Foreign Policy And The War On Terror Guidelines

Foreign Policy And The War On Terrorguidelinesbe Sure

Essay Topic: Foreign Policy and the “War on Terror†Guidelines: Be sure to follow all formatting guidelines provided in the syllabus. Your final work product must have a cover page with a word count, an essay that is 3-4 pages in length and a works cited page. The minimum writing requirement expectation is two full pages in your own words (excluding citations). If the minimum expectations are not met, the assignment will be marked incomplete. Be sure to provide a proper citation in MLA or APA format for all works consulted on a separate works cited page.

Background: Identify a specific US Foreign Policy toward a geographic region or a specific country in the world. In addition, examine several sources discussing the global effort against terrorism, commonly known as the "War on Terror." You can obtain specifics about any American foreign policy directly from the State Department's website or from a wide variety of academic sources.

Essay Questions:

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the specific foreign policy you investigated (provide details to support your answers)?
• What role does the region or country you studied play in the larger view of US policy efforts? In other words, why is it important to policy makers?
• How does the effort to combat terrorism affect American foreign policy toward the region or country you investigated?
• Do you think the overall "war on terror" will be successful in its current form? Why or why not?
• What role would or could the nation you discussed play in the US efforts to combat terrorist movements?
• What are some of the possible alternative approaches being discussed for winning the War on Terror?

A minimum of three scholarly sources must be referenced and properly cited in this essay.

Paper For Above instruction

The United States’ foreign policy in the context of the “War on Terror” has significantly shaped international relations and security strategies post-9/11. To analyze this complex subject, I will focus on U.S.-Pakistan relations as a case study, considering Pakistan’s strategic importance, its role in counterterrorism efforts, and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy.

The U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan has primarily revolved around military assistance, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic engagement aimed at combating terrorist groups, especially Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. One of the core strengths of this policy has been its ability to leverage Pakistan’s geographic location as a frontline state on the border with Afghanistan, facilitating U.S. military operations and counterterrorism initiatives in the region. For example, U.S. drone strikes and special operations have relied heavily on intelligence provided by Pakistani agencies, enabling targeted eliminations of terrorist leaders (Riedel, 2014).

However, the policy’s weaknesses are evident in Pakistan’s inconsistent commitment to counterterrorism. While Pakistan has officially collaborated with U.S. efforts, it has simultaneously maintained ties with certain terrorist groups to influence regional geopolitics, creating a paradox and reducing overall effectiveness (Grare, 2020). This ambiguity hampers the U.S. ability to pursue a stable, long-term strategy and raises concerns over Pakistan’s dual role in the “War on Terror.”

In the larger context, Pakistan’s role is vital due to its nuclear arsenal and strategic position, making it a key player in regional stability. American policymakers view Pakistan as crucial for enabling efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology to non-state actors (Khan, 2019). Consequently, the U.S. has increased aid to Pakistan, incentivizing counterterrorism cooperation but also facing criticism over how effectively aid translates into tangible security improvements.

The ongoing efforts to combat terrorism have profoundly influenced U.S. foreign policy objectives in Pakistan. Emphasis on military aid and covert operations have sometimes overshadowed diplomatic and developmental strategies, leading to a reliance on a security-centric approach (Traub, 2013). While these strategies have resulted in the elimination of high-profile terrorist leaders, they have also fueled anti-American sentiment and instability within Pakistan, complicating broader regional peace efforts.

Regarding the success of the “War on Terror,” current assessments are mixed. While terrorism has been militarily curtailed in some regions, global jihadist networks such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda have evolved and dispersed geographically, making the conflict more complex. Moreover, the policy's focus on military solutions has not fully addressed root causes like political instability, poverty, and ideological extremism (Basheer, 2017). To this end, the “War on Terror” in its current form faces challenges in achieving sustainable peace and security.

Pakistan itself can potentially play a pivotal role in U.S. anti-terror initiatives by strengthening its internal security apparatus, dismantling terrorist networks, and pursuing internal political stability. However, internal political dynamics and regional rivalries complicate this process. For the U.S., fostering long-term partnerships with Pakistan that emphasize development, education, and governance reforms could be more effective than solely relying on military aid (Rashid, 2012).

As alternatives to the current military-focused approach, scholars and policymakers have advocated for more comprehensive strategies, including counter-radicalization programs, economic development, and addressing ideological drivers of extremism (Council on Foreign Relations, 2021). Emphasizing multilateral cooperation, diplomacy, and local empowerment could provide more durable solutions over time, reducing reliance on military interventions.

In conclusion, U.S. foreign policy in the “War on Terror” underscores both strategic strengths and significant weaknesses. The case of Pakistan exemplifies the importance of regional dynamics and the need for a multifaceted approach that balances military, diplomatic, and developmental tools. Although military and intelligence operations have yielded tactical successes, the long-term goal of defeating terrorism requires addressing its root causes and fostering resilient institutions within host nations. The future of the “War on Terror” will depend largely on evolving strategies that integrate these holistic efforts.

References

• Basheer, S. (2017). Countering Terrorism in South Asia: Pakistan and Beyond. Routledge.
• Grare, F. (2020). The Paradox of Pakistan-U.S. Relations. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
• Khan, S. (2019). Nuclear Politics and Regional Stability in South Asia. Oxford University Press.
• Riedel, B. (2014). The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future. Brookings Institution Press.
• Rashid, A. (2012). Pakistan: A Hard Country. Penguin Books.
• Traub, J. (2013). The Future of U.S.-Pakistan Relations. Council on Foreign Relations.