The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 have led to a complete change in American foreign policy

Résumé du document

When George W. Bush arrived in office as President in 2000, he was determined to limit the role of the United States in foreign affairs, although there was in his electorate a hope for a strong foreign policy. The new administration saw in the failure in Yugoslavia, "Clinton's war" , the proof that for the United States it was better to be involved as little as possible, and to protect their own interests only. But when the high jacked planes hit the towers of the World Trade Center, the United States were de facto in a state of war, and the Bush administration had to review its foreign policy. Indeed, few days after the attacks, the United States declared the "war on terror", which was rapidly concertized by the invasion of Afghanistan and the war in Iraq later, motivated by similar objectives. Looking deeper in the American strategy, one can actually argue that only the style has changed, but that the great principles in American foreign policy stay unchallenged.

Extraits

[...] The terrorist threat was not new, but until this day, it was limited to distant and unsafe areas such as Chechnya or Middle-East. The attack allowed “security issues and geopolitical pragmatism to dominate the global policy agenda.”[5] Even if the American administration was aware of the threats of a potential terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States, as stated Condoleezza Rice, crystallised our vulnerability.”[6] The climate of terror the attacks instituted allowed a certain part of the Bush administration to gain more influence within the government, especially the “neocons” movement, which speaks for the military hegemony of the United States in order to protect its interests. [...]

[...] The values it speaks for are also in the tradition of American foreign policy. The attacks of 9/11 gave a new blow to the eternal struggle of America for freedom and democracy. Rather Bush and his advisers are true or not when they speak about their will to democratise the Middle East is not the point. What is interesting is that they use the same framework of values than all the United States Presidents when confronting to a difficult situation. [...]

[...] Sic, p.72 Bush Speech at West Point Op. Sic Quoted in Kiely, Ray, Op ; Sic, p.71 Kolko ,Gabriel, Op. Sic Daadler, Ivo James M. Linsey and James B. Steinberg, Op. Sic Godsfrey Hodgson, and American politics” http://www.opendemocracy-americanpower/oil_ jsp Ibid Bush State of Union Address Op. Sic G. W. Bush, quoted in Daadler, Ivo James M. Linsey and James B. [...]

[...] In some cases, those strategies still apply, but new threats also require new thinking.”[29] Indeed, what is containment worth in front of terrorism? The balance of terror which existed during the cold war is not imaginable in this case where the threat is not a territorial entity but a network, or even several networks, which have nothing to lose; As Laver states “There is little that can deter a suicide bomber”[30]. Another change in American foreign policy in recent years has been the rethinking of the former alliances. [...]

[...] London, Pluto Falk, Richard A The declining World Order: America's Imperial Geopolitics. New-York, Routledge. Staten, Cliff, 30/06/2005 “U.S. Foreign policy since World War II. An essay on reality's corrective qualities”, opendiplomacy.org, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2005/0709/stat/staten_reality.html Laver, Harry S “Pre-emption and the evolution of America's strategic defense”, Parameters, Spring 2003 http://carlisewww.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/record.pdf G. W. Bush State of Union speech http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Kolko, Gabriel age of unilateral war: Iraq, the United States and the end of European coalition” http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/20 03/0430age.htm Daadler, Ivo James M. Linsey and James B. [...]