User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox4

Temporary title: Criticism of U.S. foreign policy

I worked on this on WP; most of the references are solid; it's balanced (plus and minus views).

Criticism of United States foreign policy encompasses a wide range of sentiments about its actions and policies over time. Since it is an open society permitting dissent, there are many views, both positive and negative, regarding its interactions with other nations. This article considers two main dimensions. First, a moral dimension–whether given policy choices are seen as right or wrong. Second, a practical dimension–whether policy choices are seen as effective or ineffective, and instrumental for achieving a specific desired result. Both dimensions are bound up with value judgments and linked with each other, with considerable overlap, and it is up to readers to make value judgments.

Foreign policy in moral terms: right vs. wrong
Since the U.S. is a dominant player in world politics, it is often singled out for negative criticism. And as its power relative to other nations declines in a relative way, it is often blamed for events which it really can not control. But many of the good things and positive influences it has had have a tendency to be overlooked, as the news media has a tendency to accentuate negative results particularly when they're more attention-getting and tends to focus on critics, while overlooking subtler, slower, and more benign but positive aspects of foreign policy which are less likely to sell newspapers.

Arguments that U.S. foreign policy is good
The United States in 2009 is the world's strongest country in terms of military power and economic resources, and to some extent it acts as a referee and a stabilizing influence in the world. Praise for U.S. foreign policy as a good thing generally falls in one of the following categories.


 * Supporting a peaceful world order. The United States is largely regarded as not being an aggressive or acquisitive state which invades other countries for the purpose of colonization or to steal their resources or imprison their peoples. During World War I and World War II, when its armies occupied substantial portions of foreign lands, the nation had many opportunities to seize land, plunder resources, and colonize, but instead required its soldiers to return home, and the lands were returned to the previous inhabitants. It generally opposes colonialism. It has the military force to conquer most other nations but chose not to do so. President Wilson advocated a League of Nations after World War I but an international body didn't happen until after World War II when the United States help found the United Nations. The name United Nations was coined in 1942 by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and a conference in the U.S. city of San Francisco in 1945 attended by 50 nations agreed to form the body. The United States donated a valuable swath of prime real estate in Manhattan for its headquarters. During most of the UN's history, the US was its most substantial contributor; in 2010, the U.S. contributes 22% of the UN's $5 billion annual budget. The U.S. also founded and supported the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. Export-Import bank.


 * Discouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States has maintained a consistent policy of discouraging non-nuclear nations from getting nuclear weapons in an effort to make the world safer. One analyst believes the total number of nuclear weapons was considerably less than it could have been, partly through the systematic effort by the United States. While the nation has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, it has restrained itself from using them after World War II. As of 2009, the world has not been subject to World War III. In 1963, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, US president Kennedy astutely defused a tense situation using a naval blockade which allowed leaders from the Soviet Union to save face, and the policy resulted in dismantling of nuclear weapons on the island of Cuba. It has consistently argued that nations such as Iran avoid developing nuclear weapons. It urged Libya successfully to not build them. It has advocated nuclear non-proliferation treaties. It cooperated with its adversary, the Soviet Union, to limit stockpiles of weapons as well as installed international hotlines to lessen the risk of accidental missile launches based on misunderstandings.


 * Encouraging free trade. Free trade worldwide has grown immensely during the twentieth century, and many foreign policy decisions helped protect free trade around the world. The US has consistently supported free trade and protected commerce between nations. The United States Navy and Air Force protect shipping lanes and enable the safe passage of ships and airplanes from many countries for purposes of trade and travel. In the early 1800s, the US fought and defeated pirates off the Barbary coast; in the early 2000s, it protected ships in the Indian Ocean from pirates with speedboats operating off the coast of Somalia. This is a free service which the United States does not charge payment for.


 * Not initiating war. The overall record of its wars suggests the United States did not initiate war but responded to aggression in most instances, although there were exceptions. In major worldwide conflicts such as World War I and World War II, the United States was not the initiator, but responded to a conflict between European powers. Similar arguments have been made about the Korean War which was initiated by North Korea which invaded South Korea without provocation, the Vietnam War which was initiated by North Vietnam, the first first Gulf War which was initiated by Saddam Hussein of Iraq, the War of 1812 which was initiated (by some accounts) by a policy by Britain's Royal Navy of forcibly impressing sailors into the naval forces. Some analysts argue the second Iraq war was a response to a recalcitrant Iraqi dictator who defied no-fly zones and repeatedly defied treaty obligations and who foiled attempts by inspectors to hunt for dangerous weapons. However, its record is not blemish free; for example, the US did initiate conflicts regarding Colombia to further efforts to build the Panama Canal under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt. But, overall, defenders of the United States can claim a strong and consistent record of military restraint. The U.S. never launched a massive surprise attack against a large nation; in contrast, Japan launched a surprise Pearl Harbor attack before officially declaring war; Nazi Germany invaded Poland with a massive blitzkreig unprovoked attack.


 * Advocating democracy. The United States has a consistent record of speaking out about the benefits of democracy and popular sovereignty and, as an example, encourages free elections and a free press and support for human rights. At the beginning of its history, few nations were democratic while most were monarchies, dictatorships, or oligarchies; today, in contrast, a strong majority of nations are democratic, and people all over the world enjoy popular sovereignty and freedom and human rights to varying degrees.


 * Aiding allies. It has a strong record of supporting allies with armed force as well as economic support. When Kuwait was invaded by Saddam Hussein, America came to its defense and ousted the invaders. America supported its ally Britain throughout two world wars in the twentieth century. It supported its ally Israel consistently with weapons and economic assistance despite intense international pressure not to do so. America supported its ally South Korea when it was invaded by North Korea in 1953, and successfully pushed back the invaders; the U.S. spent $54 billion or $454 billion in 2009 dollars to keep allied peoples free. It cooperates with close allies such as Britain on a wide range of topics.


 * Doing good deeds. On numerous occasions the U.S. military has airlifted supplies to peoples devastated by earthquakes and floods and tsunamis. Rescue missions brought little direct benefit to the nation but were done on an altruistic basis and for humanitarian reasons. When New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, many nations offered substantial assistance, which led Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to say "People have said that America has been so generous ... in other places, and now it is time to be generous to America."


 * Protecting citizens. By preventing invasion, by winning important wars, the United States has an enviable record of protecting its citizens. Americans unfairly jailed abroad have had the US government advocate for their release.


 * Keeping US free from invasion. Since its inception in 1789, the United States has not needed to defend its borders against invasion from warring armies. The few exceptions happened during the War of 1812, British armies advanced south from Canada to Plattsburgh, New York and the Capitol was burned. Another exception was the 9/11 attack in which terrorists infiltrated jetliners and destroyed several buildings and killed 2,752 people in 2001.


 * Helping United States citizens prosper. The nation enjoys a high per capita income level and has an extensive GDP of $46,443 per person in 2009 (estimate). One ranking is the U.S. ranks sixth in the world in terms of GDP per capita. And U.S. foreign policy can, in a sense, be credited with helping allow conditions for a successful economy.


 * Rescuing Europeans from Nazi aggression. At tremendous cost in terms of soldiers and treasure, United States forces working with Allied forces defeated the armies of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and rescued millions of Europeans from a brutal regime of totalitarian rule. The United States did not benefit directly from this war, but indirectly. 405,399 U.S. soldiers died in World War II, mostly in Europe and North Africa; an additional 670,846 were wounded. The war effort in both Europe and the Far East cost $288 billion, or $3.6 trillion in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars, and resulted in the United States experiencing huge budget shortfalls during the 1940s. Western Europeans were free. One estimate in a report in Time Magazine was that the U.S. and western forces liberated 800 million people from 1945–1961 by freeing enslaved peoples from Nazi aggression during World War II and freeing colonial peoples afterwards. This is in sharp contrast to Eastern European countries after World War II; forces of the Soviet Union remained after the war and imposed a brutal military rule on countries inside the Iron Curtain which, in effect, enslaved millions of Eastern Europeans for decades afterwards; U.S. senator Adlai Stevenson compared the Soviet imperial system after World War II as "one of the most cruel and oppressive ever devised." It is difficult to name any other nation in history who sacrificed 500,000 of its citizens to fight for the freedom of other peoples.


 * Open-door immigration policy. Perhaps more than any other nation in history, the United States has welcomed immigrants from all over the world. In 1990, the foreign-born population living in the U.S. numbered almost 20 million. Further, it has successfully accommodated and assimilated a wide variety of diverse peoples into the American mainstream. In the history of the world, the U.S. has an enviable record of accommodating peoples from around the world and successfully assimilating them into American culture.


 * Acting on principle. The United States has, at times, made foreign policy decisions on the basis of principles such as non-interference. For example, when in 1955 the nations of Britain, France, and Israel were poised to attack Egypt on a matter regarding the Suez Canal, the United States refused to support the action, and protected the sovereignty of Egypt despite the inclinations of three key allies. It was a decision characterized by principle. Its Monroe Doctrine helped protect the American continent from interference by colonial European powers, and the US has had a consistent policy against colonialism.

When World War II ended in 1945, Europe lay in ruins: its cities were shattered; its economies were devastated; its people faced famine. In the two years after the war, the Soviet Union’s control of Eastern Europe and the vulnerability of Western European countries to Soviet expansionism heightened the sense of crisis. To meet this emergency, Secretary of State George Marshall proposed in a speech at Harvard University on June 5, 1947, that European nations create a plan for their economic reconstruction and that the United States provide economic assistance. On December 19, 1947, President Harry Truman sent Congress a message that followed Marshall’s ideas to provide economic aid to Europe. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, and on April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the act that became known as the Marshall Plan. Over the next four years, Congress appropriated $13.3 billion for European recovery. This aid provided much needed capital and materials that enabled Europeans to rebuild the continent’s economy.
 * Giving generously. The United States has provided more aid to nations and people around the world than any other nation in history. After World War II when most of Europe was in smoking shambles with its industry and infrastructure wrecked, the US gave $12.7 billion in economic assistance in the Marshall Plan to help Europeans rebuild their war-torn economies. The effort was remarkably successful; by 1951, the economy of every participating country except Germany had grown back to pre-war levels. Today Europe is a thriving, peaceful multi-nation community with economic output that rivals America's. In addition to government assistance, wealthy Americans such as Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie as well as Americans of all socio-economic groups have given billions in assistance to peoples around the world. A reporter wrote in the US News and World Report about the Marshall Plan:


 * Protecting allies from invasion. The US has maintained bases in West Germany and South Korea and Japan for the purpose of deterring aggression by rival powers. It has maintained these commitments over decades with no remuneration from the protected nations. It organized the Berlin air lift to keep people in West Berlin supplied with necessities despite a blockade by the Soviet Union. Supporters of the U.S. suggest that substantial defense-related spending borne by American taxpayers which contributes to the safety of allied nations are not borne by Europeans or Asians. In this view, U.S. taxpayers are seen as subsidizing the defense of allied peoples who fail to carry their fair share of defense spending.

Defense budgets for NATO countries

Main source: Trends in European Defense Spending - DIIG CSIS Other sources: Year=2006.


 * Building the Panama Canal. The US expended $375 million or about $8 billion in today's dollars to build a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans which greatly reduced shipping costs and travel times. While the US benefitted from the canal, the canal permits shipping by all nations, and in the late 1970s under the leadership of President Carter, the US gave the nation of Panama full title to the canal.

Arguments that U.S. foreign policy is bad



 * Supporting dictatorships. The US has been criticized for supporting dictatorships with economic assistance and military hardware. Particular dictatorships have included Mufharraf of Pakistan, the Shah of Iran, Museveni of Uganda, the Saudi Royal family, Maoist regimes in China, warlords in Somalia, President Museveni of Uganda.


 * Opposing independent nationalism. The US has been criticized by Noam Chomsky for opposing nationalist movements in foreign countries, including social reform.


 * Meddling in other countries. The United States was criticized for manipulating the internal affairs of foreign nations, including Guatemala,, Chile, Cuba, Colombia, various countries in Africa including Uganda.


 * Supporting Israel. The US has been accused of condoning actions by Israel against Palestinians.


 * Failing to bring democracy to other nations. Sometimes the US has been criticized for not promoting democracy as well as discouraging it. According to Noam Chomsky, a former Reagan administration official concluded that Democracy Enhancement programs in Latin America were a systematic failure; and he said "Where U.S. influence was the least there you found the most progress towards democracy ... But where the U.S. had influence, it sought only limited, top down forms of democracy that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States had long been allied."


 * Exporting democracy sometimes brings bad results. In contrast to the previous criticism, the U.S. has been criticized for its support of democracy. A book World on Fire by Amy Chua suggests exporting democracy is not always a good idea, since in some situations, it can breed ethnic hatred and global instability. Chua argues that the medicines of democracy and capitalism, taken together, sometimes have adverse side-effects in developing countries and some nations may not be ready for the changes.


 * Imperialism. According to Newsweek reporter Fareed Zakaria, the Washington establishment has "gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement" and added "This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy." Allies were critical of a unilateral sensibility to US foreign policy, and showed displeasure by voting against the US in the United Nations in 2001.


 * Hypocrisy.     The US has been criticized for making statements supporting peace and respecting national sovereignty, but military actions such as in Grenada, fomenting a civil war in Colombia to break off Panama, and Iraq run counter to its assertions. The US has advocated free trade but protects local industries with import tariffs on foreign goods such as lumber and agricultural products. The US has advocated concern for human rights but refused to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to one critic. The US has advocated a policy against torture but has been criticized for condoning it in the School of the Americas. The US has advocated a respect for national sovereignty but supports internal guerrilla movements and paramilitary organizations, such as the Contras in Nicaragua. The US has been criticized for voicing concern about narcotics production in countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela but doesn't follow through on cutting certain bilateral aid programs. The US has been criticized for not maintaining a consistent policy; it has been accused of denouncing human rights abuses in China while supporting rights violations by Israel. However, some defenders argue that a policy of rhetoric while doing things counter to the rhetoric was necessary in the sense of realpolitik and helped secure victory against the dangers of tyranny and totalitarianism. Another agrees.


 * Focusing on counterterrorism while undermining human rights. President Bush has been criticized for neglecting democracy and human rights by focusing exclusively on an effort to fight terrorism. The US was criticized for alleged prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib in Iraq, secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe, according to Amnesty International. In response, the US government claimed incidents of abuse were isolated incidents which did not reflect U.S. policy.


 * American exceptionalism. There is a sense in which America sometimes sees itself as qualitatively different from other countries and therefore cannot be judged by the same standard as other countries; this sense is sometimes termed American exceptionalism. A writer in Time Magazine in 1971 described American exceptionalism as "an almost mystical sense that America had a mission to spread freedom and democracy everywhere." American exceptionalism is sometimes linked with hypocrisy; for example, the US keeps a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons while urging other nations not to get them, and justifies that it can make an exception to a policy of non-proliferation. When the United States didn't support an environmental treaty made by many nations in Kyoto or treaties made concerning the Geneva Convention, then critics saw American exceptionalism as counterproductive.


 * Arrogance. Some critics have thought the United States became arrogant, particularly after its victory in World War II. Critics such as Andrew Bacevich call on America to have a foreign policy "rooted in humility and realism." Foreign policy experts such as Zbigniew Brzezinski counsel a policy of self-restraint and not pressing every advantage, and listening to other nations. A government official called the US policy in Iraq "arrogant and stupid," according to one report.


 * Militarism. Martin Luther King, an opponent of the Vietnam War, criticized America's "giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism," and saw a linkage between its foreign policy abroad and racism at home. Another critic, in a letter to the editor of The New York Times in 1982, suspected there was a racial component explaining favorable US treatment of Poland over South Africa.


 * Violating international law. Some critics assert the US doesn't follow international law. For example, some critics assert the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a proper response to an imminent threat, but an act of aggression which violated international law. For example, Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars—Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Critics point out that the United Nations Charter, ratified by the U.S., prohibits members from using force against fellow members except against imminent attack or pursuant to an explicit Security Council authorization. A professor of international law asserted there was no authorization from the UN Security Council which made the invasion "a crime against the peace." However, US defenders argue there was such an authorization according to UN Security Council Resolution 1441.


 * Not generous enough. Some critics charge that U.S. government aid should be higher given the high levels of Gross domestic product. They claim other countries give more money on a per capita basis, including both government and charitable contributions. By one index which ranked charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. ranked 21 of 22 OECD countries by giving 0.17% of GDP to overseas aid, and compared the U.S. to Sweden which gave 1.03% of its GDP, according to different estimates. The U.S. pledged 0.7% of GDP at a global conference in Mexico. According to one estimate, U.S. overseas aid fell 16% from 2005 to 2006. However, since the US grants tax breaks to nonprofits, it subsidizes relief efforts abroad, although other nations also subsidize charitable activity abroad. Most foreign aid (79%) came not from government sources but from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals. According to the Index of Global Philanthropy, the United States is the top donor in absolute amounts.


 * Not supporting environmental efforts. The U.S. has been criticized for failure to support the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.


 * Other criticisms. The U.S. has been criticized for its historical treatment of native Americans. For example, the treatment of Cherokee Indians in the Trail of Tears in which hundreds of Indians died in a forced evacuation from their homes in the southeastern area, along with massacres, displacement of lands, swindles, and breaking treaties. It has been criticized for the war with Mexico in the 1840s which some see as a theft of land. It was the first and only nation to use a nuclear bomb in wartime. It failed to admit Jews fleeing persecution from Europe at the beginning of World War II, as well as immoral policy for the Vietnam War.

Foreign policy in practical terms: effective or ineffective
Foreign policy can be evaluated along a different dimension: does it work? Did it accomplish an objective? In this light, issues such as a policy's goodness are pushed aside, and the relevant issue is the policy's effectiveness. While there will be disagreements about specific long range goals, it is up to the reader to judge effectiveness of particular policies. For example, it has been argued that sometimes supporting dictatorships is a wise course in terms of long range foreign policy even though the act of supporting a particular dictator can be criticized in moral terms. It's possible for a moral choice to be ineffective. While the issues of morality and effectiveness are difficult to consider without relation to one another, sometimes morality and effectiveness will conflict while other times they'll coincide. Goals vary, but there is agreement that general goals for most nations are peace and prosperity.

It should be noted that foreign policy is difficult for any nation since many factors and combinations of factors work in different ways in a constant flux of new technologies. Trade relations change. Nations rise; nations fall. History has numerous examples of city-states and nations making bad decisions which led to their ruin. Few nations have had a consistent track record of foreign policy excellence. Wise monarchs have been replaced by lackluster offspring. Democracies have had mixed results regarding foreign policy. According to political thinkers such as Machiavelli and Tocqueville, those few states which did have successful foreign policy track records existed within a larger government framework which balanced the three types of government–monarchical, aristocratic and democratic–with checks and balances between competing forces. And, within such a framework, there were foreign policy experts skilled in making predictions about the likely interplay of forces, who advised officials about what to do, and their advice was heeded. Machiavelli thought highly of ancient Rome, guided by the Roman Senate. Rome rarely fought two wars at once. Tocqueville, as well, agreed that an aristocratic body of foreign policy advisers is "like a wise man who never dies."

Arguments that U.S. foreign policy is effective

 * United States is healthy and prosperous. Historian Niall Ferguson in The Ascent of Money argues it's "far too early to write off the United States" and notes many instances in which business rebounded after serious financial crises.


 * Excellent strategy to fight terrorism. CBS News in 2005 praised the U.S. for being realistic by forging alliances with undemocratic rulers in Central Asia and the Middle East as a way to win the war against terrorism combined with skillful use of rhetoric regarding freedom. Anthony Cordesman sees positive aspects of U.S. foreign policy and terrorism prevention strategies as being successful in many respects. The U.S. effectively used Ethiopia to attack terrorist forces in Somalia, according to one report.


 * Economic prosperity. The United States continues to survive, prosper, thrive. It has the largest economy in the world. Its foreign policy has been effective in helping it reach this economic position.


 * U.S. survived the Cold War. It successfully avoided war with a dangerous nuclear-armed power, the USSR, during the decades-long Cold War. Its deterrence strategy worked and it can work again, according to Amy Chua. During several decades of a tense nuclear stand-off between two rival and suspicious powers, there were no nuclear exchanges. The U.S. avoided armageddon. The SALT treaties worked.


 * Won important wars. It was on the winning side of major worldwide conflicts such as World War I and World War II. It fought effectively in important wars. It won its war with Mexico in Mexican-American War in 1848. It won the Spanish-American War in 1898. It achieved stalemate in regional conflicts such as the Korean War and the War of 1812.


 * Nuclear non-proliferation. It has discouraged nations from building nuclear weapons. As of December 2009, there have been no uses of nuclear bombs in wars after World War II. There have been no wars between nations which used nuclear weapons.


 * No nuclear terrorism. As of December 2009, there have been no incidents of smuggled nuclear bombs detonating cities. There have been no incidents of major bioterrorism or chemical terrorism attacks.


 * Many allies worldwide through steadfast support. The U.S. has a wide range of powerful allies, including Britain, France, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India which it has won through steadfast support and intelligent diplomacy. The relationship between Britain and the U.S. is particularly close, and both nations have had strong ties with each other during the twentieth century. The U.S. supported its ally Britain when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, although the U.S. called on both powers to settle the dispute amicably.


 * Checks and balances works. U.S. foreign policy has been effective in keeping domestic government within appropriate checks and balances. No one branch of government is out of control, that is, foreign policy has helped keep the power of the different branches of government in check. In 2009, the U.S. has avoided tyranny and dictatorship within its own government.


 * Historical growth. Since becoming a nation with the signing of the Constitution in 1789, the U.S. has expanded steadily in size. It doubled in size following the Louisiana Purchase, and later expanded into the Oregon Territory as well as California and western states such as Arizona and New Mexico as well as Texas following the Mexican-American War. It acquired Alaska from Russia, as well as the islands of Hawaii.


 * Assimilated immigrants successfully into society. U.S. foreign policy has permitted wide ranges of immigration throughout much of its history, and the nation has been particularly skillful at making disparate peoples, who spoke many different languages, into one people with a common heritage.


 * Effective strategy to deal with authoritarian regimes. The United States foreign policy has been praised as an intelligent way to handle authoritarian regimes. One analyst suggested it was smart not to push Saudi Arabia into becoming a democracy. Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggests a side benefit of the "presidential rhetoric of liberty" is that it subtly undermines dictatorships.


 * U.S. has access to oil. While the U.S. needs more oil than it has, its strategy has been cited for effectiveness in getting access to oil from the Middle East.


 * Isolationism was a smart strategy in the nineteenth century. Time Magazine analyst John L. Steele suggested in an essay in 1971 that the U.S. policy of isolationism during most of the nineteenth century was effective because it helped the nation grow prosperous while avoiding foreign wars. The U.S. was praised for avoiding wars which tended to characterize relations between European powers throughout much of Europe's history after the Middle Ages, including wars about religion, colonial possessions, and territorial disputes.


 * Built the Panama Canal. The U.S. built an important canal in Panama while the nation of France failed to achieve this task. It was a daunting task requiring tremendous resources as well as engineering expertise. The canal reduced shipping costs drastically and aided worldwide growth and transport and speeded up travel times between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Arguments that U.S. foreign policy is ineffective

 * Overall assessment. Foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski described policy overall following the collapse of the Soviet Union as having been done "badly."


 * Structural problems preventing effective policy. Some blame the Constitution for an architecture of government which hampers foreign policy. While the Constitution has successfully prevented tyranny through an astute system of checks and balances, the 1789 document was designed for a backwater fledgling republic with few powerful enemies in the hemisphere. The Constitution vested substantial foreign policy in the presidency while giving important duties to the Senate regarding ratifying treaties. But even the judiciary has a role since it can rule on the constitutionality of matters such as immigration policy. As a result, there isn't one body within government which has total control over foreign policy. Since there's a limit of two four-year terms for the presidency according to the twenty-second amendment, after every eight years the administration must change, and may change after only four. Accordingly, it's difficult for the United States to stick with policies which take longer than eight years to implement. Allies have trouble trusting the word of presidents. Further, there is no constitutional requirement that presidents have experience in areas such as military duty, diplomacy, world politics, or history.


 * U.S. can't keep long-range commitments. There are no rules requiring incoming presidents to maintain commitments by previous presidents. So, it is impractical for any president to make long-range commitments since the next administration may decide differently. Experts such as Kissinger and Brzezinski criticize the lack of direction and planning which characterize American foreign policy and cite a need for a better planning mechanism.  Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman gave the U.S. failing grades in the planning department. Kissinger criticized the U.S. for ineffective diplomatic follow-up to military operations as well as inability to determine diplomatic goals; the result is unfavorable situations.


 * Lack of vision. Brzezinski criticized the Clinton presidency as having a foreign policy which lacked "discipline and passion" and subjected the U.S. to "eight years of drift." The short-term election cycle coupled with the inability to stick with long term decisions motivates presidents to focus on acts which will appease the citizenry and avoid difficult long-term choices.


 * Presidency is over-burdened. Presidents have not only foreign policy responsibilities, but sizeable domestic duties too. In addition, the presidency is the head of a political party. As a result, it is tough for one person to manage disparate tasks, in one view. Critics suggest Reagan was overburdened, which prevented him from doing a good job of oversight regarding the Iran–Contra affair. Brzezinski suggested in Foreign Affairs that President Obama is similarly overburdened. Some suggest a need for permanent non-partisan advisers.


 * Presidency pushed by partisan concerns. Ideally foreign policy is what benefits the entire nation. But since presidents are the heads of political parties, critics have charged that presidents have made foreign policy decisions not in light of the nation's best interests, but what's favorable for labor or business interests. For example, president Jefferson passed the Embargo Act of 1807 which some critics have assailed as a partisan decision, since it crippled New England maritime business interests; Jefferson's party the Democratic-Republicans was more allied with farmers.


 * Dollars drive foreign policy. There are indications that decisions to go to war in Iraq were motivated by oil interests; for example, a British newspaper The Independent reported that the "Bush administration is heavily involved in writing Iraq's oil law" which would "allow Western oil companies contracts of up to 30 years to pump oil out of Iraq, and the profits would be tax-free." Whether motivated by oil or not, U.S. policy appears to much of the Arab world to have been motivated by oil. Some critics assert the U.S. decision to build the Panama Canal was motivated largely by business interests despite claims that it's motivated to "spread democracy" and "end oppression." Andrew Bacevich suggests policy is directed by "wealthy individuals and institutions." Some critics say U.S. foreign policy does reflect the will of the people, but blames the people for having a "consumerist mentality" which causes problems. In 1893, a decision to back a plot to overthrow the rulership of Hawaii by president Harrison was motivated by business interests in an effort to prevent a proposed tariff increase on sugar; Hawaii became a state afterwards. There was speculation that the Spanish-American War in 1898 between the U.S. and Spain was motivated by business interests in Cuba.


 * Presidency has conflicting duties regarding domestic versus international matters. This is primarily a concern in situations where a president may have a conflict-of-interest situation in regard to two different tasks. For example, a president seeking re-election may launch a spurious foreign policy initiative to get a "bump" in the polls.


 * Presidents may lack experience. Since the constitution requires no prior experience in diplomacy, government, or military service, it is possible to elect presidents with scant foreign policy experience. Clearly the record of past presidents confirms this, and that presidents who have had extensive diplomatic, military, and foreign policy experience have been the exception, not the rule. In recent years, presidents had relatively more experience in such tasks as peanut farming, acting and governing governorships than in international affairs. It has been debated whether voters are sufficiently skillful to assess the foreign policy potential of presidential candidates, since foreign policy experience is only one of a long list of attributes in which voters tend to select candidates. The second Bush was criticized for inexperience in the Washington Post for being "not versed in international relations and not too much interested."


 * Presidency has too much authority. In contrast to criticisms that presidential attention is divided into competing tasks, some critics charge that presidents have too much power, and that there is the potential for tyranny or fascism. Some presidents circumvented the national security decision-making process. Critics such as Dana D. Nelson of Vanderbilt in her book Bad for Democracy and columnist David Sirota  and Texas law professor Sanford Levinson  see a danger in too much executive authority.


 * Difficulty removing an incompetent president. Since the only way to remove an incompetent president is with the rather difficult policy of impeachment, it is possible for a marginally competent or incompetent president to stay in office for four to eight years and cause great mischief. In recent years, there has been great attention to this issue given the presidency of George W. Bush, but there have been questions raised about the competency of Jimmy Carter in his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. Ironically, a president who was arguably the most skillful in foreign policy, Richard M. Nixon, was impeached, but for offenses linked with domestic politics.


 * President may be incompetent. The presidency of George W. Bush has been attacked by numerous critics from both parties as being particularly incompetent, short-sighted, unthinking, and partisan. Bush's decision to launch the second Iraq War was criticized extensively; writer John Le Carre criticized it as a "hare-brained adventure." He was also criticized for advocating a policy of exporting democracy.   Brzezinski described Bush's foreign policy as "a historical failure."  Bush was criticized for being too secret regarding foreign policy and having a cabal subvert the proper foreign policy bureaucracy. Other presidents, too, were criticized. The foreign policy of George H. W. Bush was lackluster, and while he was a "superb crisis manager," he "missed the opportunity to leave a lasting imprint on U.S. foreign policy because he was not a strategic visionary," according to Brzezinski. He stopped the first Iraq War too soon without finishing the task of capturing Saddam Hussein. Foreign policy expert Henry Kissinger criticized Jimmy Carter for numerous foreign policy mistakes including a decision to admit the ailing Shah of Iran into the United States for medical treatment, as well as a bungled military mission to try to rescue the hostages in Teheran. Carter waffled from being "both too tough and too soft at the same time."


 * Congress excluded from foreign policy. Critic Robert McMahon thinks Congress has been excluded from foreign policy decision making, and that this is detrimental. Other writers suggest a need for greater Congressional participation.


 * Lack of control over foreign policy. During the early 1800s, general Andrew Jackson exceeded his authority on numerous times and attacked American Indian tribes as well as invaded the Spanish territory of Florida without official government permission. Jackson was not reprimanded or punished for exceeding his authority. Some accounts blame newspaper journalism called yellow journalism for whipping up virulent pro-war sentiment to help instigate the Spanish-American War. Some critics suggest foreign policy is manipulated by lobbies, such as the pro-Israel lobby, although there is disagreement about the influence of such lobbies. Nevertheless, Brzezinski wants stricter anti-lobbying laws.


 * Alienating allies. There is evidence that many U.S. allies have been alienated by a unilateral approach. Allies signaled dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in a vote at the U.N. Brzezinski counsels listening to allies and exercising self-restraint.


 * U.S. foreign policy manipulated by external forces. A Washington Post reporter wrote that "several less-than-democratic African leaders have skillfully played the anti-terrorism card to earn a relationship with the United States that has helped keep them in power" and suggested, in effect, that foreign dictators could manipulate U.S. policy for their own benefit.  It is possible for foreign governments to channel money through PACs to buy influence in Congress.


 * Exporting democracy may be ineffective. Several critics suggest America's policy of advocating democracy may be counter-productive. Yale professor Amy Chua in World On Fire suggests exporting democracy is not always a good idea, particularly when conditions are not appropriate. Brzezinski agreed that an "excessive focus on spreading democracy to defeat terrorism was dangerous," particularly in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or China.  Analyst Jessica Tuchman Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace agreed that imposing democracy "from scratch" was unwise, and didn't work. Realist critics such as George F. Kennan argued U.S. responsibility is only to protect its own citizens and that Washington should deal with other governments on that basis alone; they criticize president Woodrow Wilson's emphasis on democratization and nation-building although it wasn't mentioned in Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the failure of the League of Nations to enforce international will regarding Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in the 1930s. Realist critics attacked the idealism of Wilson as being ill-suited for weak states created at the Paris Peace Conference. Others, however, criticize the U.S. Senate's decision not to join the League of Nations which was based on isolationist public sentiment as being one cause for the organization's ineffectiveness.


 * Ineffective public relations. One report suggests that news source Al-jazeera routinely paints the U.S. as evil throughout the Mideast. Other critics have faulted the U.S. public relations effort. As a result of faulty policy and lackluster public relations, the U.S. has a severe image problem in the Mideast, according to Anthony Cordesman. Analyst Mathews said that it appears to much of the Arab world that we went to war in Iraq for oil, whether we did or not. In a 2007 poll by BBC News asking which countries are seen as having a "negative influence in the world," the survey found that Israel, Iran, United States and North Korea had the most negative influence, while nations such as Canada, Japan and the European Union had the most positive influence.


 * Ineffective prosecution of war. Amy Chua thinks the Iraq war has been managed inefficiently, with wasteful spending. One estimate is that the second Iraq War along with the so-called War on Terror cost $551 billion, or $597 billion in 2009 dollars. Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich has criticized American profligacy and squandering its wealth. There have been historical criticisms of U.S. warmaking capability; in the War of 1812, the U.S. was unable to conquer Canada despite several attempts and having superior resources; the U.S. Capitol was burned and the settlement ending the war did not bring any major concessions from the British.


 * Excessive defense spending. In the 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized excessive U.S. spending on military projects. Even in 1971, a Time Magazine essayist wondered why there were 375 major foreign military bases around the world with 3,000 lesser military facilities and concluded "there is no question that the U.S. today has too many troops scattered about in too many places." In a 2010 defense report, Cordesman criticized out-of-control military spending. Expenditures to fight the War on Terror are vast and seem limitless. The Iraq war was expensive and continues to be a severe drain on U.S. finances. Bacevich thinks the U.S. has a tendency to resort to military means to try to solve diplomatic problems.


 * Mistakes regarding wars. The Vietnam War was a costly, decade-long military engagement which ended in defeat, and the mainstream view today is that the entire war was a mistake. The dollar cost was $111 billion, or $698 billion in 2009 dollars. Similarly, the second Iraq war is viewed by many as being a mistake, since there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and the war continues today.


 * Problem areas festering. Critics point to a list of countries or regions where continuing foreign policy problems continue to present problems. These areas include South America, including Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Brazil. There are difficulties with Central American nations such as Honduras.  Iraq has continuing troubles. Iran, as well, presents problems with nuclear proliferation. Pakistan is unstable, there is active conflict in Afghanistan. The Mideast in general continues to fester, although relations with India are improving. Policy towards Russia remains uncertain. China presents an economic challenge.  There are difficulties in other regions too. In addition, there are problems not confined to particular regions, but regarding new technologies. Cyberspace is a constantly changing technological area with foreign policy repercussions. Climate change is an unresolved foreign policy issue, particularly depending on whether nations can agree to work together to limit possible future risks.


 * Ineffective strategy to fight terrorism. Critic Cordesman criticized U.S. strategy to combat terrorism as not having enough emphasis on getting Islamic republics to fight terrorism themselves. Sometimes visitors have been misidentified as "terrorists." Mathews suggests the risk of nuclear terrorism remains unprevented.


 * Historical instances of ineffective policies. Generally during the nineteenth century, and in early parts of the twentieth century, the U.S. pursued a policy of isolationism and generally avoided entanglements with European powers. After World War I, Time Magazine writer John L. Steele thought the U.S. tried to return to an isolationist stance, but that this was unproductive. He wrote: "The anti-internationalist movement reached a peak of influence in the years just before World War II." But Steele questioned whether this policy was effective; regardless, isolationism ended quickly after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Analysts have wondered whether the U.S. pursued the correct strategy with Japan before World War II; by denying Japan access to precious raw materials, it is possible that U.S. policy triggered the surprise attack and, as a result, the U.S. had to fight a two-front war in both the Far East as well as Europe during World War II. While it may be the case that the Mideast is a difficult region with no easy solutions to avoiding conflict, since this volatile region is at the junction of three continents; still, many analysts think U.S. policy could have been improved substantially. The U.S. waffled; there was no vision; presidents kept changing policy. Public opinion in different regions of the world thinks that, to some extent, the 9/11 attacks were an outgrowth of substandard U.S. policy towards the region. The Vietnam War was a decade-long mistake.