Literature Review
Terrorism has had a tremendous impact on the manner in which the United States approaches it foreign policy (Woodward 2006). Long before terrorism reached the mainland United States there was a significant pressure to constantly review and update the US foreign policy. In the modern era Clinton encountered the fact that the Cold War had given way to a new form of antagonism (Entman 2004). There was a beginning creation of a framework to deal with the emerging terrorist threat but, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of the factions once under their influence were once more free to do as they felt was right.
It is the continuous rise and development of these international terrorist groups that has proven the essential need to have a cohesive plan in place to address the concerns (Rollins 2010). Although the efforts to root out the international terrorists have been ongoing for decades, the lack of technology has hampered the effort. However, this same shortcoming has also proven to be an asset to the terrorists with the advent of easy advertising and increased communications (Rollins 2010). The presence of the double edged sword of progress has both aided and harmed the efforts to arrest international terrorists.
The process of globalization has strengthened the reach and capacity of the international terrorist by connecting it to many other criminal organizations (Rollins 2010). Once remote or hard to find resources are now within the reach of a keyboard. This is a dilemma that has caused the foreign policy as related to Terrorism in the United States to shift to a point of intense national security concern (Rollins 2010).
During the initial forming of an anti-terrorist foreign policy, the attitude of the American population reflected the deep rifts that an unorganized approach to the issue heralded (Entman 2004). The modern era American War on Terror began after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. With the terrorists able to strike so very close to the American concerns, the ability for the US foreign policy to respond to potential threats was increased substantially (Entman 2004). This same period of US military buildup is rife with dissension, both in the governing bodies of the Senate and House of Representatives and a deep philosophical division among the population (Woodward 2006). Yet, in the end the Republican dominated congress prevailed and installed an aggressive foreign policy with a focus on finding those responsible for the 9/11 attack.
The foreign policy as implemented during the term of President Bush was controversial (Entman 2004). With the recognition of the international terrorist’s organization of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the stage was set for a first ever preemptive strike based on the aggressive nature of the emerging foreign policy. While many in the American public were vocally supportive of this new policy of anticipation rather than waiting, a substantial portion of the US public began to grow uneasy as President Bush then utilized this same foreign policy to implicate Iraq in instances of international terrorism and was therefore due a retaliatory strike (Entman 2004). This dramatic departure from past American foreign policy initiatives made many in the international community wary of striking Iraq, and the US and its allies then chose to go it alone. To this point, the presence or fear, of international terrorists had proven cause enough to propel the American people into two separate wars in the Middle East (Entman 2004). As the fruits of the war proved to be little, the foreign policy based on the aggression in anticipation of attack began to fall apart, and the American society began to blame the failure of this outcome directly on the decision making capacity of President Bush.
America has taken a tough foreign policy position on international terrorism (Woodward 2010). From actively seeking to deport detained terrorists in other nations, the US continues under the leadership of President Obama to actively root out and destroy the cells of international terrorism. The US commonly employs drones to capitalize on their technology in nations such as Pakistan (Woodward 2010). Including the recent aggressive foreign policy decision that allowed the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the United States has forged a very strong and adaptable response capacity to the international terrorist. However, this same foreign policy has been credited with alienating many allies (Woodward 2010). Many times, the US has chosen to play fast and loose with the established international regulations in order to capture or kill the suspected terrorist. This preemptive element of the current foreign policy will continue to be set in place to protect the often fluid nature of the evolving terrorist threat (Woodward 2010).
In summary, the US foreign policy has been deeply impacted by international terrorism. From a disjointed approach, to an over aggressive policy to a considered yet ruthless unconditional approach, the American foreign policy has proven both open to possible attack and very good at retribution. The modern era has seen a steady increase in the position that American will not be terrorized without recompense.
References
Entman, R. (2004). Projections of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rollins, J., Wyler, L. and Rosen, S. (2010). International terrorism and transnational crime. [Washington, D.C.?]: Congressional Research Service.
Woodward, P. (2010). US foreign policy and the Horn of Africa. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Pub. Co..
