Bill Wetzel: Iraq and the Shifting Paradigms in American Foreign Policy

[Wetzelbill]

I'll post this for those may miss it in GD during the day. :)


Iraq and the Shifting Paradigms in American Foreign Policy



We may be on the verge of a major shift in American foreign policy.

Throughout history United States foreign policy has been characterized by paradigm shifts. Scholar Michael Roskin notes that American foreign policy: “can be seen as a succession of strategic conventional wisdoms or paradigms.” These paradigms are clear examples of an archetype; in short paradigms are basic assumptions of a pattern. In this case, the pattern suggests that the United States historically shifts from interventionist to noninterventionist paradigms, also known as the Pearl Harbor (interventionist) and Vietnam (noninterventionist) paradigms.

Included in these two concepts are other paradigms, such as the Versailles paradigm, which extended from 1920-40. This paradigm was the isolationist concept which ended in condemnation after the Pearl Harbor attack. The Versailles paradigm’s bearers were, in hindsight, criticized for being oblivious to the obvious emerging threat from Nazi Germany. Yet, Versailles, itself, could have been a reaction to a more interventionist, if not imperial, period in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the U.S. occupied various countries, such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines. In fact, paradigm shifts seem to be reactionary in nature. Their lives appear to follow a certain pattern based on reactionary events.


Foreign policy paradigms have a natural life. They begin with a birth, which is characterized by mounting criticism of the old paradigm, an epoch of growth and then a death. Typically, this paradigm will grow when an event comes along to prove the old one wrong, and then die when criticism against it mounts and another philosophy begins it’s own birth. For example, isolationism (specifically the aforementioned Versailles paradigm), a noninterventionist philosophy, virtually ended when the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. This event proved isolationism wrong in this instance, so the paradigm then shifted toward an interventionist vision. However, this interventionist paradigm itself came under attack during the Vietnam War. An argument came into view that intervention overseas would surely lead to war, and this war could be a significant conflict not worth the capital in the long run. The paradigm shifted, in this instance, as the foreign policy establishment began to assert the United States was not the world’s policeman.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_wet_060613_iraq_and__the_shifti.htm

[Wetzelbill]

1. Shameless kick

:)

[cliss]

2. A very good article.

Did you write this? That's awesome, really well-written. I'd just like to point out one minor thing...the article says that "the US is the world's sole superpower..."

I'm not sure of that any more. We're probably the world's most powerful military power. But we're also broke....deeply in debt to New, Emerging Economies which will kick us to the gutter once they're done with us.

And that makes the US damn dangerous, in my opinion.

**Recommended, nonetheless.

[cliss]

3. Sorry - I tried to recommend this thread

but it wouldn't let me. weird