Alex+G.-+American+Foreign+Policy+Essay

Remember when you were a child, of eight years or so, and you had to abandon your first bike. It was a sad time, because of all the memories you had with it. Though, you thought of the positives, the new bike is bigger, better, and faster. This is what President Madison had to do in his presidency. The United States was a fresh country at that time, and it had to abandon //its// first foreign policy, isolationism, for a new one: intervention, as intervention was smarter, more effective, and better for the country. First of all though, you may not know what isolationism or intervention is. Isolationism is “A policy of avoiding political or military agreement with other countries; first established by George Washington” (Hart 163). In contrast, intervention is “The action or process of coming between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events” (“Intervention”). When this country was established, its first leader, George Washington, set out in his farewell address that the smartest foreign policy was isolationism. Isolationism is the correct course in certain circumstances, but it the case of Madison, it wasn’t. Both the British and French were seizing U.S. ships. Even after peace missions had been abruptly refused, Madison tried to hold to this nation’s isolationism roots, though the times got even worse. The British were impressing, “forcing someone to serve in an army or navy” (“Impress”), American sailors. Brawls were occurring with the Indian tribes, and to make things worse, the Indians were using British guns. What was he to do? President Madison was justified in shifting American foreign policy from isolationism to intervention. Madison faced an immense dilemma: whether to stick with Washington’s foreign policy or to adventure into intervention. Intervention was the correct path because resisting the British in the War of 1812 proved the United States as a sovereign nation, and as a world superpower. It is said that, “National pride in the United States surged…by standing up to the British, they felt, the United States had truly become a sovereign nation” (Hart 170). This shows that intervention actually uplifted the nation to a better state. For example, I can relate this to a school setting. Let’s say that there are bullies picking on a student. The bullies would be England and France in this situation, and the student would be the United States. England and France were picking on the United States, because they thought that they were more powerful. The United States got tired of this and tried to talk to the bullies, but they wouldn’t listen. So the United States challenged England to a fight. There were no clear winners, but after that, England and France didn’t pick on the United States any more because they knew it was powerful. This is exactly what happened in the War of 1812. The British and the French didn’t seize American ships anymore after the war, because they knew that America might be able to beat them in another war. Think about what would have happened if the War of 1812 hadn’t have happened. The United States would have been in a much weaker state. It would have been involved in a lot more of Europe’s conflicts, in addition the seizing of ships would have continued. It wouldn’t have had the confidence to fight the Spanish in the future, or any other war in that case. In today’s world, we would be a much less confident, and probably smaller, nation. In addition to improving the United States’ image on a world stage, intervention proved to be successful in solving the quarrels with Indians. Indians were successfully driven out of the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. “The Indian threat in the Northwest was much diminished. In the southeast...defeat of Britain’s allies, the Creek Indians…ended the threat of Indian hostilities in that region” (“Results of the War of 1812”). This shows that intervention //works//. By sending the military to settle the disputes with the Indians, the problem was diminished quickly and effectively. If no action had been taken, more lives would have been lost in Indian attacks, and the problem would have never been solved. In addition to having problems with the Indians, these Indians were armed by the British. Imagine if in our current Afghani war, we were having problems with the Mexicans, and it turned out that the Afghans armed them. It would be a very pivotal moment, because it would change our viewpoint on our enemy. Even if to action was taken against the Indians in the War of 1812, the British were still on our backs. Therefore, intervention was certainly the right way to go. Some revered scholars may think that Madison was wrong moving towards intervention, though. They say that the policy was unsuccessful because Canada was not conquered, and there were many lives lost. While this is true, ultimately, Madison //was// justified to pursue a course of intervention, because it changed the way that America was perceived, which prevented them from future battles, which may have cost more lives. “Except for occasional border disputes and the circumstances of the American Civil War, relations between the United States and Britain remained generally peaceful” (Hart 170). This suggests that by intervening in the present, it prevented conflicts where it would be necessary to intervene in the future. By intervening now, Madison actually //protected// lives. He didn’t throw them away. This can be related to homework. As you put off the homework, more and more builds up until you have extreme levels of homework, and subsequently, stress. If the country isolated itself, it would just be preventing the inevitable intervention in the course of the future, which would cost more lives. In addition, this gave the United States more time to focus on building the country, rather than focusing on foreign affairs. On the issue of Canada, it was better not to gain this territory because, if we had, we would have had to spend more time, money, and effort developing the frozen tundra into a livable place, that possibly would have been taken by Britain later. Think back to the times of the American Revolution. Patriots would say, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Think of if we hadn’t intervened, if Britain had crushed us. Then we would have had no liberty. So these lives were cost in the name of liberty, and in the name of protecting this country. Based on all the negatives, //and positives// of war, it draws a question: Does war solve problems? War sometimes solves problems. In the case of Madison, it was a definite problem solver, but in some circumstances, it is not. Bring Iraq into the picture. We went into Iraq in 2003 on the belief on possible WMDs (Weapons on Mass Destruction), which turned out to be completely and utterly false. In the case of the Iraq war, I believe that no problems were solved. Though, in the case of Madison, and many other wars, it did solve problems. In addition, think of what a president is thinking when he declares war. He has considered all the possible options and believes that war is the most viable. Ask yourself: If diplomacy fails, what else is there to do? Would you just let the problem fade away? I know I wouldn’t. I would take action, so that no more harm would be done. So, in the case of when diplomacy fails, war does solve problems. Madison had the choice between isolationism and intervention in 1812. Many leaders face this choice today. The war of 1812 had many positive impacts. It improved America’s figure on a world stage, it successfully ended Indian affairs, and it provided peace between America and Britain. In addition, even though war can solve problems, it may not do so in all circumstances. Let me remind you again of our first paragraph. Madison was moving beyond America’s first foreign policy, just like your eight year old self is saying goodbye to bike #1. He has successfully moved beyond isolationism, and chosen the smarter alternative, intervention. Even though Madison chose intervention, many people in America today chose isolationism. In all disputes, there are people of both sides. In the Iraq war there were people that wanted to intervene, and people that wanted to isolate. Though, coming back to the War of 1812, Madison intervened, and was successful. Today, he is a metaphor for intervention. If you think Madison, you think intervention. Today in this country, intervention is very popular. Since we are accepted as the world’s biggest power, we are pressured to be caregivers to other struggling nations. Take Haiti for example. They experienced a massive earthquake, and we donated billions to help them. All this information might be overwhelming, but just remember that though intervention is not always necessary, it was certainly necessary in Madison case, and it is relied upon the United States of America to be the interveners of today’s society.