"Foreign Affairs" And U.S. Policy On Iraq

"Foreign Affairs" is a famous magazine in the United States and the world in the field of international relations , almost all schoolars in the field of international relations who want to understand the trends in the United States policy take this magazine the first one required. It is very concerned about the United States and the world's most inportant problem. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq has become one of the most important problems of the United States foreign policy, this question has also become a "foreign affairs" mostly heated debate.from 1991 upto now, the debate on Iraq on "Foreign Affairs" issue can be roughly divided into two phase, that is, before 2003, the containment of Saddam Hussein's regime and the sanctions phase, since 2003 Iraq reconstruction phase. The issues on this two phase is different. Prior to 2003 the articles discussed are more about economic sanctions against Iraq, the dual containment on policy Iraq and Iran, whether or not to overthrow the Saddam regime, the Iraqi WMD problem and the weapons inspection and so on, and since 2003, the debate are focused on construction of a democratic regime in Iraq, how and when to withdraw troops from Iraq and so on. Whichever phase, the issues of Iraq are disscussed intensely, the problem may draw diametrically opposite viewpoints.Economic sanction against Iraq lasts fourteen years, this is the longest sanction in the history of the United States. The debate Caused by economic sanction became the most hot one, many "Foreign Affairs" article related to the extensive discussion. Some felt that it has traped Saddam in cage, reducing the disposable income of Saddam Hussein, and Saddam will stop developing WMD, and therefore considers that the economic sanctions to achieve its goal to be achieved. However, people who objects to economic sanctions think that econominc sanctions caused more casualties than Iraq WMD, brought Iraq enormous humanitarian catastrophe, the Iraqi people's living standards decline, so they had no time to consider the political demands for democracy, and also caused enormous anti-American sentiment.Saddam Hussein diverted humanitarian disaster Iraqi people, and he still be able to get money through the smuggling of large amounts of oil for the development of WMD. Therefore, the opposite of economic sanctions considered economic sanctions against Saddam didn't trapped sadamm in the box, and the United States cause a huge moral burden on the Arab world and America itself, aroused a great deal of anti-American sentiment. But economic sanctions against Iraq last fourteen years with only a series of minor changes, and ultimately was not canceled. This is mainly because the United States in Iraq had too few options.The Clinton administration developed the "dual containment" policy to suppress Iraq and Iran at the same time. Dual containment is not different from the United States'Iran and Iraq policy, which is using one country to deal with another country, but to suppress Iraq and Iran both at the same time. Supporters of dual containment think the dual containment policy in the Middle East taked new features, but they did not specify how to implement dual containment against Iraq and Iran at the same time. This is also main reason of dual containment for people to criticize. The opposite think there is no specific dual containment measures enforceable, but a political slogan.After the Gulf War, whether or not to overthrow the Saddam regime by the United States has become a problem to face. From the George Herbert Walker Bush did not directly overthrow the Saddam regime can be seen in the Gulf War the U.S. government's desire to overthrow the Saddam regime was not strong. But the ordinary people of the United States think the dministration's strategy not to overthrow Saddam regime mistake. However, with economic sanctions in Iraq causing enormous humanitarian catastrophe, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime has gradually become one of the options. "Foreign Affairs" basically reflects this trend. In the early years after the Gulf War are essential to find the reason for not to overthrow Saddam regime, and by the Clinton administration's second term, the voice of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime on the very high, and gradually turned into a discussion of how to overthrow the Saddam regime.WMD problem and the weapons inspectors. The majority articles "Foreign Affairs" suggest that WMD has enormous harm to the United States and the world,therefore requested to take strong measures to put an end to Saddam Hussein to obtain WMD. But there is also a small number of people did not think WMD did so much harm, even cause no more casualties than peanut allergies, lightning strike to the human. Instead, they consider economic sanctions against Iraq resulted in enormous humanitarian catastrophe, resulting in casualties more than WMD. And therefore asked the United States of abolition of economic sanctions against Iraq and reduce the humanitarian disaster in Iraq. The latter's opinion is too extreme. 9.11 has caused great casualties, which were not with the application of any WMD, it is conceivable that if the terrorists have WMD, casualties are immeasurable. Although there are no specific statistics to calculate one year the number of casualties due to lightning strikes compared to 9.11, but the human psychological impact caused 9.11 are unmatched by such a case of small probability.Oil and US-Iran relations. The majority of articles takes the view that the oil affects the United States's Iraq policy. In today's world the status of the Middle East is mainly because its oil resources. But there is also a small number of people think the United States spend an inordinate amount of money to protect oil flowing into the USA , 30 billion U.S. dollars oil flows but 60 billion spent in military spending. This opinion is biased, the United States's global hegemony should not be measured due to 30 billion, the Middle East in the territory of the United States'hegemony in the world as a whole is more than 30 billion.After 2003, the building of a democratic system in Iraq has become an important issue. On the issue that a democratic construction in Iraq can be or not, two parties divided. Some think Iraq has a democratic system foundation, but some didn't. The conditions for a democratic system is complicated, so it can't be simpy yes or not. If Iraq can build a democratic system, it must required the help of the international community, but also required the efforts of the Iraqi people themselves.Since the Bush Administration, Bush pre-emptive policy and Iraq policy has seriously damaged the relationship with its allies. This is the opinion held by most people. But the Americans recognize this issue in accordance with political parties lines. Most Republican think America has a good relationship with the other nations and the Democratic believes that the relationship between the United States and its allies have been very bad, even not be able to obtain the trust of allies.U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq from the beginning, did or not to withdraw became a problem widely discussed since. There are three viewpoint on this issue. Some consider a withdrawal from Iraq, so that the Iraqi people to manage their own. a lot of resistance organizations Iraq are just asking the United States to withdraw from Iraq, so long as the United States withdraw its troops the situation in Iraq may change better. Some has the opposite oppion. They think the withdraw from Iraq would repeat the mistakes of Vietnam of falling into a full-scale civil war. Another viewpoint is to withdraw troops from Iraq, but they should not immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq. This can avoid the above-mentioned two cases the situation that may be encountered. But in fact,this three oppions are all not perfect ones. Regardless of the first two,immediately withdraw its troops or not can not solve the problem of long-term presence, the third opinion could not provide a timetable for withdrawal, which is once again involved in the first two debate.The United States in Iraq is still faced with various problems. Democratic system in Iraq still under construction, the relationship between the United States and its allies is to be repaired, American troops withdraw still not has a specific agenda. And "Foreign Affairs"'s discussion of these issues and recommendations is continuing. The United States in 2009 has a new government, and the government of Bush's Republican party has become Obama's democratic. The Democratic Party should be more conservative than the Republican Party theoretically according history. It is possible for the Democratic Party government to implement the repbulic strategy. Obama campaign at the same time promised to the voters a withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, to repair relations with allies, to focus on economic recovery at home. As a black president, the United States give the world a new image; as the opposition Republican Party, Democratic Party, the Government will change a number of Republican policies; as a new president, it has hope that the next president to change the former president's mistakes. In short, Obama has promised to the electorate, but also has the chance to solve the problem of Iraq.