Do you agree?
What do you think of the actions the United States has been taking to battle terrorism?
America lost focus. The focus should have been in Afghanistan and Pakistan but instead was on Iran. This led to a loss of both American support and American lives. Foreign policy has. Gone awry because of mistakes. We’ve failed internationally.
How effective do you think the current foreign policy is?
If the goal was to protect America, we’ve been successful. If the foal was to initiate trade, we’ve failed, because we’ve lost manufacturing and trade policies and didn’t work for a race to the top. We raced to the bottom. Therefore it was majorly a failure.
Where did we do too much and where did we do too little?
We did too much in the Middle East and not enough in Latin America, which is growing, but we gave no response and didn’t initiate relations.
How much say does the populace get in foreign policy?
Populace gets very little say, they just elect those officials whose policies they support.
How much say should the populace get in foreign policy?
Again, they elect politicians to take actions for them. It’s a good system of representative democracy.
Which policies do you think are most effective when dealing with terrorism?
We should look at places with very little terrorism. Relations should be noted just in economic interest. Part of the solution would be to create a culture where terrorism is socially unacceptable, which is up to the youth and will be a long process.
Why do you think we sometimes work with countries that support terrorism and not with countries that have working democracies?
We sometimes work with such countries to support our goals, such as economic interests. A good example is Saudi Arabia.
The United States has the world’s strongest armed forces. In the coming few decades, which country or what entity is going to the the United States’ greatest strategic threat? Where and how should our armed forces be stationed and equipped to handle this threat?
Our greatest threats in the coming decades will be Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, but in the coming century it will be China. We must relocate our resources, which will cause a loss in Latin American relations, but is necessary.
AP Compostion, p.2
“If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace”- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When humanity began to realize that we possess an awareness far more complex than any other living being, we began to notice how we all strive for the same thing: what it means to be human. Each region globally yields its own ideology, practices and cultural identity, or what is commonly known as a civilization. So what happens when one civilization encounters another? One could only imagine that engagement thousands of years ago. Although what seems to occur in the past as well as the present is conflict, utter warfare, and the disintegration of various civilizations. Highly acclaimed writer Samuel P. Huntington promoted this concept of civilization disharmony with his prominent thesis in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, written in 1996. Huntington conveys to the leaders and inhabitants of all civilizations that the post-Cold War era will behold vast conflict regarding people’s cultural and religious identities. With the use of rhetorical devices such as tone, diction, repetition, logos, ethos and allusion, Huntington guides his central theme that the inevitability of conflict, adherence, and dissolution during the post-Cold War world due to multi-polar global politics, a shifting balance of power, a civilization-based world, the Western civilization’s vanity, and a questionable survival of the West juxtaposes the obvious outcome that a clash of civilizations shall ensue.
In Huntington’s first section, titled ‘A World of Civilizations’, Huntington uses repetition to compare the ideas of Westernization vs. Modernization and to say that global politics “…is both multipolar and multicivilizational…” (20). Huntington expresses this point by having the words: paradigm, Westerners, and modernization occur multiple times throughout this section. The word ‘paradigm’ is used to describe a society or person’s certain view or belief; furthermore, according to Huntington, “Paradigms also generate predictions, and a crucial test of a paradigm’s validity and usefulness is the extent to which the predictions derived from it turn out to be more accurate than those from alternative paradigms” (17). Huntington says that civilizations will clash because each society has their own beliefs and culture even though it might not necessarily be the ‘correct’ paradigm. Huntington also repeats the idea of Westernization vs. Modernization and says that “the expansion of the West has promoted both the modernization and the Westernization of the non-Western societies” (72); however, Westernization does not always equal Modernization: “Initially, Westernization and Modernization are closely linked…as the pace of modernization increases, however, the rate of Westernization declines and the indigenous culture goes through a revival” (76). World leaders have responded to the West’s impact on Modernization in three different way. First is Rejectionism, where both Westernization and Modernization are undesirable. Second is Kemalism, opposite of Rejectionism, where both are desirable. Last is Reformism, where Westernization is undesirable but Modernization is desirable. These different responses show that although societies might be modernizing, they will clash considering the vast difference of their paradigms. In other words, Modernization does not always equal Westernization and Modernization does not always equal peace.
Secondly, in ‘The Shifting Balance of Civilizations’, Huntington uses logos to say that fading of the West leads to other non-Western Civilizations reaffirming their culture. Reasonably speaking, Huntington proves his theory by providing tables of information. For example, the ‘Territory Under the Political Control of Civilizations’ table on page 84, shows Western territory percent to go from 38.7% to 24.2% (-14.5%) in 93 years while African, Hindu, Islamic, and other territories rose. This Western territorial difference is because of civilizations confirming their culture and also makes a difference in Western military power. In Table 4.6 on page 88, titled ‘Civilization Shares of Total World Military Manpower’, Western military manpower shares went from 43.7% in 1900 to 21.1% in 1991 with a -22.6% difference between 91 years. Huntington predicts that “…the early years of the twenty-first century are likely to see an ongoing resurgence of non-Western Power and culture and the clash of the peoples of non-Western civilizations with the West and with each other” (121). Altogether, Huntington logically suggests that while more societies confirm their cultures and Western power fades; the possibility of clashes between Western and non-Western rise.
Huntington uses ethos appeal in his third section to help him argue that the world order is becoming increasingly about world civilizations and cultures. Huntington triggered many heated discussions with the article that inspired his book: “The Clash of Civilizations”. His name was repeated over and over amongst “people of every civilization” (13) when they discussed his article. People all over the world were “”variously impressed, intrigued, outraged, frightened, and perplexed by my [Huntington’s] argument that the central and most dangerous dimension of the emerging global politics would be conflict between groups from differing civilizations” (13). Based on his success with the article, Huntington managed to create a book that obtained prestige and therefore ethos appeal. The ethos appeal provided by his reputation makes Huntington more convincing and therefore places emphasis on his arguments. With such a novel idea, more people are likely to be “outraged, frightened, and perplexed,” (13) than to accept the idea. Huntington’s reputation allowed him to publish a work on his theory that would be considered carefully. Huntington states his ideas with confidence that he will be heard and argues that “global politics is being reconfigured along cultural lines” (125). Because he is well-known, his opinions seem more viable and he therefore makes a stronger argument. According to Huntington, “in the emerging global politics, the core states of civilization are supplanting the two Cold War superpowers as the principal poles of attraction and repulsion for other countries,” (155). This replacement would drastically transform world politics by changing the way countries and powers think of themselves. To have a world based on culture, and not led by a select few would individualize many aspects of society that are currently more about the herd. Huntington argues that the future is a world of peoples that identify themselves and their countries by their culture, not by their alliance to world powers.
In the fourth section of his book, Huntington uses logos appeal to convey his argument that “as the relative power of other civilizations increases, the appeal of Western culture fades and non-Western peoples have increasing confidence in and commitment to their indigenous cultures” (183). Huntington uses logos appeal through his sound reasoning about the most likely events to8argue persuasively. For example, it is clear the West would prefer the rest of the world to be Westernized, and it is also clear that most of the world would not allow the West to do so. Therefore, the logical conclusion that Huntington draws is that “the central problem in the relations between the West and the rest is, consequently, the discordance between the West’s — particularly America’s — efforts to promote a universal Western culture and its declining ability to do so” (183). The simple A to B logic of his arguments in the fourth section have logos appeal because they are conclusions most people would draw given all the facts that Huntington uses for reference.
Lastly, the fifth section uses a cultural allusion to conclude that while the West continues to clash ideally with other civilizations, the only way that the West will continue to reign as an empire is to return back to its roots in Europe, and assert its cultural identity, or else it will decay faster than expected. Huntington states that “in the mid-1990’s the West had many characteristics identified as those of a mature civilization on the brink of decay” (304). Consequently, this occurrence has proved to be true because of “low economic growth rates, saving rates, and investment rates” (304), which are adverse to that of East Asia. Furthermore, economics and demographics are not extremely relevant when it comes to an entire empire collapsing. Huntington advises that a far more significant problem of “moral decline, cultural suicide, and political disunity” (304) in the West will adhere to the predicted downfall of its culture. However, the ultimate contrivance that the West needs to fathom according to Huntington is that “the futures of the United States and of the West depend upon Americans reaffirming their commitment to Western civilization” (307). In the domestic realm, this means that Americans must not coincide to the call of multiculturalism; while internationally, Americans must ultimately reject the heeding call to identify themselves with Asia. “Whatever economic connections may exist between them, the fundamental cultural gap between Asian and American societies precludes their joining together in a common home” (307). Moreover, Huntington expresses that the allusion of the commonalities of civilizations is attempting to shape the United States and its cultural identity. “The preservation of the United States and the West requires the renewal of Western identity. The security of the world requires acceptance of global multiculturality” (318). This points out the fact that multiculturalism in the United States and the West denies the uniqueness of Western culture. Although, a major rule for peace according to Huntington is that “peoples in all civilizations should search for and attempt to expand the values, institutions, and practices they have in common with peoples of other civilizations” (320). All in all, the use of the cultural allusion in section five portrayed the concept that the West must reaffirm its cultural identity or else the clash of civilizations will become much more conflicted than ever before.
The basic conception of a civilization is truly remarkable and history has proven human cooperation to be what holds us all together. In this world of dark and light, chaos and love, emotion and logic, mankind seems to shine on the darkest stage. Mankind seems to unite in the most non-unified way. Mankind seems to explain that which cannot be explained. Mankind seems to look past the most crucial component of why we are undeniably unique, which is that we will never know why we exist so beautifully yet so monstrously. There may be this “clash of civilizations”, yet after judging and handing out predispositions, we forgot the very reason why this whole notion succeeded from chaos and became love. We are all human. We are all searching for the answer to our question. We are all part of a large anomaly that have been given religious and non-religious answers to why we exist. So why do we clash and battle against one another? One can give many reasons why, but human nature proves to be the major idea. Yet, does being a human equipped with human nature justify the clash of civilizations? No, it does not. As the philosophical movement of existentialism puts it, our existence precedes our essence. The essence of Western culture may indeed differ from the essence of Islamic culture. The essence of East Asian culture does indeed differ from the essence of African culture. But no matter how many conflicting beliefs on who a person should worship or who a person should dislike does not disprove the fact that our existence is just like their existence. If we all live within the same bounds that we call Earth, then we all exist in the same exact fashion. In the 1950’s, Lestor Pearson warned that humans were moving into “an age when different civilizations will have to learn to live side by side in peaceful interchange, learning from each other, studying each other’s history and ideals and art and culture, mutually enriching each other’s lives. The alternative, in this overcrowded little world, is misunderstanding, tension, clash, and catastrophe”. One culture may claim one region to be their home, or may claim one idea to be their idea, but we all live on the same planet, and withstand the same problems and choices as every other person on this planet. Humanity has been able to understand how to clash and fight together, it’s about time humanity understands how to live and love together.
12 March. 2012
Our chaotic reality, more endearingly known as human civilization, follows a path of past, present and future destruction. Implicitly, our existence subsists among chaos, further enlightening us with the essence of love. Explicitly, chaos subsists among our existence due to the love, devotion and desire for power. So “When the power of love overcomes the love of power […]”, the world will then know peace (Hendrix). Unfortunately, the clash of civilizations (Huntington) continues to reconstruct the geopolitical realm as well as the tension correlating to each country on earth. The human need for control is certain. Whether argued for on a low scale such as a parent-child relationship, or on a higher scale such as a government-citizen relationship, control characterizes humanity. Every currency, commodity, ideology, religion, and governance relates to power either directly or indirectly. As history has shown, collateral damage coincides with power and control. Every great empire has collapsed because of rash decisions and grandiose assertions of control. Today, nothing differentiates from the past, because conflict prevails among humanity and shapes the world both objectively and subjectively. The United States of America beholds the general characteristics of a modern empirical state. The United States has obtained power partly due to the heroic accomplishment of defeating the “axis of evil” in World War Two, but also because of the human urge to claim power. With the resources at hand, and by being the somewhat archetypal example of democracy, America stands on the proverbial podium as the most powerful nation on earth. And with all of this power, America to some degree, dictates its foreign policy arbitrarily, which creates an overwhelming amount of anti-American sentiment. No region in the world has expressed more anti-American sentiment than the Middle East. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have proved costly in nearly every sense of the word, with the financial costs exceeding over a trillion dollars for the U.S. (nationalpriorities.org), and countless human lives lost due to warfare. Interestingly enough, America confirms that a nation far more dangerous resides in the Middle East and it just so happens to be the neighbor of both Iraq and Afghanistan. In his state of the union address in 2002, President George W. Bush labeled North Korea, Iraq and Iran as the new “axis of evil” (University of Virginia). Iran, identified today as an unstable regime since its disputed elections in 2009, continues to attempt to garner nuclear capabilities as a source of energy and assumingly for nuclear weapons. Most of the international community feels inclined to halt Iran’s nuclear program due to evidence that Iran has funded terrorist groups (Byman 169) and admits to opposing Israeli statehood (Menashri 107), while the statehood remains a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East. With American intervention already underway through the use of economic sanctions (Stokes) and an international effort to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program (Tira 39), the United States’ foreign policy must continue to focus on creating good relations with Iran and displaying an atmosphere of peace that the world can collectively adhere to, rather than focusing on the selfish American power stronghold. If international peace were to persist in the twenty-first century, it would depend on the direction of U.S. diplomacy with Iran involving economic sanctions, nuclear disarmament policies and America’s desire for security as well as Iran’s desire for security.
Internationally placed economic sanctions on Iran’s central bank and oil exportation program continues to disrupt the Iranian economy and are causing Iran to rethink their decisions regarding their nuclear program. Iran’s refusal to comply with international declarations to stop their nuclear arms program has caused the country to acquire vast economic sanctions. A study from 2008 showed that “50 to 70 percent of Iranian government revenue and 80 percent of export earnings were from oil exports” (Ghadar and Sobhani 22). Meanwhile, since 2005, oil output has declined fifteen percent, even when Iran is home to some of the largest oil and gas reserves on the planet. Besides the exportation industry, “Finance costs for Iranian importers have risen by as much as 30 percent because of the difficulty and expense of working around the sanctions” (Stokes). Some U.S. sanctions even go beyond the United Nation’s previous sanctions where “companies that invest more than $20 million in any project that ‘significantly contributes to the enhancement of Iran’s ability to develop petroleum resources’ will face penalties that range from restrictions on credit received from U.S. financial institutions to denials of maritime insurance for vessels transporting gasoline to Iran” (Stokes). Along with these economic sanctions, the European Union has imposed an oil embargo on Iran, which has already affected global oil prices and has been questioned by the international community as to whether they are necessary (Bowers The Guardian). The multilateral efforts to curb the Iranian economy have technically worked in the sense that the economy does not grow substantially. Yet the hope that Iran discontinues its nuclear program because of a sanctioned economy holds no feasibility, because the “Economic and political sanctions are viewed as equally ineffective because of Russian and Chinese opposition and European reluctance […]” (Jakobsen and Rahigh-Aghsan 559). Achieving peace must involve direct compliance with Iran’s regime and not just assuming that a failing economy will cause them to finally negotiate peace. The U.S. declares that the economic sanctions are working; yet, not in the sense of the overall scheme of things. The applied sanctions have not deterred Iran’s nuclear capabilities; if anything it entices them to revolt against America’s diplomacy and creates an atmosphere of conflict and tension. More importantly, the Iranian people must ultimately come together and hypothesize whether or not their country’s nuclear aspirations are more important than their wellbeing. Due to these economic sanctions imposed by the U.S, the Iranian people are becoming more impoverished and are currently resenting the ongoing policies. The U.S. must not focus so much on economic sanctions, but focus on direct talks with the Iranian regime about how to establish better relations and a realistic opportunity of peace.
In accordance with economic sanctions, the Iranian nuclear program still endures to develop nuclear arms, and American propositions to stop the program will be an important component in inducing Iran to rethink its infatuation with nuclear weapons and conclusively taking the next step towards a peaceful reality. The program is a key issue and exists with a variety of international opposition to it and America stands by the affirmation that the program must be terminated. In “The Rise of Iran: How Durable, How Dangerous?”, Peter Viggo Jakobsen and Ali Rahigh-AghsanMany question Iran’s nuclear capabilities, by stating that their unstable regime and economy may cause their nuclear ventures to fail (559). Although, according to a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran produces enough low-enriched uranium to fuel a nuclear bomb, and the final step would be to enrich it more to make weapon-grade uranium (iaea.org). Iran may be willing to take the next step. The United States believes that a nuclear armed Iran would be detrimental to the essential regional and international peacemaking efforts necessarily required to accomplish the outcome of peace. Moreover, the entire world must recognize the incomprehensible dangers of a nuclear armed Iran because they would be capable of manipulating the Middle East, due to the proven funding of anti-American terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah (169). However, Iran obtaining nuclear weaponry would cause a fluctuation of events to occur that would prevent the balance of power from shifting towards the Iranian regime. Accordingly, the rise of Iran might not be that everlasting because “the failure to stop the Iranian nuclear program has led analysts to underestimate the ability of the other regional powers and the West to balance Iran and contain its influence, even if it acquires nuclear weapons. If these limitations on Iranian power are taken into account the rise seems destined to be a short one” (559). So the U.S must take into account that other regional powers and international allies will step forward and lead the international organization to believe that Iran must be prevented from unleashing nuclear weapons of any sort. America must understand that they are not alone and must not be too susceptible to rash decisions. Multilateral coordination is the best option in dealing with Iran because mutually assured destruction is the only outcome in a situation where Iran preemptively launches some degree of nuclear war. If America can persuade Iran through rational and multilateral techniques that the notion of nuclear weapons will only entail complete destruction and collateral damage, then the first steps towards universal peace in the present century may be possible.
Iranian security plays an important factor in America attempting to establish good relations with the regime. Concurrently, the state of American security will conduct future actions and policies towards Iran and the Middle East, so the security needs of both countries’ essentially dictates the types of choices each country makes in regards to the other. Depending on how America treats the Iranian regime, Iranian security or lack thereof directly contributes to productive and legitimate peace talks as well as a mutual understanding of an international relationship. For instance the “U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan precipitated Iranian reactions, including development of a nuclear weapons program, which pose challenges for international security. These developments enhance the strength of the Iranian regime against certain threats like the use of conventional military power” (Williams). America’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan indicated an immediate threat to Iranian security because arguably the world’s most established conventional military power surrounded and practically isolated Iran. Furthermore, the decisive military actions led by the U.S. connotes that America indeed withholds a substantial amount of power that the U.S. will justify using in the right circumstance. U.S. relations with the Middle East have never been wonderful, and creating a sense of isolation and threatened security to Iran does not mend relations with the regime because “The proposed establishment of two democratic states, which maintain sympathetic, dependent relationships with the United States fundamentally, changed the way power would be distributed in the region and created a sense of vulnerability within the Iranian regime” (Williams). The invasion of Iraq must be recognized as a leading example of why America should not engage militarily in Iran since the wars in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan “were overcome by protracted insurgencies and political instability, resulting in tenuous gains in democratic development that came at an enormous cost” (Eckholm 35). Steps must be taken to ensure Iran that American and Iranian security efforts coincide with each other. Nuclear war or threat of nuclear weaponry deployment should be erased from both nations’ lists of possible paths to take to ensure their own security, because the reality of mutually assured destruction (39) is inevitable and rather than initiating an atmosphere of peace, a frivolous blame game will take place. Iran must rethink its strategy regarding the development of nuclear weapons; yet, the U.S. has to redirect its actions and policies against Iran and the Middle East because their policies are enticing anti-American sentiment and do not convey an idea of peaceful compromise but rather stimulate the urge to further terrorize and disrupt America’s stronghold on power.
Humanity contemplates the concept of power and its existence. However humanity is in itself paradoxical. In some ways, we are “condemned to be free” (Jean-Paul Sartre); yet we continue roaming the earth endlessly trying to find the home that “one never reaches” (Hermann Hesse). Nothing controls us and we are left with only ourselves and the reality our minds’ set forth for us. But at the same time, some events and occurrences are pre-determined, left for fate to lend a helping hand. Was it fate that America now stands on the proverbial podium as the most powerful nation on earth? Or were there freely exhibited choices made to create the present day America? All great empires collapse, because time is the only true enemy in this world. Human society lives off of destruction and decay. Once a great and glorious nation collapses, the balance of power paradigm shifts towards the direction it sees best. Power tends to act ostentatiously as an objective and subjective idea; therefore, any given country will notice power, and strive to claim the capabilities it. The result of a nation acquiring power usually involves them craving a desire to exercise it.
America exerts its power any way it pleases, largely due to their empirical presence. The reason Iran and parts of the Middle East convey a lot of anti-American sentiment is because they ultimately wish to obtain what they cannot have, power. The direction that the balance of power paradigm shifted was in the United States’ favor. Ever since the end of World War Two, mankind has been questioning whether or not World War Three will soon commence. The question is outdated, because the world has been at war since the beginnings of human civilization. As the “Ministry of Peace” said in George Orwell’s book, 1984, “we have always been at war with Eurasia […] we have always been at war with Eastasia.” The clash of civilizations has always been a part of human history, and the desire for power will exist forever. But humanity exists within the parameters of consciousness, and realizing that gaining more resources and commodities, or acquiring more land and geopolitical power does not create a peaceful environment nor a solution to human warfare seems to be crucial. The solution will come through subjective means. Each individual is a part of this existence, and we must recognize our fellow man with respect in order to reach the concept of peace. We are pre-determined to clash and conflict with each other, and the United States and Iran are just one example of the disaccord that prevails within society. On the contrary, man is free, and freedom implies that we retain the responsibility of our actions, and overlooking geopolitical disagreements seems to be the first step towards creating an atmosphere of peace. So we can live ignorantly without free-will and be “happy”, or we can embrace our authentic self and accept the responsibility of our freedom. If mankind hopes to progress towards peace, they need not look too far, because the answer lies within themselves, within their essence and within their existence, and most importantly, within their freedom.
October 19th 2011
AP Comp period 2
Factoid Friday: Foreign policy
A couple of weeks ago, on September 30th, the United States successfully killed nine Al-Qaeda members in an airstrike in Yemen. This is in addition to, as many people know, President Obama and the navy seals plan that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden last May, another huge terrorist threat, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and Al-Awlaki’s son who died in the recent airstrike. Even though the US has had many victories in exterminating terrorists, Yemen, the place that the US has killed many terrorists in and a country aiding help to the U.S to defeat Al-Qaeda, is going through turmoil as Hamza Hendawi from the register guard reported in an article titled ‘U.S.-born militant’s son among dead in airstrike’ last Sunday.
Many people wonder why the U.S has been so successful recently with the battle against terrorism. Many terrorists and Al-Qaeda favors staying in Yemen and Yemen is helping us defeat them. Also, Yemeni officials have explained the recent accomplishments are from the recent intelligence from the recent army of inside sources and help from the Saudis.
The Yemenis have obviously been a huge help. However, the people of Yemen have had many issues with the government. President and Dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh is desperately trying to hold his position. However, curiously similar to Syria, the people have held protests against their government. Last Saturday, 300,000 people protested in Yemen’s capital. President Saleh had his troops fire at the crowd and at least 18 people were killed. Also, yesterday the revolutionary forces of Libya killed Libya’s dictator, Gadhafi, with the support from NATO (which includes the United States). The Libyan situation is very similar to the Yemen situation concerning dictators and protests.
Although we have had many victories defeating terrorists, we are also working with a dictator who the people of Yemen hate. Considering the fact that the U.S held support of killing a dictator very similar to Saleh, the moral question is, is working with a dictator who goes completely against the American way okay just because he is helping us with the terrorism problem?
Being one of the most powerful counties in the modern world gives the United States the opportunity to exert its power both nationally and internationally. Ever since becoming a world power in the 1900’s, the United States has interacted diplomatically with many other countries. For example, the United States government funded many governments in other smaller second or third world countries. Unfortunately, these actions have not always worked out for the better. In the Middle East and Africa, several American funded governments turned out to be corrupt and did not fulfill the promises of better lives they gave to their citizens. In South America as well, the United States has funded or that not have been just or fair. Currently, the United States is still exerting its power wherever it can. There are American troops in over one hundred and fifty countries worldwide, with different purposes in each country.
Within our domestic front, our citizens are very unaware of our many occupations and deployments in other countries. Even with a presidential election approaching, Americans are still very ignorant when it comes to the United States foreign policy. It is crucial that the citizens of America know what they are supporting internationally and are a part of the democratic nature of our country. With many conflicts worldwide, America’s influence became arguably the most prevalent in each. Because America is so involved in risking Americans’ lives as well as innocent bystanders, the populous at home must be aware and proactive with regards to our state of affairs.
The objectives of this venture is to inform the community of Eugene of the actions of the United States internationally so that when elections come, more people will know how they want the government to act abroad and therefore be able to vote accordingly. The group will research this question independently and as a group: which countries are American troops employed in? By researching American activity in other countries and gathering information from a survey given to fellow high school students, the group will learn new information from this project. The information taught in the speech will include the international exploits of the United States military and the goals of the foreign policy plans proposed by the candidates for presidency.
The first goal of the proposal is to create a survey inquiring upon the awareness about the United States foreign military activity to a sample of High School students. This survey will be research taken from experience and will involve interactions with adults (teachers). It will also be a venture into the community that requires use of real-life social skills. Then, after gathering the data, targeted posters will be designed using information from the survey and displayed around the community, the school, and public venue. These posters will notify the community of current military activity and hopefully raise awareness of both the United State’s foreign actions and foreign policy. In addition, a speech will be given at a public venue, will involve interaction with the community, adults and adults, and will also demonstrate knowledge. Furthermore, life requires public speaking, making the speech authentic. A PowerPoint will be made to enhance the speech, which involves the use of technology as well as being interactive media.
Although the United States is one of the influential countries in the world, many citizens lack awareness of America’s significant actions throughout the years. This proposal offers a plan to have the community of Eugene realize their ignorance toward United States foreign affairs. The group will document the process of the project by completing a log as they gather information about an average high school student’s awareness of foreign military activity in time for the citizens of Eugene to consider their vote on the presidential candidates.