ASSIGNMENT

From Cold War to the War on Terrorism

Hello again, my name is Caleb fissure here to talk to you about foreign policy. And just to provide a context for where we're at and that current, current foreign policy arena. And so here's just some, the first slide, just the American perspective on foreign policy. Because a lot of you are Americans. If you're not an American, that's fine. You still, American foreign policy still influences much of the foreign policy arena and the international scene, obviously. So here's just some things we need to remember about America. And it's kinda sad because it's very wonderful things that America has accomplished domestically, also in terms of foreign policy. But there's also some terrible things that America has done in both respects. So first, the quest for religious freedom, we've talked about this with respect to the Protestant Reformation. Those people persecuted came to America for political freedom and religious freedom. And in doing so, they brought with them this idea of covenantal theology, which led to federalism and sharing of power between the state and national government, which led to a lot more freedom, rule by consent, use of the Constitution, separation of powers, all these wonderful things that have assured Americans of the most freedom that every, than it has ever been experienced by a citizen under any, under any regime in the history of mankind. Beautiful. However, the same political system, a lot for slavery to occur. And even the notion of Manifest Destiny, that, that America would be a unit you a unified country from coast to coast meant that we lied to the Indian populations. We promised them certain parts of America that would, They would have as long as the river flows in the grass is green, like my home state, Oklahoma. And yet it is a State of the Union. So we did not keep our promises to the unions. The Trail of Tears where the Cherokees actually tried to learn the English language, become sophisticated, get educated, really try to play by our rules. And in other words, but it didn't work because they found gold, their land, and the whites, one of them out there so that they could get that golden. So the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, very sad, very tragic, very, very inconsistent with these wonderful lofty ideals of political freedom and covenantal ideas. Can I get a witness? So this is the America that we're dealing with. The same with respect to the Manifest Destiny. Not only was it an internal thing, was also that democracy should be spread throughout the world. The problem with that, It sounds wonderful like we want everybody to be democratic like us. But can you do that via imperialism? Can you forced democracy and other countries, especially when their worldview doesn't allow for it, I would say probably not going to be very careful. Patient stay away from anything. You're forced upon people. I think we'd all agree with that. But of course nothing is simple. Now the history of American in any international realm is that you have from the first President, George Washington. He's encouraging isolationism. He is saying, look guys, look at the 30 years war in Europe, look at the entangling alliances that, that leads to. And now, if you're too involved in the affairs of other nations, you get swept in, pulled into their wars. We don't want any part of that involvement, right? But it can't be helped to some extent because we have Europe trying to get involved in Latin America. And by default, we feel like, well, that's a threat to us. And they'll eventually use that to get involved in our affairs. So a president in a row, the Monroe Doctrine says You stay away. You know, don't, don't try to get too involved in Latin America. As we go into World War 1, which was, you know, all of the treaties that an alliance that exists in Europe were meant to discourage war. And because they're so an interlocking one little petty squabble and one tiny country To World War one. So tragic, speaks to the frailty of human treaties and so forth. But we were supportive of Great Britain. We got pulled into that war against Germany. The way World War one ended, set the stage for a lot of bitterness in Germany was very harsh. Stipulations against them. They were bitter. Hitler fed that bitterness and then led to World War Two. We got attacking Pearl Harbor. That was much more clear self-defense. We got involved in that where we want and we helped win. And then we became the Cold War champion. We were the ones. America was the nation that most was the leading opponent to the Soviet Union and the tyranny that came with the spread of communism. The problem is that during the Cold War, it was just not, it was just difficult. United States as a government feared the spread of Stalinism rightfully so. So the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts throughout the world, the US was always trying to contain the spread of communism. And even to the point that Reagan said, not only are we going to try to contain the spread of communism, we're going to try to push it back and fight it back. And so America was always viewed as this bright shine light on the hill. The land of opportunity, the home of the free, home of the brave. We, we're the good guys during the Cold War. It was much simpler back then you had two choices. Democracy or communism. America. Soviet Union pick a side and is pretty clear. And what was really funny though during that time is that Hollywood types and other progressives loves communism. For the longest time. They thought stone was a great men. That's why Time magazine gave another is really pretty a lot attention to sound. They didn't realize and they perhaps weren't willing to recognize it first what a brutal tyrant he was. Because they liked the idea of communism. They never liked the idea that's downward. Try to force it on people and kill people, millions of people killed and imprisoned by Stalin and his predecessors and successors. And they would never say that was good, but they are willing to kind of, well, maybe that's not true. I don't know, it's such a great idea. Can't we kinda be somewhat sympathetic to communism? Okay? And if the other problem that was, that made it difficult was that in the case of the Vietnam War. And another situations, America, in trying to stop the spread of communism, Often made alliances with questionable leaders of other countries. Case in point, Vietnam, no-go dm is put in power kind of by Kennedy, Kennedy administration. Okay, this guy is pro-democracy. He's going to be a good guy. We can trust them, but they go dM was a total jerk to his people. He didn't allow for elections. He confiscated lands. He tried to remove Buddhism because he was a good Catholic. And apparently it's okay for Catholic, for Christians to just beat people into submission in terms of religious conformity, right? So what did he do? He made it easier for the Vietcong to rise into power and to rebel. He caused the Vietnam conflict because of his own terrible leadership. Now what if America had chosen somebody better to support? And Vietnam, where we've had the Vietnam conflict. I don't, maybe not. So the progressive liberal types criticizing our involvement in Vietnam to some extent you have to kind of appreciate where they're coming from because there were a lot of bad things to happen the Vietnam War. Well, was it, was it worse than a line for a complete communist takeover? I don't know because so far as I know, the Viet Cong weren't really nice to the Vietnamese either. They are also tyrannical and abusive. So it's, it's kind of a love-hate relationship with communism from the left. It was a very complicated time during the Cold War. Even though we were the good guys, We did a lot of questionable things because of these unintended consequences of trying to support rulers that were really not good case. Another case in point, Saddam Hussein, we gave that guy military weapons because we thought he was more likely to support us than he was the Soviet Union. It wasn't that he was a true friend. But the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of thing. Now that we always make the right decision, I don't think so. Was it wrong necessarily to support these less than stellar liters? I don't know if it was inherently wrong either because we don't do anything in a vacuum, but it's something for you to think about in terms of our critique. Now, the post-modern critique of all of this is that you have the big boys, the Americans, just fortunately there will upon other people. And in the end, it wasn't just America dominance in the foreign policy arena. It was American commercialism spreading throughout the world, destroying unique cultures of other nations, Indigenous people groups through the Hollywood and the westernization of the Third World and so forth. So America today, once the Cold War ended, we're not as popular as we used to be just by default. There's not this huge bad guy like there used to be. But let's just say this too. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the early 90s, you, you have people began to think, well maybe, maybe it's over the end of history. Francis Fukuyama wrote this book, the article, The End of History, very controversial, very controversial but very popular. His point was, maybe we're at the point where democracy is finally one way that we have evolved to a point in society where democracies is because it's going to be the norm across the board. And we never will have the type of conflict we've had in the past. And I'm, and I'm almost certainly unit gross injustice to his ideas, but that was a kind of a summary. And so that was one thought. But then you'd have this other thinkers, Samuel Huntington, the clash of civilizations with his book, a great read in his point was, you know what, now that the Cold War's over in this bipolar US versus USSR. Once that's gone, these old, ancient, ethnic driven animosities will read up here. And he said, he's going to happen in the Balkans, is going to happen in the Middle East. And sure enough, they did the 90s into of course, two thousand, two thousand one. We are seeing these old ethnic rivalries occur, the resurfacing and they were kind of put under and hidden because of the Cold War in there. Now they're back in our faces again, we're still having to deal with them. And it's really funny. As scared as we were during the Cold War of nuclear annihilation. What's really ironic is that if, if terrorists get a hold of a nuclear bomb were much less, I mean, it's just much dangerous now, much more dangerous now because back in the day, you had rational actor to some extent, the Soviet Union knew the implications. If they've dropped a nuke on us, mutually assured destruction. With that, we're going to do the same to them. Everyone would hurt. But if you have a jihadist who sees that, if I drop a bomb and I die and other people die, that's just bringing glory to Allah. It's a lot less secure, isn't it? So it's just very ironic. So what do we have today? Just some general thoughts for you now, obviously this is not meant to be an exhaustive. This is just meant to be in a big picture overview of the foreign policy arena. Well, first we've got globalization. Say what you will. But the free market system has spread throughout the world. And millions of people are being lifted out of poverty because a free market principles, that doesn't mean that it's occurring equally across the board. What studies are finding is that where nations are more politically stable, less corrupt, you seen the benefits of the free market. More people are being lifted out of poverty in those nations, less so in third world nations where there is corrupt rulers and so forth, we have the war on terror, of course, 9, 11. It's a never ending war. And that brings up wonderfully difficult questions about what we do with respect to human rights. How do we deal with prisoners of war? It's a conventional war. If you're a prisoner, you're, you're, you're brought into a prison. Hopefully you're treated reasonably well. You're not, you know, your human rights are protected. When the war is over, you go home. What do we do in a war on terror that never ends? We pick up somebody because we think they are a terrorist. We have good reason to believe that they just stay it, get more forever. Is that really fair and just difficult questions that we have to, to answer. Same challenge we face is, how do we prevent unintended consequences if we made bad decisions during the Cold War ally, as in the case of Vietnam and Iraq, with supporting bad leaders, what are we doing today? That will also have unintended consequences down the road with fear and trembling, with much prayer, we have to work through these issues. My final point is somewhat encouraging. It's sobering. It, it makes you think Philip Jenkins, the next Christianity is, is book. Christianity is spreading like wildfire throughout the global south along with Islam. But Chris is still the world's fastest growing religion. It is changing the orientation of power within the church itself. And I think we're going to see a realignment with what, with all the implications of what it means for the global south to become the predominant Christian force, no longer the West. And that is also something we're dealing with in this context, the post Cold War context. A lot of food for thought allow things to think about a further. I hope you will do that during this module. Thank you for your time.