WWII due to socio-political differences and incompatibilities; (2) integration of the Marxist-Leninist ideology into Russian society after WWII; and (3) U.S. President Harry Truman?s declaration of his containment policy against Communist countries, with a special focus on U.S.S.R.
From the Paper
"The Cold War, a long-term conflict between the Communist states in the Eastern region and the United States, began after WWII, wherein the rise in the popularity and increasing influence of Socialist (Communist) ideology was happening. While the rise of Communism became popular in USSR, China, and other countries like Vietnam and Korea, United States centered its attention in curbing Communism through the Soviet Union, since the nation is the prime mover in embracing and applying Marx?s ideology of a socialist society."
| |
|
?Lyndon Johnson?s War: American?s Cold War Crusade in Vietnam?, 2002.
This paper discusses that in ?Lyndon Johnson?s War? author Michael Hunt provides the reader with a synopsis of the factors leading to the United States involvement and, later, its first defeat in a foreign war.
990 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that more than 25 years after the last helicopter lifted from the United States embassy in Saigon, the Vietnam War continues to cast a shadow on American history and continues to be the subject of contentious debate.The paper says that, for Hunt, one of the biggest failings of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia was the government?s inability or unwillingness to view the war from the perspective of the North Vietnamese. The author believes that the major shortcoming of ?Lyndon Johnson?s War? is that it failed to present the relationship between the Cold War presidencies.
From the Paper
"Johnson?s government subscribed to the prevailing ?domino theory,? the idea that if Vietnam falls to Communism, other satellite countries would follow. Like his predecessor President Eisenhower, Johnson believed that Communism was inimical to the free world. The domino theory reveals a view of Communism as a monolithic aggression. It did not recognize the nuances of the motives of the North Vietnamese people and their sympathizers. The Vietnam War was thus fought with the ultimate goal of containment in mind, with keeping Communism from spreading around Asia and, by extension, the rest of the world."
| |
|
The Organizing Construct of U.S Foreign Policy, 2007.
This paper argues that the Bush War on Terror has replaced the Truman Cold War as the organizing construct of U.S foreign policy.
785 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that both the Cold War and the present-day War on Terror doctrines are excellent examples of a "good-versus-evil" paradigm that paints U.S. international affairs in unsophisticated shades of black and white. The author points out that the Bush doctrine is wholly committed to pre-empting terror and not merely interested in containing it as in the Truman Cold War doctrine. The paper concludes that both approaches call for a vigilant and aggressive America that seeks to advance its own security wherever it is deemed necessary.
From the Paper
"In many respects, it may be said that the Truman Doctrine began the "policy of containment" whereby the United States would aggressively confront any expansion of communism outside of the USSR and Eastern Europe. By comparison, the Bush Doctrine - while it would certainly seem amenable to offering military and financial support to foreign countries that are genuinely eager to engage the terrorist threat - is much more about pre-emption than about containment."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2008.
An analysis of the role of the U.S. and Great Britain in the outbreak of the Cold War.
1,058 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the revisionist views of Walter LaFeber, Arnold Offner and John Gaddis with regards to the outbreak of the Cold War. It specifically focuses on their claim that the USA and Great Britain were also responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War, as their strategy of foreign policy was short-sighted and, in many respects, lacked responsibility for the future.
From the Paper
"Drawing a conclusion, it's important to note that the ideas of revisionist authors such as Walter LaFeber, Arnold Offner and John Gaddis are based on rationalism, yet evaluation of definite political issues is made from the perspective of people who are free of "western propaganda". The cold war was inevitable already, at the end of WWII, as both super powers revealed its potential, which was hidden and undervalued in pre-war years. The Marshall Plan, which in many respects accelerated the coming of the Cold War, was also inevitable, due to the popularity of communist and socialist ideas in France, Italy and Germany, especially in years of reconstruction, when European nations lacked economic stability and bearable conditions of living. The collapse of the colonial system with its unpredictable circumstances was also more a fault of former empires, than a fault of the USA, as none of the empires appeared able to control political and social processes in their former colonies."
| |
|
U.S. Nuclear Power and American Foreign Policy, 1975.
This paper focuses on U.S. nuclear power and American foreign policy, 1945-1950. The author contends that the U.S. nuclear monopoly gave it a position of power which developed into a hard line toward Russia leading to the Cold War.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 7 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This research studies the impact that U.S. nuclear power had on American foreign policy between 1945 and 1950. It is assumed that the United States did not, for moral reasons, take advantage of this power. This research will examine the validity of this assumption.
What was the post-war situation the United States faced in 1945? Most important was that the United States had not only unlocked the secrets of nuclear fission, but had also demonstrated this to the world in two explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has been suggested that the major reason for the United States dropping the bombs was to affect the post-war balance of power. Commentators. argued that the reason for dropping the bombs was not to shorten the war; the war with Japan was already guaranteed to be ending, and they believed that the ... "
| |
|
The U.S.'s Policy Towards Cuba, 1999.
Focusing on the Clinton Presidency, Cold War ideology, politics, economics, legislation, goals, tactics and the embargo.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This paper will discuss the trends which have driven the foreign policy of the United States towards Cuba. The main emphasis of discussion will be the changes in policy which have taken place during the administration of President Bill Clinton. However, the first part of the paper will briefly discuss the origins of the policy during the Cold War.
The foreign policy of the United States towards Cuba has changed little since 1961. U.S. leaders have felt that Cuba was a "special case" in terms of foreign policy ever since U.S. military force ended Spain's control over the island in 1898. Until 1934, U.S. law permitted intervention in Cuban affairs; after 1934, U.S. capital controlled most of the Cuban economy. The revolution led by Fidel Castro in 1959 tapped into strong anti-American ..."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Since 1991, 2006.
A critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991.
3,419 words (approx. 13.7 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 96.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author takes a critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991. He examines how prior to 1991, American policy was aimed primarily at using some countries led by Israel as a bulwark against communism in the Cold War years. He highlights that with the end of a bipolar world there was a radical shift in American policy towards the Middle East. The paper examines how this was brought about by the threat America saw to its most vital interest -oil in the region as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; at the same time, with the sudden demise of the hitherto counterbalancing factor, the Soviet Union, the stage was set for a decisive policy. In conclusion, the author argues that the American policy of planting democracy in societies that do not have the necessary preconditions and institutional frameworks of accepting and absorbing the system could mean risking backlashes and other actions.
From the Paper
"In the absence of the Soviet factor, American policy in the Middle East has become more intrusive; American policy could have a positive impact if its moves towards establishing its policy are perceived as being salutary. A prime test case of this policy is the way its role is seen in the Israeli-Palestine issue. (Cantori, 1994, p. 452) The immediate years after the Gulf War led to a hyperactive engagement in the region under president Bill Clinton, for whom resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a principal goal. In his presidency, America assumed the role of an 'honest broker' in bringing about a peaceful settlement of issues bedevilling the region. However, before substantial headway was made, a new regime took guard under Bush Jr., under whom the same vigour was not enforced. American interventionism, which became low-key under the new dispensation, has led to suspicion in Arab quarters that America, with its uncompromising tilt towards Israel, has not been the 'honest broker' that it promised to be."
| |
|
Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy in Southern Africa, 2006.
This paper looks at the U.S. foreign policy towards Southern Africa.
2,007 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer claims that the United States' foreign policy towards Southern Africa has long been couched between the Cold War paradigm and hasty decisions of self-service. The writer discusses how while ostensibly the African prospect - replete with brewing racial concerns and potential economic value - was left to European guise, the United States had already witnessed a long history of being drawn into the continent. This paper looks at the U.S. policies regarding South Africa from the 1960s and through the Reagan regime.
From the Paper
"Since the middle of the last century, the United States has parroted a secondary role in the international aspects of the African political process, stepping aside for Mother England and her European peers to address their former colonies while they pushed through their final stages of independence. While actual attainment of the freedoms for which they fought lay far on the horizon, the bloody warfare that burned the nebulous concept of 'liberty' into the African South was hot on the minds of political leaders far beyond the confines of local tensions. Real conversation about the developing 'African Problem' began in Washington during Eisenhower's second term (1957-1961), when the National Security Council developed a proposal for the division of labor in the developing world - notably, the United States would gain umbrella control for the Latin American region, while Europe would serve as the satellite leader for post-colonial Africa."
| |
|
U.S Foreign Policy, 2001.
A history of modern foreign policy.
2,750 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 14 sources, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the different policies of the Bush Jr and Clinton administrations in the use of U.S armed forces overseas. Clinton?s World Police humanitarianism are compared to Bush?s ?power relations and great-power politics.? The paper continues with a discussion on the void created by the downfall of communism and its current lack of purpose, the history of international affairs and the CIA, Bin Laden and Afghanistan and the U.S?s role in funding their arms. A similar story is told for Iraq, including U.S violations of the UN charter. Contains segments of policy inconsistencies and future foreign policy.
From the paper:
?Still, even as the Administration puts forth a realist view, they also spout idealist propaganda. This is, in part, to appease the American public in the ideal that the U.S. stands for individual rights, capitalism and the pursuit of happiness. However, the ideal is just that: a concept of perfection in the most general sense. The ideals of democracy and prosperity already exist for Americans; they are not so concerned with the rest of the world.[i] This has not always been the case: the purpose of the 40-some year Cold War was to check the expansion of communism, a purpose that Americans agreed was a necessity. Now that we are the sole remaining super power, Americans are not sure where to go with its privilege. After all, ?lacking purpose, power does not exist.??
|
|
|
