BOOK REVIEW:

FULL NAME OF THE BOOK: NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTIRATION (REASSESSING THE BUSH DOCTRINE)

AUTHOR: STANELY RENSHON

PUBLISHED in 2010                                        PUBLICATION: ROUTLEDGE

Number of pages : 308

                                                                                                    

DESCRIPTION:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: He is the professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center, and a psychoanalyst as well. He grew up in New Jersey and studied international relations at American University. He received his PhD in political science at the University of Pennsylvania in 1972. He received trainings on psychology at Long Island University. He has published 15 books and nearly ninety articles related to presidential politics, leadership and political psychology. Some of his books are:

-          Barack Obama and Politics of  Redemption ( 2011)

-          The Bush Doctrine and the Future if American National Security(2008)

-          The 50% American : National Identity in a Dangerous Age(2005)

-          Political Psychology: cultural and Cross-cultural foundations ( 2000)

Summary:

An overview of the current situation of an unpredictable and rapidly changing world is presented in the foreword. The world that Obama inherits is the one with too many tribulations at home and as well as the globe. In the global arena, Obama and the US face with a rapidly growing China, this currently a key worldwide power. And an uprising Russia with much more sway on the former satellites of the USSR while at the same time extends its hand to help the NATO troops in Afghanistan. The other issue Obama facing is the elevating threat of the nuclear proliferation, of contemporary re-birth of piracy, distressed states like Pakistan and Mexico. At the same time he should deal with countries like Great Britain, Germany, and France which their support cannot be taken for granted. Many believed that American headship, supremacy and power have declined so the new president has to find solution to cope with this widely perception. This view is strongly held by Obama administration that Bush’s policies and rivalries seriously damaged the American leadership. Obama is searching for a new American leadership which other countries leaders held other viewpoint as Russian Foreign Minister , Sergey Lavrov puts forward “ America has to recognize the reality of a “post – American “ world “ .

 Obama likely holds similar view to JFK’s that there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. Accordingly he has accentuated on the engagement and cooperation and new partnerships as a return to realism. Obama repeatedly has said that he is willing to see the world in terms of common security and common prosperity with other countries. Other than, Obama believes that if American national interests are not at stake, moral issues are at stake so he asserted that those issues should be considered as American national interests. The last part of the preface dedicated to answer this vital question whether Bush’s doctrine is still alive and what part of the Doctrine Obama administration will to continue. So it is prudent to watch over parts of the Bush’ Doctrine.

Part I

The Bush Doctrine Reconsidered:

The Evolution of a post -9/11 National security Perspective:

The vulnerability of the US was shown by the 9/11 attacks both inside at home and abroad as well. The attacks damaged the Hegemony of the American leadership and power. The attacks targeted America’s so-called military, economic, and political icons. Besides, these attacks demonstrated that non-state organization like Al-Qaeda, could inflict disastrous damage and poses and unexpected and unprecedented security dilemma. It was in such situation that Bush’s Doctrine was borne. Both liberals and conservatives criticized the Bush’s Doctrine for different reasons. Conservatives criticized it for lack of assertiveness and its failure in anticipating and managing the post Saddam Hussein Occupation. The Bush Doctrine could be best understood as a part of strategic premises or a framework for analysis. It can be traced back to a group called “Vulcan’s “. Among them were Dick Cheney, Francis Fokuyama, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. Their statement of principles included increasing defense spending and strengthening relationships with democratic allies. They want to promote freedom and democracy, challenge hostile regimes, extend America’s preferred international order, and of course remove Saddam Hussein from power. These suggestions were the basics and fundamental ideas of the Bush diplomacy. Given the Bush worldview that evil remains despite of the fall of the Soviet Union and that there are enemies who hate American values, he himself clearly favored a forward-looking offensive stance toward national security. The author argues that as circumstances change, doctrines must as well if they are to remain useful. So, the fact that the Bush Doctrine evolved should not be surprising. And it is the failing of Bush Doctrine critics that they fail to recognize this fact. No doctrine, however conceptually sound, guarantees successful implementation. Even when the worldviews of a grand strategy are essentially accurate, major new events can have a dramatic effect on the doctrine and lead to modifications. The worldview foundations of the Bush Doctrine, for example, were in place well before 9/11 but 9/11 brought new circumstances and new understandings, and, as a result, new policies. The question is whether there could be a mixture of the central national security questions of our time and policies of Bush and Obama administration.

The Real Bush Doctrine

In this chapter, the author watches over and reviews the changes due to circumstances given to the Doctrine and compares Bush’s and Truman’s one in which both changed because of the change in situation.  This was a reflection of the true reality of any strategic doctrine that has to be appropriate for specific situations. It may receive low public approval rating but leaders do what they consider favoring to their country.

The premises of the Bush Doctrine reflect five related strategic elements including American primacy, assertive realism, stand-apart alliances, a new internationalism, and democratic transformation. Primacy suggests preserving U.S. supremacy by politically, economically, and militarily outpacing any global challenger. The author mentions that the idea of imposing American values by force of arms is absurd. President Bush invaded Iraq because he came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was extremely dangerous to American national security and could not be contained or deterred. Developing Iraqi democracy was a by-product of that central judgment, not its motivating reason. The author, however, believes that it is not only the Bush Doctrine’s wish for primacy that results in American leadership worldwide but also world demands for American support and commitment are a large part of the reason, and America’s world leadership thus begins with a paradox; that worldwide America is both a leader and a clerk. Bush’s view of assertive realism is an offensive stance rather than a defensive one. On terrorism, the best defense is a strong offense, though; it not necessarily means a military action. For example, Bush Doctrine’s National Strategy to Secure Cyber space and its Strategy for Homeland Security and National Intelligence are assertive but not military. Obama’s view, but, on those issues is opaque since he expressed a double-edged view. American international relationships are based on convenience, necessity, and true friendship. Although the world is anarchic but there is one thing that many realists do agree upon and it is cooperation which is a must and very difficult, though.

A new internationalism and selective multiculturalism is the next element of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine views international institutions unsatisfactory because they cannot be in concert with the US national interests or security issues. For example the members of the Security Council have no common grounds. So, Concert of Democracies, a post-Bush Doctrine strategic option, as an alternative to international institutions has been suggested. The idea seems very attractive but questionable, though. Then there is the issue of democratic transformation. Referring to Bush and Obama statements, the author argues that Democracy is a process that sometimes even needs to impose via military defeat and long years of occupation.

4 The Bush Doctrine

Myths and criticisms

Realists’ disapproval of the Bush Doctrine was due to its transformative vision. They see the world as it is, not as it wished to be. The Bush Administration was careless in this respect since it did reject the status quo and sought to transform instead of managing American national security circumstances. It even inserted such a type of language as good or evil into US foreign policy literature. That issue left America less room to accommodate the interests of those who opposed it. Realists claim that gaining more power demands gaining more interests. That reason justifies, partially, US expansion of its interests for it is the most powerful country. But the author argues that the Bush Administration’s interest expansion was a reaction to 9/11; it was not continuation of manifest destiny but a by-product of a severe national shock. So we should not expect presidents to behave in accordance to general theories or claims but they should be more modest in terms of the dilemmas that presidents face.

The author, then, goes to the some myths including that the Bush Doctrine has been inspired by a group of so-called neoconservatives. Among them are Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both of whom served in the Department of Defense. The group is believed that is Jewish and beholden to beholden to Israel. But Francis Fukuyama, himself a neoconservative critic of the Bush Doctrine, says that much of the accusations are wrong, animated by ill-will. Another criticism of the Bush Doctrine is being unilateralism. The usual criticism is of ignoring and alienating important allies and the rest of the world since he tried to build an empire on American power alone. Evoking to Global warming and Kyoto accords, critics consider the United States as being unilateralism. He argues that many criticisms of the Bush Doctrine have a partisan political nature. Disagreement between France and the US are highlighted; but agreements between them on fighting terrorism are treated as less important.  So, he believes that some of the disagreements to Bush administration policy have partisan nature. Renshon, the author puts forward that Anti-Americanism stems not only from Bush’s policy but from a volatile world with structural uncertainty. American soft power, its ideas and economy, not only is envied but also has destroyed many aspects of traditional culture. Finally, the author argues that elite consensus and public understanding are essential to any successful doctrine, something that the Bush Doctrine lacked. So, division among the parties in viewing the world issues and considering national interests and lack of consensus among elite and public understanding are defects of Bush Doctrine. Accordingly, given these profound strategic differences, it’s almost impossible for the Bush Doctrine to reach the level of consensus akin to that of the Truman Doctrine.

Part II

The Strategic World after 9/11

The New Calculus of Risk

September 11 made Bush believe that the world is not a safe place. Understanding the Bush Doctrine without considering the 9/11 is ridiculous for it brought about a set of international security issues. So, the way looking into issues changed a lot. For example immigration, before 9/11, was considered as a political issue but it now reframed as a national security issue. Cold War threats and then revolutionary zeal now replaced by non-state actors inspired by religious zeal, and die for their cause. Unlike Cold War era, American public, now, has not reached a general consensus concerning national security issues because of strategic split among political leaders’ worldview.

        Prospect theory and expected utility theory are presented here to explain leaders’ behavior under the conditions of uncertainty. People usually go to cognitive shortcuts in decision making. Two domain of prospect theory are the domain of loss and the domain of gain. Losses usually carry more psychological weigh in the decision process. The domain of losses in national security policy falls into three categories of catastrophic, dire and tolerable losses. The first a state’s basic power status, national security, or way of life. The 9/11 attacks fall into this category and Georg Bush did what prospect theory exactly predicates. Dire losses put national security at greater risk but don’t immediately threaten state’s existence or way of life. The loss of Vietnam War falls into this category. Finally tolerable losses don’t directly threaten the country like the elections of Eva Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. National security gains also fall into two categories; triumph and success. Success occurs when a country obtain a number of important national security goals while not having suffered substantial losses. Invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein is considered a partial but an important success. President Bush’s 9/11 assessment of risk was, somehow, based on Cheney’s concise statement that the risks of inaction are far greater than action and that was the new calculus of risk for President Bush. What discern the role of a president and a theorist is that the former has a set of responsibilities that would affect both the United States and the other countries but in the case the latter isn’t so. So predicating the future requires some erroneous risk calculation that is inevitable. Many theorists tried to explain states’ foreign behavior within some theories, though, most of them attempted to analyze the issue according to realists’ viewpoints.

6          Deterrence, Containment and Adversarial Bargaining Post-9/11 North Korea and Iran

This chapter features some strategies to deal with post 9/11 milieu concerning Iran and North Korea including deterrence, containment, bargaining, and so forth. Mr. Bush’s statement “different threats require different strategies” demanding different behaviors against China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela, and the Sudan. Some enemies cannot be deterred so it’s better to go into the psychology of strategic options concern different leaders. For example, given their differences, personalities, and situational forces, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il need different approaches. To apply dual strategy of containment and deterrence toward countries depends on a target‘s motivations, intentions, and capacities, though, with the passage of time, containment and deterrence have found new meanings. Countries behavior is a reflection of their psychology, their worldview, and their thinking. Patterns of behavior can give helpful clues to the motivations that underlie them. So ignoring what countries do, why they do so, and not understanding their worldview is a misreading of containment theory.

7                    Dangerous Threats and the Use of Force

This chapter begins with this argument that the Bush Doctrine was ambiguous because it failed to revise clear criteria for whenever preventive war is legitimate and when we ought to use coercive force. President Bush did find deterrence out of date because he came to the conclusion that terrorists or rough states welcome death in the service of their cause. So, given the costs and benefits, he decided to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein and that was the general calculation behind the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 akin to the basis upon which Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osiraq in 1981.

Strategic worldview, thinking and judgments are the factors that should be considered when studying leaders. Leaders operate with a set of strategic assumptions. A dangerous worldview would be the belief that conflict or war (with your enemies) is unavoidable. Another dangerous worldview is one’s system or ideology demand the second level of comparison is related to the characteristics of the countries involved. The United States has a mature diplomacy; debate about a variety of issues is the reality of American political life. It has the combination of the separation of power, checks and balances, periodic elections. Public opinion is mattered and policy is subjected to different reviews but none of these was true about Saddam’s Iraq.ing regional hegemony. Combination of dangerous leadership traits and dangerous thinking or belief system is troubling. In Iraq, power was maintained by fiat not legitimacy. Elections are manipulated and no one can challenge it, and one effective political party in Iraq had a monopoly of political power. The author sums up his analysis of dangerousness with this statement that a sound perception of dangerousness and its features is central to understand dangerous threats and the use of force.

8                    Strategic Options and the Future of the Bush Doctrine

In this chapter, many strategic options to the Bush Doctrine have been proposed; many of these replacement doctrines focus on avoiding using force, preferring instead to put their focus on options not requiring the use of force. Given this issue, many of the proposed doctrines fall short to be a replacement for the Bush Doctrine. Among the theories are offshore balancing, selective engagement, realistic Wilsonianism, progressive realism, ethical realism, neo-isolationism, and integration. Critics are agreed upon the idea that we must farewell with the Bush Doctrine, but their proposed replacements are myriad and recommendations contradictory and fail to meet the Bush Doctrine circumstances. All replacements to Bush Doctrine hold a passive stance while the Bush Doctrine holds the idea that in an age of catastrophic terrorism, national security passivity is a form of suicide. And the Bush Doctrine’s covert idea is that America military and economic power would dissuade potential rivals from acquiring the means to challenge American interests, something that critics failed to notice. Finding a viable option for the Bush Doctrine is not an easy matter. Some focus on the importance of restraint in the use of force but restraint is an enigmatic strategy since it may reassure some of American allies some of the time. Some options, including the dismantling of partnerships that have taken decades to develop like NATO and SEATO, require the United States to suffer high costs. None of the proposed theories provide comprehensive options to the Bush Doctrine, and controversies around the Bush Doctrine is unlikely to be resolved via academic debates and they will be resolved, if at all, at the level of America’s political leadership since political leaders are the ones who charged with the actual stewardship of American national security.

Part III

The Politics of Post-9/11National Security

9                    The Politics of Risk Assessment

The war against Saddam in Iraq terribly damaged Americans and raised the controversies about the issue both inside and outside as well. The administration credibility was also damaged due to the serious controversies.  Many argue that lack of enough information and poor risk assessment of the administration were the cause. Others have accused the administration of intentionally distorting data to further war aims, consequently, among them, the charges of poor judgment, avoidable error, misrepresentation, and bad policy. Given the above disputes, it should be said that the future safety of the United States depends on assessing precisely the risks of dangerous regimes and non-state actors. The errors that American intelligence agencies made occurred because of erroneous assumptions, confidence in the predicative power of past behavior of Saddam Hussein, failure to think through alternative explanations, or to ignore favored one. The same is true about risk assessment of withdrawing from Iraq; at this point, failure in Iraq may give rise to a regional war among Iraq’s neighbors that in turn endanger American interest in the region. This issue, thus, must be studied in detail given the deep divides surrounding national security worldviews.

10                The Politics of Post-9/11National Security

A Profound Worldview Divide

Here the focus is on the deep worldview divide that President Bush’s policies created among people. Bush era left the public exhausted by harsh partisanship over his national security policies. The public is also divided on many of the Bush Administration policies and on the premises that underlie them. The author believes that oppositions to Bush stems from several reasons. Firstly, because of the disputed election in 2000 in which by the decree of the Supreme Court Mr. Bush won the election. So, accordingly many cast doubt on the president honesty, competence and motives. Then it is originating from an urgent need to devise a doctrine after 9/11. Next the president’s style of leadership and partisan considerations should be put into effect. Bush’s leadership style was assertive and his response to 9/11 was typical of his style. Many argued that Bush’s policies was enacted without Congress engagement and dubbed him another imperial president. It’s true that Mr. Bush assertive leadership style and his transformational agenda did matter but the real cause of divide was strategic worldviews among Democrats and Republicans. Republicans, generally, aligned with assertive realism and a strong real politic while Democrats favor a cooperative internationalism and liberal strategies for peace, though; strategic worldview depends on other factors including geography, circumstances, and specific issues. Assertive realists argue that a less assertive national security stance might heighten the dangers of other attacks so all risks were worth taking. Generally Republicans place the threat in the domain of catastrophic losses while Democrats seem to place it in the category of undesirable but tolerable losses or perhaps in the domain of possible success. The author believes in wide America’s strategic divide that ushered into less legitimacy and less security for the United States. He, however, argues that the United States needs both parties to adopt the most basic principles of realism that the world is a dangerous place.

11                Obama’s National Security Tasks

Worldview, Leadership and Judgment

The Legitimacy crisis facing Obama is that on the one hand the US is powerful, and on the hand, it lacks the international support for forging its power. The Obama administration tries to overdue the problem by distancing his predecessors’ policies and taking advantage of his election time popular affections and approval. One of the dilemmas Obama faces is the American tradition of pushing democracy worldwide, while there is little emergency of this policy as felt by foreign policy analysts. The US confronts a changed world order, with no unipolar superiority thanks to the revival of the traditional “great powers” policies. As regards with the terrorist attacks, esp. the 9/11 profile, the Bush Doctrine inclined toward a tough stance against the threat. Several polls by the PEW surveys mainly, stressed that the public opinion is “strongly” wanted for protectionist measures. Meanwhile, it has not to be interpreted in a way that justifies the overt use of force, rather patience, and making alliances with the international institutions are recommendable alternatives. Surely the seeking alliance with an institution like the UN is a challenging effort, for in so doing, every American president must ask firstly “what if they don’t agree to allow me to act, and I must?”

Certainly, Obama has the responsibility of repairing the US reputation among the critics well after the 9/11 responses. The polls indicate that the first three indicators for a presidential functionality here are: “strong leadership”, “working well with leaders of other countries”, and “bringing unity to the country”. To some degrees, being a new president provides the situation for; conditioned that Obama considers the good neighbor policy.

There are priorities among the security issues regarding the challenges of terrorist attacks, rising of rivals in different part of the world. But there is a partisan debate over the priority of national vs. international issues which says that a series of factors are satisfied for a minor foreign security issues. This is an indication of poor decision making.

Regarding character, Obama is smart and ambitious, but inexperienced. He also lacks clarity of ideas, regarding the coping of actions with ideas. If we parallel his foreign policy with domestic one, his domestic lack of sincerity might indicate the same in his foreign policy. Nevertheless, the domestic realm is balanced with partisan overview, and the foreign with countries’ ranges of power.

Obama’s doctrine or worldview is perceived to be a distracted one. Beyond a euphemist language is a psychology of his enemies and rivals, which says the Muslim world and America’s enemies in general want respect, which he provides. His truism also inclines apologizing for historical foreign and domestic abuses. The question is if truism and lenience is the strategy, what role coercive policy might play.

Afghanistan case is the realm that shows Obama’s use of force. Other than several hundred troop surges, he committed the plan for several hundred reconstruction workers, and 1.5 billion dollars a year for 5 years for Pakistan’s military accommodation. Although Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan has been known to be an “exit strategy”, the fact has been the survival of troops there until the “central goal” is achieved.

The commitment has aspired some questions on the viability of the Bush Doctrine. The answer to three questions might be very conductive in this regard. First, whether the Bush Doctrine provides a viable framework for addressing American post-9/11 security concerns. It seems that no other theory has been competitive to Bush’s, including “selective engagement, neo-isolationism, and realism. But have the Doctrine and its associated policies helped to secure the American homeland from further attack? The fact that today the security initiatives and operations are well better operated is a direct result of the so called Bush doctrine enacted. And finally, have the policies pursued by the Bush Administration abroad, most notably the war in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and the push for democratization helped the national security position of this country? There are strong psychological and strategic grounds that Saddam Hussein has been a dangerous tyrant against whom the sanction system has been eroded.

                                                                           FILM REVIEW:

FORREST GUMP

RUNTIME: 142 min

RELEASED DATE: 1994

GENRE: DRAMA / ROMANCE

DIRECTOR: ROBERT ZEMECKIS
WRITERS: WINSTON GROOM (novel), ERIC ROTH (screenplay)
STARS: TOM HANKS (Forrest Gump), GARY SINISE (Lt. Dan Taylor), ROBIN WRIGHT (Jenny)

 The US as “the land of the opportunities”; it has been the common and core theme of many films in Hollywood during its existence. It has acted as a mirror to reflect the American values and culture such as America as the country which is always on the “move”, the land of freedom, growth. The movie Forrest Gump can be considered as one of these movies. Heedfully seeing, it has got some elements of American identity. The story of a man who is intellectually and mentally under grown and underdeveloped but he appears to be appropriate and rightful in the works in his world. He becomes an icon and hits the press all over the country. His dreams turn to reality and this shows that your imaginings will come true if you try hard enough and at the same if you are well equipped to freshness and honesty. Surprisingly, he visits three presidents, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. He receives honors and makes accomplishments in table tennis, shrimp industry, Vietnam War. A “simple” man from Alabama who travels around the world “runs” across America and meets political, cultural figures like Mao and John Lenon as well. The amazing point that makes the main character of the film, Forrest Gump, loveable and believable is that he keeps his childhood innocence into maturity probably because he is not very smart; his IQ is 75 below the normal point which is 80. On the other hand he remains as a child in mind and soul even though he is physically grown. This can be drawn in the picture which he shows his wounded buttock to the President Johnson in the White House while he is receiving his Medal of Honor. This is the indication for his simplicity. He firmly believes in three things God, his mother and his lifelong love, Jenny, which remembers her all the time. Although the movie keeps eye on Gump’s life career but mainly it is depicting different periods of American history. For example, it shows scenes from racial discrimination, Vietnam War, Kennedy Assassination, Watergate scandal and so on. In some cases it’s hard to distinguish clearly what the genre the movie is, whether it is drama, romance or a satire. It can be argued that the director skillfully amalgamated comedy, drama and documentary into each other.
Technically speaking, the movie is a flashback and a narrative mode in which the movie starts from showing the viewers that Gump is sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. At the same time, he tells the story of his life to different people waiting for the shuttle bus. His story is the tale of the nation and the country and even generally the world as well. Visually impressive, the makers could successfully have put Gump in scenes with the US presidents. Even they could have made it possible to hear from Kennedy in Footballers’ visit at the White House and from President Johnson. Due to this technicality and specialty it won the Academy Award for the Best Visual Effects in 1994.
There are really outstanding and eye-catching pictures in the movie which makes it a satire and a criticism against the government and the political establishment. For instance, the scene in which Gump is invited to give speech against the war in Vietnam to the crowd holding “peace” placards and chanting “stop the war” or “bring troops home”. He begins with “Well, there is only one thing I can say about the war in Vietnam, in Vietnam your” suddenly an army general puts off the wire and nobody hears what Gump is saying and they are chanting “ speak up” , “ we can’t hear you” but he is keeping his speech on. At the same time some try to fix the problem of the sound system. But it is too late and Gump brings to end his speech with “That’s all I have to say about that.” The scene implies that there are things that should not be heard by anybody. These sayings put in danger the interest of some groups or people. Apart it implies that the mainstream of Americans should not be told and informed about such important things. This could be considered as the violation of the freedom of speech which the movie could successfully and skillfully show it in the best way.
The movie was a hit and nominated for 13 Academy Awards which it won six of them for the Best director, actor, picture and the best screenplay in 1994. Apart, the movie won the Golden Globe Award for the Best motion picture and best actor as well as the best director in 1995. Its gross box office was nearly $330m and in the opening weekend it made about $25m in the US. It is ranked as the 71st of the best motion picture of the all time by (AFI) American Film Institute.
Gump’s capability to be in the right place at the right time makes him exceptional, too. He saves the lives of the American troops in Vietnam War while he was looking for his intimate friend Buba. Once He ran like a wind into the football field and he made part of his life career as a footballer star by being too fast in the matches. He is the one who calls the police and apprises them the weird condition in the hotel which was the lead to disclose the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of Nixon. His simplicity and honesty is playing a key role in all these situations. Despite being not “normal” as the doctor and headmaster tell to Gump’ mother in the beginning but he make a very successful life career, a war hero , a cultural icon , a table tennis champion , a very successful businessman. The lessons that Gump are given by his mother are very simple but very helpful. One of them is faith and believes in destiny. To do your best but at the same time to keep your faith and be faithful on what destiny brings about to you, to accept it and “live” with your “life”. The main message of the movie can be “when there is a will, there is a way.” And as the British people put forward “Honesty is the best policy.” These two are as the secret to happiness which Gump finds it in his life. Other than that his life is inspiring for many such as Lt. Dan Taylor and even Jenny who accuses Gump that “you don’t know what love is” finally backs and returns to the “kind but slow-witted” man to make her own life much more “meaningful” and cheerful. She even gave birth to a child and named him “Forrest Gump”; a new generation but with the old and respected values and beliefs. This can be the evidence of continuity in American culture and society.
Forrest Gump’s tale and world is ours, too; with too many ebbs and flows; with sorrows and joys; with defeats and victories. But the tool and rule to overcome the difficulties is simple; to be honest and hopeful. He is exceptional mentally but not morally. His morals help him to make the “Forrest Gump” an icon in the movie and in the real world as well.

WHAT IS “WE” IN ITS AMERICAN MIND AND MEANING?

“WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES”, these familiar words are the opening and words of the Constitution of the United States of America. To answer who these “we” are we have to find out who “Americans “are or simply put figuring out what it’s like to be an American and what American identity is. On the other hand we have to discover the core elements of the American identity. Identity could be defined as "a sense of self that develops as the child differentiates from parents and family and takes a place in society."  The important sources of this identity are nationality, ethnicity, gender and class. In short the source of national identity of any country lies in its history, language, religion and other social backgrounds which bind people of a nation together. Language can be one core element of national identity and at the same time one of the most important of them. As journalist Michael Lind argues in his critique of multiculturalism, 'Of all the elements of a national culture, language is by far the most important' (Lind, 1995, p. 264). According to Samuel Huntington English culture is a key component of American identity. So English culture brings with itself English language. Many recent academic publications in American cultural studies share the premise that 'Nations are not born, but made. And they are made, ineluctably, in language' (Looby, 1996, p. 1)"(3). Morrow believes that "English, as the common language, is the instrument that reconciles differences of race, ethnicity, creed, and national origin and thus creates a common culture and common values."

Of all elements of American national identity, undoubtedly Liberalism is the one which Americans are known with around the world. For many people Americanism is equal to Liberalism and at the same time Liberalism equals to Americanism. Simply put liberalism is widely seen as the defining essence of American political culture (Hartz 1955). It stresses minimal government intervention in private life and promotes economic and political freedoms along with equality of opportunity. Countless studies have documented its enduring influence over elites, masses, and institutions (e.g., Citrin, Haas, Muste, and Reingold 1994; Feldman 1988; Lipset 1963; McClosky and Zaller 1984).accordingly it means that individuals and group members respect the laws and the institutions of the US. Apart, they pursue blessings and economic success through hard working. Letting people to speak out and express their ideas or to practice their religious affairs freely is part of liberalism which is highly respected in American society and culture.

Ethnoculturalism has also been a defining element of American identity which sets rigid boundaries on group membership. In its extreme, Ethnoculturalism maintains that Americans are white, English-speaking Protestants of northern European ancestry (Smith 1997).although since 9/11 there has been debates among elites and people as well to put some restrictions on full range of citizenship rights to people of certain ethnic and cultural groups. According to Huntington Protestantism is a crucial component of American identity. Most Americans are Christian and majorly they are Protestant 56 %.  And more than 83 % of them are white. (2009 data).

Other conception of American is Civic republicanism that emphasizes the responsibilities, rather than the rights of citizenship. It advances the notion that the well being of the community is more than just the sum of individualistic pursuits of private gain. Rather, a vibrant self-governing community needs individual members to act on its behalf (Banning 1986; Held 1996). In this view, we should all be involved in social and political life and pursue ends that serve the public good. As Tocqueville noted, pursuing the public good engenders pride and patriotism, which further motivate people to “labor for the good of the state” (1835 [1990, 243]). Indeed, seeing oneself and the political community as inseparable is a key part of the civic republican ideal (Dagger 1997; Petit 1997). Mainly this concept could easily be understood by large range of voluntarism in the US. Nearly 27% of Americans participated in voluntarily activities in 2007 which is higher than Europe and many countries around the world.

Hello, Hola, Shalom, Conichua, Calimera, Merjaba, Bon Giorno, Bon Jour and Anyounghaseo. These are just an example of some of the many languages spoken in America. Diversity is America. It is believe that Americans welcome people from around the world with open arms. The United States has been the country of the immigrants. Since its existence in 17^th century large number of people from different parts of the world has moved to the US. They have been assimilated with the culture and the values of the American society. When they came to America, they were considered and treated as one thing and that is American. When they arrived there they started to melt into a pot called diversity. Surprisingly, although there is a wide range of culture, ethnicity and diversity, at the same time they are united. Unity and diversity could be defined as the other conceptions of American identity. Hector St. John de Crevecouer in his book, "letters from an American Farmer" (1782), mentioned that "I can indicate a family that their grandfather is from England with Poland's woman, his son got married with a French girl, and their four sons got married with four diverse nations. He is an American, who left his traditional behaviors and prejudices, and choused new behaviors and ideas. These treatments, ideas originate from new way of life, government, and social positions. Here, individuals from any nations melting within a new race that in future their attempts will bring important changes in globe". This basic and fundamental concept is known as “melting pot” in which various nationalities are assimilated.

 The Wars of Independence 1776-1783 led to American independency from Britain. It was first successful anti-colonial attempt in modern history. Founding Fathers built a nation that had not the common, conventional pre- conditions of nation-building. United States had not natural territory, history with unique religion versus European countries. There weren't Narrative, ancient poem, folklores, and forefathers of one race. And apart they are known as the first democratic nation in the modern history. All of these built the concept of “exceptionalism” in which it manifests that they are the “chosen nation” in the world. By exceptionalism they mean to be different and superior to others, and defining a mission to be supportive to the rest.

In conclusion American identity elements could be specified as individualism, liberalism, diversity and unity and exceptionalism this is the answer to who this “we” in the constitution of the US is. The “we”, throughout the history of the US has been broadening in meaning and concept this is because identities change and evolve as well.



A NEW SHIFT IN POWER FOCUS ON THE EVE OF THE NEW CENTURY

During the past century the focal point in the world order has changed for several times. The change in the global order will lead to changes in politics and international relationship and new definition of the national interests. For instance the early years of the past century started with World War I (1914- 1918), which finally led to the creation of League of Nations with the support of the US President Woodrow Wilson ,not lasting for long, however. The shaky and unstable order after WW I finally ended with the beginning of the bloodiest war of all time with record in casualties and costs, damages. The end of WW II resulted in a new world order in which two super powers evoked from the ruins of the war in Europe. The war changed the world forever and it shifted the center of world power which lasted for centuries in Europe to Washington and Kremlin. The political, social, economical conflict between the new super powers inflated another war, Cold War, for half a century (1945-1991). Due to the rivalries during the Cold War, Europe was made the main focus and the center of the international politics and power struggle particularly for the US. To maintain peace and national interest treaties were signed such as NATO.  Apart, The US supported the democratization and liberalization of the European State such as Italy, Germany. Other than, America mainly helped to build institution worldwide such as UN, UNICEF, UNESCO, WTO, and IMF chiefly to maintain its national advantage and enhancing and improving social, economical, cultural conditions in countries around the world.

Cold War in Europe ( 1945-1991)

By the end of Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, world order changed anew. The US as the main global power shifted its focus from Europe, which was relatively, advocate of expanding democracy and sharing same values with the US. No major conflict in Europe, Berlin Wall dismantled and now EU is relatively in peace. Currently, the Middle East is the center and focus of US diplomacy and politics. Middle East is a geographical and cultural region located in southwestern Asia and northwestern Africa. In a broader sense Pakistan and Afghanistan could be included in this region. Middle East is playing a major role in world economy, more than 65 per cent of world oil reserve contained in the region .It is key in politics as well , nearly 90 per cent of its people are Muslim. The political structure, history and regional diplomacy have added to the importance of this region much more, as well. For instance frequently and repeatedly the events of the region are appeared in the headlines of the world media, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. September 11 attacks boosted the importance of the Middle East in US national interest. Although since long years ago the US has had military presence in the region and invaded Saddam in 1991 but mainly it is seeking to keep and develop its influence in the region, anew.



Middle East

 It is highly believed that the trend is akin to what happened in Europe during the Cold War, building democratic and liberal institution, supporting capitalism, freedom of media, etc. Apart, to reach its advantage US is trying to introduce some countries in the region as an imminent threat to the regional stability. The values which are supported by the US, in some cases by the use of arms, do not resemble the many of the states’ in the region. So, for the reason that Iran is located in the territory, naturally it is concerned about and interested in its national interest and it is increasingly thought that Iran actively plays an important role in the stability of the sphere. To reach and maintain the national and regional interest cooperation, by stressing out on commonalities such as Islam and shared values and historical ties should be accentuated to help to boost the domestic stability as well as regional. 

SOLEY, GUNS COULD NOT BUILD A DEMOCRACY

One of the immediate consequences of 9/11 terrorists attacks to the US was the declaration of war on terror which resulted in a prompt war in Afghanistan to topple down the Taliban regime. On October 7 US led forces invaded the Islamic militants and their strong holds and hidings in Afghanistan. An instant and prompt victory for the ISAF and Coalition forces made many to believe exultantly in capability and possibility of building a democracy with the force of arm mainly with its Western norms and standards. Despite holding several elections in recent years and creating relatively a small scale of civil society it is believed that the success is far further to reach .The main problem is instability and the texture of Afghanistan society. In recent parliamentary election which was held in September 2010 the Election Commission declared it is impossible to run and hold election in 12 states due to instability and insurgence. Surprisingly not any major power has been victorious in battlefields and wars in recent centuries; the clear example is the former Soviet Union.

 The relatively large scale of losses and no horizon of accomplishment and an end to the war and the persistent suicide bombings and attacks on NATO forces and civilians has made the situation difficult for the US and Western politicians and Afghan leaders, as well. In addition the public support for the war on terror particularly war in Afghanistan has been diminishing. Apart, several changes in strategies have not led to clear achievements yet. It is currently thought that mainly US and its allies if possible will be contented by minimum norms of democracy to make a “democratic” Afghanistan but much more delighted with a “stable and secure” one in order to be able to withdraw forces . They really are baffled and puzzled with the situation in the country. They are still raising the number of troops in the battle fields to fight with the militants.

The lessons which could be taken from war in Afghanistan would be pretty nice for the international community. It led many to support the view that democracy, civil society and liberty could not be imposed on any nation mainly and solely with the force of arms particularly on a nation with large scale of differences. Partly Afghans and its allies have achieved many things but the point is there are still much more things to obtain.  

THE GENUINE SOURCE OF THE IMMENSE POWER OF THE US

Since its existence as an independent state in 1776, as the United State of America, it has been difficult to ignore its role and power in global arena .since 1888, only a century after its existence the United States of America has been the largest economy in the world and probably it is for the first time in the history of mankind that a country has been the greatest economical power for more than half of its lifetime, 122 years out of 234 years. It also plays a pivotal role in the global economy. In terms of military, culture, education, politics. The U.S is a major and key player in the world. The main question which arises in the minds of many scholars and people, as well, is what the source of this power for the young nation, in comparison with Italy, Egypt, France, England …, is. In addition it should be mentioned that the U.S is the mosaic of different cultures, race, and people. And this could be considered potentially and normally as a source of threat and danger to the unity of the Young Nation. While the diversity of the population in the U.S has been the source of innovation and advancement it has been the cause and source of friction, as well. But the establishment and society of the US could have decreased and lessened the clashes and quarrel throughout its history.

To find out what the main source of US power is, the American system of beliefs should be put into consideration. The main features of American system of beliefs or simply put “ American Ideology” are : liberty , equality, the rule of law , tolerance toward “ the others “ , democracy , accountability .Due to the expansion of US power and influence and the attractiveness of its ideology this is known worldwide as “AMERICANISM” which itself is being considered as a brand .

Reviewing and taking a look into the public opinion polls helps us to crystallize some aspects of American Ideology such as liberty and tolerance. Based on the public opinion on civil liberties since 1940 – 1998 the general and overall trend toward tolerance and liberty has been an increasing trend there are also slight decreases on the issue, though. When people were asked questions like this “There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people. For instance, somebody who admits he is a communist. If such a person wanted to make and give a speech in your city/town, should he be allowed to speak or not? “Polls show an upward trend in allowing an admitted communist to speak up. The rate is nearly 27% in 1954 while it stands in 64% in 1996. (1) At the same time the percentage of people who agree on allowing an admitted communist to teach in college increases dramatically from only 6% in 1954 to 57% in 1996. (2)
This capability of the society and system in reviewing and reproducing the values is believed to be the main source of immense power of the US. Through this process they could have turned their potential enemies and adversaries to reliable and true companions and allies outside and inside, as well. Those who even were not able to be served in the White restaurants now their sons and descendants could climb into the power peacefully and democratically. Accordingly the US has the least number of opponents or “others” inside and outside, as well. This could be the answer but there are or may be more than one answer.


(1) Harold Stanley and Richard G. Niemi, Vital Statistics on American Politics 1999-2000
(Washington, DC Congressional Quarterly Press,2000) table 3.14,pp150-1
(2) same source

new post

new post