In its early history, the United States was primarily an isolationist country for 125 years. However, after two world wars, America shifted from being isolationist to becoming one of the world’s two superpowers. This position was held for almost fifty years until the collapse of the Soviet Union, which left America as the only remaining superpower. As a result, American foreign policy during this period greatly influenced global affairs.
What influenced certain Presidents to select idealistic foreign policies, while others favored more realistic approaches? Since World War II, American foreign policy has assumed a worldwide mission. Although there have been occasions of embracing idealism, adopting a pragmatic approach has typically yielded greater benefits for both America and its allies. To comprehend how America attained its position of global influence, it is important to examine a period when the nation pursued isolationist policies.
For the majority of America’s history, it followed an isolationist strategy, which focused on expanding its influence in North America while European powers vied for global dominance. However, this approach changed during World War I. Though Germany and the axis powers did not pose a direct threat to America’s shores, their advancements across Europe led to a shift away from isolationism as America began assisting Britain and France.
Following the release of the Zimmerman Telegram, which aimed to convince Mexico to attack the United States and prevent its involvement in Europe, America shifted from isolationism and declared war on Germany and the axis powers. However, after World War I concluded, there was a resurgence of isolationism within the United States. President Woodrow Wilson suggested establishing an all-encompassing international organization called the League of Nations as part of his Fourteen Points plan for peace. Nonetheless, the U.S. Senate rejected the Versailles peace treaty with a two-thirds majority vote, allowing America to distance itself from Wilson’s ideas regarding global engagement.
However, several decades later, this isolationist perspective faced new challenges that resulted in different outcomes. Throughout the late 1920s and into the 1930s, Germany initiated rearmament efforts and posed a threat to neighboring nations. The outbreak of World War II occurred when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Despite initially expressing neutrality ambitions, ultimately, the United States provided assistance to France and Britain.
China received aid in order to counter Japan’s imperialist aggression, while America’s involvement in global affairs was about to resume. However, on December 7, 1941, Japan launched an attack on American forces stationed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Consequently, President Roosevelt declared war on Japan and led the United States into World War II with the aim of confronting both Japan and supporting American allies in Europe as they fought against Germany. After World War II ended, instead of retreating from international affairs once more, America took on a prominent role on the world stage.
Various factors led to America’s choice to end isolationism, which included the political and economic circumstances of the global system following World War II. Europe, heavily impacted by the war, faced numerous difficulties. The conflict resulted in widespread devastation, resulting in weakened economies and reduced agricultural production in multiple European countries.
At this time, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a tense power struggle. The American economy was flourishing, with a focus on rebuilding Western European nations. In contrast, the Soviet Union aimed to extend its influence by dominating Eastern European nations. This rivalry between the superpowers became known as the Cold War. President Truman, who was the first president to confront this challenge, adopted a pragmatic approach in dealing with the Soviet Union. His policy, later named the Truman Doctrine, reflected this approach.
Truman’s policy, known as the Truman Doctrine, aimed to contain communism and commit the United States to a “global strategy” against communist aggression. The policy involved offering support to free nations in protecting their institutions and national identity from totalitarian regimes (46). President Truman made a promise to resist Soviet aggression, fight against communism, and prevent its growth. The Korean War served as the first test for putting the Truman Doctrine into action.
The Korean War erupted when the Soviet Union expanded its presence in the Korean Peninsula. To avoid conflict, the United States suggested dividing the peninsula at the 38th parallel, with Soviet influence in the north and US influence in the south. The goal was to establish a stable and unified Korea while withdrawing military forces from both sides. However, neither country wanted complete control over the entire peninsula, resulting in a stalemate. Despite reducing their forces by the late 1940s, tensions remained between competing regimes and eventually led to war.
When North Korea attacked South Korea, it was seen as an aggressive act instigated and directed by the Soviets. This prompted American intervention to prevent communism from spreading further. Containing communism heavily influenced American foreign policy until the Vietnam War.
From the conclusion of World War II until the Vietnam War, different American presidents such as Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson pursued a realist foreign policy strategy to counter communism. The Nixon administration similarly embraced realism by prioritizing the balance of power. Notably, they believed that the United States should refrain from intervening in every regional conflict that emerged.
President Nixon declared a change in the United States’ role in regional conflicts, indicating a departure from past administrations. Nixon’s realistic approach sought to maintain global stability by promoting power sharing among other countries. This strategy was reinforced by his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, who emphasized the idea of linkage. According to Kissinger, all nations must acknowledge that their actions in one aspect of foreign policy can have adverse repercussions in another aspect. (106)
Nixon and Kissinger, despite facing criticism for seemingly straying from the nation’s moral principles, believed in separating domestic affairs from foreign policy. Unlike later administrations, Nixon pursued a realist approach to foreign policy that did not prioritize ethics. However, when Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency, there was a change in American foreign policy.
President Carter’s foreign policy approach differed from previous administrations’ by embracing idealism, in contrast to their realism. A key distinction was the focus on moral principles. President Carter advocated for America’s domestic values to strongly influence its foreign policy decisions (115). His vision involved leading in spreading American morals and lifestyle worldwide. By envisioning his presidency as a catalyst for global cooperation, President Carter aimed for the United States to collaborate with other nations in assisting underprivileged countries in joining the global organization.
This action also altered the president’s perspective on US-Soviet relations. Instead of employing a bilateral strategy, the United States would collaborate with multiple nations to form a broad coalition. Although President Carter aimed for a more global reach in his foreign policy, he faced challenges in various regions. The Middle East, specifically, appeared to have no hope for achieving peace as continuous conflict persisted between Arabs and Jews without any resolution in sight. The initial plan of the Carter administration was to achieve a comprehensive settlement through a Geneva conference co-sponsored with the Soviet Union. However, Israel’s concerns over being outnumbered by both Arab nations and their perceived support from the Soviets disrupted this plan. Despite some progress made with the signing of the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978, it ultimately proved unsuccessful as only one Arab nation (Egypt) accepted its framework. Moreover, President Carter’s approach to the Iranian hostage crisis highlighted the flaws in his idealistic policies. Despite moving away from idealism to some extent, he still relied on domestic ideals of the United States when making policy decisions. Consequently, President Carter allowed Iran’s pro-American Shah to be overthrown without any involvement from the United States.President Carter made the decision based on his belief that the Shah was ruthless towards critics in Iran.
The U.S. embassy was stormed by students resulting in the taking of hostages. President Carter made several unsuccessful attempts to secure their release, lasting over 400 days. However, upon the election of President Ronald Reagan, the hostages were released by Iran. This event became a significant triumph for Reagan’s foreign policy, characterized by a pragmatic approach to implementing policies.
Reagan implemented a different approach to his presidency by directly engaging with the Soviets rather than forming large coalitions. He held the belief that the Cold War would eventually come to an end and that America and the West should not be considered equal to the Soviet Union. In a speech delivered at the University of Notre Dame in 1981, he declared, “The West will not contain Communism. It will surpass Communism. It will reject it as a peculiar chapter in human history that is still being written.” The following year, during a speech given to the British Parliament, Reagan anticipated that a strong Western alliance would lead to a “march of freedom and democracy” rendering Marxism-Leninism irrelevant. President Reagan advocated for America taking on a leadership role through setting an example based on freedom and democracy. He viewed America as an emblem of hope and believed that she was looked up upon by the world in order to bring about an end to the Cold War and duplicate her accomplishments.
Reagan’s belief was that the Cold War could be won rather than simply managed. To counter Soviet aggression, he strengthened the American military and formed alliances with NATO members. The Soviets viewed this as unfavorable due to the increased U.S. military budget and Reagan’s commitment to establishing the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as Star Wars. Despite Soviet concerns, Reagan continued to escalate tensions, demonstrating to them that they couldn’t match him militarily (Barnathan). With a declining economy and Mikail Gorbachev leading reforms in the Soviet Union, Reagan’s approach ultimately led to triumph in the Cold War. This approach has also influenced subsequent presidents such as George W. Bush who took a pragmatic approach in combating terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared that no expense would be spared by the United States in eradicating terrorists worldwide.
President Bush adopted President Reagan’s strategy from the Cold War as the basis for combating this war. He drew parallels between the war on terror and the ideological struggle of the Cold War, highlighting that both share an enemy who despises freedom and aims to impose totalitarian rule. Like during the Cold War, our opponent dismisses individuals living in freedom, suggesting that those who cherish liberty are weak and corrupted, insinuating their inability to defend our way of life.
Similar to the Cold War, America is once more responding to history’s summons with assurance — and akin to the Cold War, liberty will triumph. President Bush emphasized the clear disparity between the terrorists and Americans (alongside other individuals who enjoy freedom worldwide), asserting his commitment to a pragmatic strategy that encompasses tangible actions, not mere rhetoric, in countering terrorism. The President’s pragmatic blueprint in the fight against terrorism has resulted in the overthrow of governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Despite receiving criticism, both wars have resulted in the liberation of the peoples of these nations from previous oppression. The President has employed a combination of realism and idealism to achieve this. This mirrors how American leaders transitioned from isolationism to a realistic foreign policy during World War II, and from idealism to realism in Reagan’s efforts to end the Cold War. President Bush’s pragmatic approach in the war on terror has led to significant global transformations. It is imperative for America to continue with this practical mindset and avoid returning to an idealistic perspective.
America needs to understand that the war on terror is not a matter of law enforcement, but rather a war against a totalitarian ideology that aims to destroy Western civilization, similar to Communism (McInerney 166). The Realism approach to foreign policy has proven effective in dealing with an adversary who only responds to violence and does not seek to adopt our values. Idealism is insufficient in addressing this new adversary; only a realist approach will ensure America’s future (Barnathan, D’Souza, Houghton, Koreanwar.com, McCormick, McInerney and Vallely).
