Obviously, the Arab Spring has completely undone US foreign policy in an area where the United States was once quite powerful and dominant especially after the 9/11 incident. Liberal forces in several Arab countries have managed to come out with impassioned revolts against their respective dictators such as Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
The immediate reaction to the 9/11 incident was an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq which had dire consequences for US foreign policy in the sense that it was a terrible reaction to an event which changed the world. The US’ belligerent foreign policy as espoused by George W Bush was full of moral imperatives rather similar to an ‘eye for an eye’ and a ‘tooth for a tooth’. Idealistic moral imperatives continued even in the way the Bush administration conducted the war in Iraq where intervention by other countries was deemed as important and sacrosant
Idealism was also something which appealed to the American people in times of trouble such as what happened with 9/11. President Bush instinctively tapped into the American people’s feelings of patriotism and eloquence when he adopted this belligerent foreign policy. He created a situation where the American people felt wronged by what had been done to them by foreign invaders. Obviously this was also a situation where the call to arms became even more important and President Bush continually emphasized the importance of being prepared at all levels and focusing on the moral consciousness of the American nation.
The Obama policy is consistently different and adopts practical notions rather than moral imperatives especially in the context of the Arab Spring which created a situation where US interior security interests had to be revaluated accordingly in order to address the problems created by the interior country revolutions which were not always concordant with US foreign policy interests.
This is obviously in stark contrast with what was going on in the Bush administration’s time where moral imperatives such as the right to pre-empt a foreign attack was used as something sacrosanct in an effort to persuade the American people that ‘might is right’. Naturally it is sometimes harder to influence minds when there are wanton killing going on but the aggressive foreign policy attitude adopted by the Bush administration was obviously linked to the 9/11 attacks.
When one contrasts moral ideologies with practical ones, the difference is rather stark. It is also important to note that in situations such as these, the American people tend to get the raw deal and are often used as pawns to justify long conflicts and drawn out events which tend to create a sense of inner tension in the country and make the US a pariah abroad. The links with Israel which is so belligerent on the Palestinian question are also something which one needs to assess at several stages if one is to continue understanding the US situation viz a vis foreign policy.
The Obama administration has adapted a much more practical approach to foreign policy as can be seen in the recent rapprochement on the Arab Spring and other similar issues. Whether this policy is the best one in the long run remains to be seen although the fruits of it are already appearing especially with closer links to Arab countries which were long considered as enemies.
Works Cited:
Lizza Ryan; The Consequentialist; How the Arab Spring Remade Obama’s foreign policy; The New Yorker 2011, Print
