US Foreign Policy: To What Extent Does the Reality Match the Rhetoric

Abstract

Not only has the US meddled in elections deciding the fate of 81 countries, but also very actively initiated wars or coups in other countries. Just between the World War II and now, the US has overthrown a left-wing government in Guatemala (1954), supported an unsuccessful invasion of Cuba (1961), invaded the Dominican Republic (1965) and Grenada (1983), fueled a war in Vietnam, supported the South Korean government against North Korea, as well as initiated the Iraq War (2003) and Afghanistan War (2001). Not to mention the US killed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. On the contrary, America claims to uphold the moral ideals of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” from the renowned 1776 Declaration of Independence, as well as US foreign policy goals “to protect the US…advance democracy, human rights, and other global interests…and support personnel at home and abroad” documented by the Bureau of Public Affairs. But were there underlying reasons the US felt the need to intervene in the affairs of other countries? To what extent does US foreign policy uphold their own proposed ideals? This is my thesis: The reality of US intervention doesn’t match the rhetoric that justifies it, since underlying exceptionalist ideals – related to both democracy and world power – manifested into US involvement in the Vietnam War and Iraq War were hidden by public rhetoric. The US often justifies involvement in foreign affairs with the idea of helping countries in need, but the Pentagon Papers regarding the Vietnam War, and the false weapons of mass destruction intelligence regarding the Iraq War tell a different story.