ORDER NOW
ESSAY WRITING SAMPLE: ISOLATIONISM VS. INTERVENTIONISM
Posted by: Write My Essay on: April 18, 2018

Sample by My Essay Writer

After the United States had positioned itself as a world power, its spot within the global political and economic divide has shifted significantly with time. Its significance as a contributor to global politics (and conflict) can be related to the interventions made towards wars since the Second World War. Since its interests vary, the changes in each contribution to war, security, or resistance to terrorism are arguably fuelled by the intensity of interest that the state manifests in a region, the relationship with the U.S., international pressure, and threats posed to the nation (Lewis, 2014). In this regard, connections can be established between global conflicts and the interventions or isolations decisions made by the U.S. government. For the preservation of interests that the government may have, participation in warfare in foreign lands may be placed under a freedom or democracy banner, but the reality of a self-serving concern cannot be ignored. However, the interests of the government are based on non-intervention, and the participation in such warfare is in the direct interest of human rights, security, and stability of warring regions. [Click Essay Writer to order your essay]

Changes in the American Experience of War
The participation of the armed forces in conflicts around the world are justified by the preservation of the national principles as vetted by persons in government. Across the most significant wars in the history of United States, the changing of culture, government perceptions and participation in war, and the interests of the entire nation have shifted (Lewis, 2014). For an appreciation of these changes, it is necessary to compare the differences between the most recent offensive against the Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attack as compared to the conflict in the Second World War and where the primary interest of nation was in the securing of U.S. territory disagreements along the lines of sovereignty and political ideology (Lewis, 2014). These two conflicts are separated by time, and the differences in ideologies leading to war offer an appreciation of the shift in the securities that the government attempts to secure in each case. In the World War I, the conflict increased in intensity due to the threat by external parties towards American sovereignty and concept of freedoms. [Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]

On the other hand, it is arguable that the interests in both cases were justified by the need of the nation to preserve its position as a significant political and economic power. However, the benefits of wars in this context were not in the self-interest of the US, since they were in the creation of opportunities to carry forward the interests of global peace and noninterference with the sovereignty of other nations. Coffman (2004) confirms that this can be demonstrated by the fact that the government did not impose itself as a power present in each of the conquered lands. After the elimination of threats, both in the World War and the Afghan situation, the government was able to extract itself, thus leaving the foreign nations the freedom to restore themselves as independently functioning nations (Coffman, 2014). The argument that the extreme warfare experienced in Afghanistan cannot be compared to the global interest in the war on terror, based in the Afghanistan region. In as much as the offensive was aimed at communities, nations, and political interests in foreign lands, interference is necessary to support affected nations (Hook & Spanier, 2015). It cannot be classified as an intervention since it is facilitated by an interest of the United States, its allies, and the host nations.

The experience of war from an American perspective captures the transition from a different political intent based on interference and intervention, the gaining of political capacity and territory, to the modern setting. Modern warfare involves the interaction of diplomacies, assessment of the impact of conflict on all aspects of national policy, and interest and engagement of troops in a methodological manner. The comparison of the factors that resulted in the Revolutionary War, for example, indicate that the persons in authority possessed political motivators and personal interests (Johansen, 1982). The difference in attitude in modern society is relatable to the ability of the rest of government and military to reject unsuitable efforts during conflicts.

The association of political and military ideologies in either modern day or historical warfare is mainly based on the ability of the government to fuse ideological concepts and create a military strategy to guarantee national stability. In the assessment of the environment of the Civil and Revolutionary wars, one can identify aspects of loyalty, patriotism, and interest of the society in the safeguarding of interests deemed suitable to each (Bacevich, 2013). In these two wars, it included retention of slaves versus freeing them and the capturing of freedoms from the federal state respectively. Bacevich (2013) writes that these interests can be compared to the reasoning behind conflicts such as the War on Terror, sparked by an escalation of tension in threats from terrorism and the shifting of global interest towards the elimination of terror units worldwide. In contrast, these interests are not comparable in their private benefits, but rather an international quest for justice for the 9/11 attack and related incidents worldwide. Nationalism is a contributing factor in both the previous and modern settings since it facilitates the capacity of a government to justify its entry into armed conflict to defend American ideals.

As a corresponding function of the conflicts that have occurred over this span, the progress is in the experiences that the nation has endured in armed conflict on a global scale. It is possible to associate the cultural impact, management of internal conflict, and economic impact of each war. According to Coffman (2014), political ideologies, as the primary motivators for conflict of such scale, has motivated the government to sponsor warfare over the last half century, which resulted in the reformation of international relations. Such reforms not only facilitate a stable standing between powerful nations, but the control and political superiority of a singular nation are also essential for the facilitation of non-intervention control (Coffman, 2014). The necessity of this control can be visualized and appreciated by the current reverence for territory of nations, respect for diplomacy as an approach to solving international conflict, and the formation of a free world based on the model presented by the United States.  [Click Essay Writer to order your essay]

In recent times, on the side of the United States, changes in the culture of conflict is better related to the stability of global associations. Wars in the past, such as the Civil War, have offered the nation the chance to experience the changing of socio-cultural norms due to bettering of situations after war. The Civil War made it possible for most Americans to facilitate the freeing of slaves, which has grown to a freedom fundamental to every American in modern day (Kramer, 2014). The discussion of such liberties, therefore, make it possible to argue out that the interests of war are not based on interference with the operation of other nations, but rather the facilitation of ideologies best understood by a nation that has experienced such situations. Such ideologies, therefore, are debatable along the dimension of non-intervention, where the state does not interact with other aspects of war rather than the interest of the globe and freedoms of the motherland.

In the assessment of the freedom offered by American troops to warring regions, it is arguable that intervention is at a minimal compared to other foreign bodies. Since the state has no interest in obtaining territory, it is allowable to say the interest lie only in liberation and stabilization of regions at conflict. On the other hand, international armed bodies such as the UN possess the capacity to intervene where they feel the governing of a nation does not coincide with UN treaty agreements (Kramer, 2014). In comparison to the American ideals, the country does not go to war just because another country does not align with its non-interactive political ideals. So, as much as such political settings in foreign nations do not interact with American interests/security, interventions are not a part of American-sponsored warfare.
Philosophical and Moral Issues Raised By Conflict
The discussion of the morality of warfare is often marked with endless lines of interference with international operating ideals and the facilitation of philosophies of war differing across borders. These differences are commonly raised within events of conflict outside the United States, particularly when national ideals and principles differ with those expressed by other nations participating in conflict. Among these issues, the war of 1812 and World War 1 can be used to make inferences on the necessity of diplomatic relations during times of war. As much as these two wars were related to the conflicts of economic philosophy and political interests of the governing parties, some issues emerged targeting the United Kingdom and its allies about economic and trade impositions (Kramer, 2014). The interests at the time included the interest of the American government to expand these functionalities further west and the limitations that were brought about by the British in Napoleonic France (Kramer, 2014). The moral issues here include the necessity of war in situations where diplomacy performs similar functions, the impact on war on the intentions of the warring nations (such as business between the two fronts), and the significance of war to the regions where it occurs in. The stalemates that resulted in the conclusion of the wars shows the importance of such philosophical aspects of war.

In comparison to modern day engagements by the American troops, it is possible to identify that justification of armed conflict has transitioned into maturation. The preservation of American interests, for one, is a large motivator for entering war engagements. The Gulf War offers a transitional understanding of the philosophies engaged before the war and the justifications of the moral issues that emerged. The urgency in which the president at the time engaged the troops in the retaking of Kuwait from the Iraqi forces cannot be identified as an intervention, but rather a participation in assistance of strategic allies (Hook & Spanier, 2015). Since this war can also be related to the 2003 Iraq war for freedom, the interests of the United States in these situations cannot be argued as selfish or interventional. Similarly, since the participation of other nations was imperative in the proceedings of the conflict in the Middle Eastern region to modern day, one can appreciate that US takes a participatory position in each and only leads where the international interest requires it. It is also possible to identify that any questionable interactions between the military and foreign nations are on a global scale (with the UN, allies of the U.S., and any participating combatants) (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The sheer volume of concepts that go into justifying such conflict on the platform of any participating nation explains that the United States take a non-intervention position in such wars. The interest of all participating in the gulf war, for example, involved the disarmament of the Iraqi forces in achieving peace in the region, which was in global interests in stability and security of nations.

The philosophical and moral implications of war cannot be justified fully by the benefits since the emergence of losses; casualties and global instability during war are lasting. In the case of all wars that the government has instigated or participated in, there is a logical philosophical standing before, during, and after such conflict. These philosophies are based on the ideologies that form and uphold the constitution, and they are upheld in these regions during the chaos of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). Drawing from the ongoing assault against ISIS, their moral justification varies with the activities of the military and that of strategic allies in the combat zone. However, on the part of the practices of the U.S. military, the decision-making processes must justify the upholding of the constitution, the interests of human rights and the American ideologies in wartime scenarios (Piehler, 2004). Based on the appreciation of such practices, the American policies in conflict are thus not self-centered or excessive, since they are justified by the interests of other parties participating in such war, especially in modern day engagements. Such participation is non-interventional.

Political, Social, Economic, and Intellectual Trends during War
The contribution of socioeconomic and political trends that emerge in war are important in the discussion of the influence of war on culture within the country. Since the participants of war are not limited to individuals in the military, the psycho-emotional situation of the populace has a contribution to the societal understanding and perception towards war (Lewis, 2014). If the political trends during war are assessed, the influence of politicians, lobbyists, and the citizens can be based on the fulfillment of their interests on the waterfront. Such interests include the security of the nation, economic impact on the global and national markets, and the ability of interest groups to campaign for ethical engagements. All these politics are centered on the control of the apparatuses at the disposal of governing persons who must factor in all political influences to ensure that the military is aligned with national policies (Lewis, 2014). Political trends, however, tend to shift with emerging information on wartime activities by the U.S. or other participants. Since political climate is a dynamic characteristic of the American populace, it is hard to keep up with trends and interests, and therefore, any conflicts handled by the government should be in the best interests of the electorate and interest parties.

On the other hand, the socio-cultural trends are more static, and as influences on armed conflict, they have an effect on national stability during conflict. In wars before the Second World War, there were notable effects on the internal trends especially when these wars were on American soil. However, the wars in foreign lands, such as the Gulf War, the War on Terror and the current offensive against ISIS all have only an effect on opinion, with the interests of society being to secure the motherland from external attack (Hook & Spanier, 2015). Also, these foreign wars present interests of society towards the practices of the military in engaging targets with attention towards human rights and extreme military practice

Economic changes during war shift with the effects of such armed conflict on trade, international relations, and the expenditure incurred in wartime activities. Wars are costly, to the government, the citizens and by extension, all affected parties. The trends in the economic status of a nation are justifiable by the potential of financial benefit that the results offer, or the threat of financial loss that the avoidance of war would have. These considerations do not function as primary factors in decision making since the safety of citizens is upheld against economic costs (Piehler, 2004). In this respect, the changes that occur in the financial status of a country include the increase in market sensitivity due to increased threat of attack. These make product and stock prices to be liable to sharp declines or upsurges due to slight changes in the economic environment. All these aspects of the financial status of the country are heavily reliant on the ability of the government to shield local markets from interaction with wartime factors.

The Effect of War on Social Attitudes and Values of the American Society
The changing social attitude towards war is geared to the changing tactic and approach applied by the government in commissioning and justifying participation in armed conflict. In the past, wars such as the World Wars, Mexican-American War, and the Spanish-American War involved the campaigning of values that were being developed as American concepts at the time, which were meant to increase patriotism, motivate enlisting, and increase confidence in government (Bacevich, 2013). In the contemporary setting, however, the situation of the social perceptions of the American society towards such aspects has stabilized, and the interest of the government and its military is to motivate the American feeling of freedom, security, and patriotism during conflict. When considering how these conflicts have affected the societal perceptions of government and the military, it is necessary to compare timelines of conflict.

A discussion of the American Revolution involves analyzing the loss of life, impact on the social perception of freedom, and the relations between the UK and the citizens of the time. The cost of war included deaths in battle, disease, and with a significant impact on the psychological setting of society; the war was ended concerning the pressure that arose from these losses (Johansen, 1982). Conflict management in this scenario borrowed from the change in societal attitude towards government and war. Similarly, the cultural impact is observable in the succeeding wars, where the relationship between communities changed with each interaction and a war resulted in the installation of a societal principle. The ending of slavery, freedom from British trade limitations, and the statement of sovereignty for the nation inspired patriotism confidence in the state in the past (Johansen, 1982). It however continually resulted in the rejection of wartime policies on the motherland, including the participation of minors and civilians. The wars over the last half century demonstrate the adherence of the military in retention of conflict in zones and securing citizens at all times.

It is also possible to assess the significance of the events surrounding the War on Terror, the ISIS offensive and the Gulf war in comparison to the Civil War since they relate to security and territorial dominance. As a nonintervention move, all conflict in the modern day, all territorial handling is made in the interest of global objectives, as opposed to the annexation approach. The values of the American society are carried into the admission of freedom to regions subject to terrorist groups or unconstitutional governance (Kramer, 2014).  Such political ideologues, therefore, are based on the political ideologies of the American society, its values, and ideals. The approval of the activities of the military by the public builds on the relation between cultural/societal values and the policies implemented in such regions. It, therefore, breeds a varying social attitude from citizens depending on the entitlement that government offers to practices in conflict zones.

In the events preceding and following a war, the government is responsible for the creation of assurances for the citizens of the U.S. and those in foreign lands on the preservation of their interests. Such aspects include their security, economic ability, and political stability within the confines of national ideals on either side. From a non-interventional position, the United States government is therefore tasked with finding a balance between the American interests and the facilitation of empowering people subject to conflict. Interventionism may be observed in scenarios where the difference between sustaining the foreign lands and maintaining national interests is significantly large. In such situations, the international community and bodies such as the United Nations facilitate the fusion of the two, to enable the government to assist such regions in ways no other nation can.

References
Bacevich, A. (2013). The new American Militarism: How Americans are seduced by war. New York: Oxford University Press.

Coffman, E. (2014). The war to end all wars: The American military experience in World War I. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.

Hook, S. & Spanier, J. (2015). American foreign policy since World War II (20th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Johansen, B. (1982). Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois, and the Rationale for the American Revolution. Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit.

Kramer, M. (2014). Imagining Language in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Lewis, A. (2014). The American culture of war: A history of US military force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Piehler, G. (2004). Remembering War the American Way. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *