The United States Gulf war took place in 2nd August 1990 and it lasted up to 28th February 1991. The war was named Operation Desert shield since it was a way which was fought in the desert. This war was fuelled by Iraq’s decision to invade its oil rich neighbour Kuwait. The main objective of Iraq which was under the rule of Saddam Hussein was to invade Kuwait and take over the oil in the country. This did not however come with a lot of opposition from most of the Middle East countries which backed Kuwait. Saudi Arabia, asked different countries to offers support to Kuwait since it could not be able to fight against Iraq’s strong army. This therefore saw many countries such as Egypt and other Middle East countries offering support to Kuwait but their efforts bore no fruits. The U.S under the rule of President Bush therefore pledged to send its troops in Kuwait in order to offer support against being exploited by Iraq. The U.S through the NATO therefore joined in the war. Russia also supported NATO’s support in the war but it did not offer its own troops to fight against Iraq which was its business partner. Most countries were against Iraq simply because it only wanted to exploit Kuwait of its oil and live it bare. This therefore made the U.S to be furious and us the super powers, the country had to make an effort in making sure that Kuwait is not invaded by its selfish neighbour Iraq. This paper is therefore going to talk about the U.S participation in the Gulf war and the advantages and disadvantages of the war on Iraq and its neighbouring Arab countries.
Iraq also wanted to invade Saudi Arabia and declare it a part of Iraq, thus being able to control all businesses in the country. In 17th January 1991, the U.S made its first attacks on the Iraq in the town of Baghdad (McNeil at a, 6). This led to the collapse of the town as it was reduced to nothing since the US had the best weapons. On the other hand, across the Saudi Arabia, Iraq border, soldiers from different countries in the world mostly from the Arab states and the NATO had been deployed in order to make sure that Saudi Arabia is not invaded by Iraq. Iraq was therefore weakened on both sides and this made it easier for the US to be able to win victory over Iraq (Mirra, 12). The country was faced by different attacks ranging from aerial attacks, missile attacks and this really weakened the strong nature of the Iraq soldiers thus making it hard for them to be able to invade Saudi Arabia as it had planned. The British and the U.S soldiers used air attacks to destroy Iraq’s mercenaries. Destroying its chemical and nuclear weapons, the weapons plants in Iraq were also destroyed thus further weakening the military power of the country. The communication systems between the civilians were also destroyed thus no one could be able to communicate with each other in the country (Yetiv, 7). The power plants were also destroyed in the country thus bringing the activities of the country into a halt. The economy of the country was at the verge of collapsing since no activities were not taking place in Iraq. Iraq was therefore losing at lot since the country was now suffering from attacks from many countries and its economy was rapidly dropping thus leading to many problems in the country.
The U.S later decided to seize fire since it had really affected Iraq. A very huge number of Iraq’s soldiers of about three hundred thousand in number were consequently killed. Most of Iraq’s soldiers had escaped from Kuwait while others had surrendered but this war had left the country in problems. Most of the country’s property and lives had been lost. Iraq was therefore reduced to nothing as it could not be able to protect itself against any attacks from its enemies. Each and everything in the country was therefore reduced to nothing and the country could only depend on donors in order to be able to cater for its needs (McNeil at a, 7). Immediately after the withdrawal of the U.S soldiers from Iraq, Kuwait and other Arab countries were now at ease since their dominating enemy had been reduced to nothing and could not therefore be able to carry out any attacks in any of the countries. Iraq therefore had no future since it could not be able to carry out activities since each and everything that it had, had been destroyed. After the war, the country was then followed by a series of rebel attacks against the President Saddam Hussein who was later hanged after being charged and found to be guilty of treason (Mirra, 14). During civil war in the country, which was against the rule of Saddam Hussein, the country was at a standstill since no one could be able to conduct any activities in the country at ease. The country consequently depended on the support of other countries in order to be able to run smoothly since it could not be able to sustain itself. The country had acquired loans from different banks in order to sustain the war that it had highly invested in. After the war, the country had amassed a loan of $37000 (Yetiv, 8). This money could only be paid if the country had a stable economy thus being able to pay for its debts. The country was now swimming in a pool of debts and nothing could change without it depending on other countries for financial support.
According to my point of view, the U.S did the right in order to support Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against being invaded by Iraq (Yetiv, 10). This is consequently Iraq was taking the advantage of its week neighbours thus invading and reclaiming land. Iraq had taken 300000 soldiers to Kuwait, showing that it had actually taken over the country (Mirra, 16). It could therefore control all of the activities that were carried out in the country and this included mining and selling oil to other countries. Iraq had therefore taken over Kuwait and did not even think about the affair of the country. This was very wrong simply because Iraq was only concerned with the way that it could be able to increase its wealth through invading and taking over other countries (McNeil at a, 8). Iraq claimed that Kuwait was stilling oil from Iraq at its border and it was therefore more than willing to do anything in order to regain its stolen oil by Kuwait. This was a sentiment which was actually wrong since Iraq was looking for a way in which it could be able to attack and take over the oil mines in Kuwait.
The main problem that was facing Iraq was that the prices of oil had gone down simply because the United Arab Emirates countries had increased the supply of crude oil in the market. This made it hard for Iraq to be able to get a lot of revenue from oil thus it had to look for alternative ways of making sure that it gains a lot of revenue from Oil (Yetiv, 12). Due to increase in oil in the market, enmity was therefore created between Iraq and the Arab countries. Thus Iraq was mainly interested in making sure that it controlled the oil trade in the world. This therefore meant that it had to attack its neighbours and stop them from mining excess oil for export. Furthermore, it wanted to dictate the way oil is supposed to mined and regulated in the market thus being able to increase the profits gained from the sale of oil (Mirra, 18). After invading Kuwait, Iraq was also determined to invade Saudi Arabia which is also among the largest producers of oil in the world (McNeil at a, 9). This was another way of obtaining the oil mines in Saudi Arabia and making sure that it controls oil trade all over the world without any whatsoever opposition. The only way that Iraq could be stopped from its evil activities was therefore being attacked by different countries. This really weakened the country and it therefore had no choice but to retreat from the war since it had utilized all of its resources on war.
On the other hand, the U.S Gulf war was not done in the right way as it led to the loss of lives and property destruction in Iraq (Mirra, 20). In particular, the city of Baghdad was reduced to nothing thus making it hard for the country to be able to continue with its activities peacefully. Moreover, due to the air attacks that both the U.S and the British army on Iraq, it led to massive deaths of innocent people who were not even involved in the war (McNeil at a, 9). The destruction of power plants in the country made it hard for people to continue with their daily activities, meaning that all the activities in the country had been paralysed. The U.S and all the other countries which had participated in the war could have looked for other alternatives of making sure Iraq does not invade Kuwait. War was supposed to be last alternative and the country could not have suffered as it suffered after being attacked by very superior forces. Thus the U.S and the forces which participated in the war were not justified to participate in that war without at least trying peaceful means (Yetiv, 14).
Conclusion
The U.S gulf war had a lot of both negative and positive results since the Arab countries were able to live peacefully. The Arab countries were frightened with the way Iraq was conducting its activities and this consequently made them to be at ease since they could be affected by Iraq’s inhuman behaviour. The war allowed Kuwait to be able to reclaim its land thus being able to control its activities without any problems. On the other hand, there were many lives which were lost in Iraq during the Persian Gulf since the airstrikes targeted anyone thus leading to death of very many people in Iraq. Property of worth Billions was also destroyed in the country.
Work Cited
McNeil, Rebecca B., et al. "An Assessment Of Survey Measures Used Across Key Epidemiologic Studies Of United States Gulf War I Era Veterans." Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 12.1 (2013): 1-19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Yetiv, Steve A. "Misperceiving U.S. Foreign Policy In The Gulf: Raising The Hidden Costs Of U.S. Dependence On Oil." Journal Of International Affairs 69.1 (2015): 141-155. Business Source Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Mirra, Carl. "The Mutation Of The Vietnam Syndrome: Underreported Resistance During The 1991 Persian Gulf War." Peace & Change 36.2 (2011): 262-284. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
US has used their presence in the Middle East towards their benefit
Introduction
Since the start of the War on Terror, the US government has had a lead role in the Middle East issues. It has infiltrated the region through its military presence and other means like diplomatic and economic partnership. With the strong military presence in Middle East, it has been able to gain some control of how things are down there. Whether militarily or any other way, the US presence in the region should be limited to resolving matters that only pose a direct threat to its national security. However, a problem arises where the reasons for involvement in the affairs of the region are questionable. The government has used the presence as an opportunity to benefit itself in the long run but not only to control aspects that do not threaten the country’s security. It has faced indirect competition from the Russian government that has been using diplomatic tactics and sometimes war to penetrate the Middle East region. However, presence of oil in the region has heightened the economic interest of U.S authorities with every President that takes office supporting the reasons for continued complete involvement. Being a major superpower, the US uses its diplomatic, economic, and military prowess to stamp its authority as a key player in the region to satisfy its national interests (Simon & Jonathan, 1). The US has for a long time has shown more concern for the affairs indirectly by resolving to make particular foreign policies that favor its interest. It supported the late Saddam Hussein in the eighties during the Iraq-Iran war because Iran was posing a threat to the region. However, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in 1990, it sparked off a war with the US, and that led to the Gulf war. It spearheaded the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq resulting to too much suffering. Hence, resentment grew towards the US by those who were sympathetic to the Iraq people, especially the Arabic nations. The same scenario continues to recent times where the US only get involved in affairs of the region from which it can benefit. In this essay I will discuss how the US should get involved in Middle Eastern issues, because I believe the US has often been reacting to issues that cannot benefit it, or making a big issues out of matters that just serves its wellbeing, and then involve other nations in issues that only work to its benefit.
The War on Terror has up to today been handled by two different commanders in chief, each of them having different ideologies on how to fight terror. The theories are not only different but raise a lot of opposing arguments. A major difference is seen where President Bush approach has involved a lot of aggressiveness but the Obama approach has erred into idealism a lot of wishful thinking though things have changed with time (Stern par.7). The first half of the War on Terror was under the command of President George W. Bush. The Bush tactic on the war on terror was based on military action and is the period of the war that faced many questions on morality. The Obama way was more strategic rather than physical. Even though both had different ideas on how to fight terrorism, it seems that Obama has continued to use the Bush approach instead of changing it. The relationship between counterterrorism approaches used by Bush and Obama has as much change as continuity. (Stern par.7). That is a reason to raise eyebrows because the desired thing by many people is to see an end to this global war on terrorism. Aggression tactics or force has been used on some occasions to fight the enemies at the expense of civilian casualties such as in Afghanistan. The presence of American troops in Middle Eastern territories has easily been used not only for other reasons but for tgaining control of the oil market. American troops heavily conquered Middle Eastern armies and counted with much more economic support.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US policies on terror were changed and its muscle tightened to ensure that it wins war on terrorism. It showed its real objectives when it overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan and sent a clear message that it was serious about fighting terrorism (Lynch par.4). The US authority has since then been coordinating with governments with similar objective of fighting global terrorism carried out by terror groups such as Al Qaeda and the ISIS. The big issue is whether the US government is really committed to fighting terrorism or there are other motivating factors for it involvement. There appears to be falsehoods in the true spirit of the American involvement in fighting global terror (Telatar par.6). The livelihoods of many people are threatened by this animal called terrorism and yet the true spirit to fight it is questionable and raises doubts. It should be noted that the war on terror was officially launched moments after the 9/11 attacks where the Taliban and Al Qaeda were targeted. Michel Chossudovsky points out in his bestselling book that the whole attack was preplanned and that America was much aware of it. The war that was launched against Afghanistan within a spurn of few days was hard to believe. It was like that decision had been made earlier and the public was deceived by the state. Different conspiracies have studied the facts and have come to different conclusions that make it questionable. The US was supporting the Al Qaeda in the Balkans, and that meant that there were connections between the two. The US wanted to destabilize the Yugoslavian federation through ethnic conflicts and not just to fight terror. It is highly suspected that the US simply wants its military to be dominant in the world by purporting to fight terror and thereby gain other interests. Other observations about structural loop holes have been made. Those countries that threaten global security are attacked by the military and eventually dominance is established (Gerges ,par.4). The actual nature of America's purpose of fighting terror is unclear. Every successive US administration has been supporting terrorist organizations through top intelligence with the sole intention of creating unstable societies. There were connections between the US intelligence and the terrorist networks whereby they were in constant collaboration. That is never put in the public domain. Economic benefits also come along with the war on terror as the US positions itself to utilize existing resources and also establish its military bases. It is the joy of America to see other societies unstable. The Obama administration has for instance refused to support Syria with military aid, and it tells a lot about the US policy on the civil war in Syria. The military bases established all over the world helps the US to be in a good position to defend or wither any potential attacks to its interests.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was not just intended to liberate Iraq, but the US had its agenda well set. The US has for the longest time pretending to support certain political establishments but in scrutinizing, it has always had hidden agendas. As history shows, the US would love to create instability in countries of interest so that it comes in and establish its control more so militarily. Even after Saddam Hussein was defeated and normalcy restored, the alleged weapons of mass destruction were not found. It was just a ploy by the US to gain access and benefit from the oil resources in the Middle East (Lynch par.5). The US support of the Shiite army was defended by saying that it was not helping the ones associated with extremism but rather those Shiite militias that were supporting the Iraq security forces. That was a tactic by the US government to avoid the blame. The US said that the extremist elements would be fought by all means. It acknowledged the fact that some of those militants represented local tribes that had the true intentions of restoring Iraq whereas others wanted to create further instability. Some of the local groups were associated with terrorism such as the Hezbollah Brigades (Simon & Jonathan par.3). Many critics claim that all these was just the Washington propaganda or tactic to avoid the blame. Many welcome the idea of Iran partnering with the US even though it fought against it during the Iraq-Iran war.
Even though the US's involvement is questionable, some may argue that the US has been placed in a position where pulling out is not an option. And when questioning morality one may say that the US has crossed the line in their immersions in these matters, but others may say that it is immoral for them to pull back from a war they started. After having created much more conflicts, leaving matters like this would be quite immoral as well. “The Arab Spring was a challenge to Obama's tactical approach to the Middle East. It suddenly propelled the region to back the US foreign policy agenda. The majority of Americans want little to do with the greater Middle East, and the US officials are finding it hard to turn away” (Krieg par.3). That brings raises a question on whether the involvement of the US in Middle Eastern matters is more beneficial or not. What is the most moral solution for the US relation with the Middle East right now? Is it to pull back and leave behind the war they started or to keep their presence there while shifting things towards their benefit? Or maybe is the US capable of leaving their military presence in the Middle East just as a mediator without having to shift outcomes towards their benefit? Many questions and dilemmas arises from this.
U.S.-IRAQ Relations
According to Kuniholm (45) the US under the pretense of building a dedicated relationship, strategic partnerships and also with the Iraqi people decided to withdraw troops from Iraq. It formed a milestone in the two country’s relations as Iraq continued to develop as an independent and sovereign state. The war was fought, and the US already won it war of exerting influence in the countries affairs. Being sovereign is the farce, the diplomatic relations will work for the USA government and even though their troops have left, the under dealings will still exist to benefit the American administration. Iraq is new a key ally of the US government in the Middle East. The US were worried about the growing influence of the Russian government in the Middle East. They decided to stake their presence and turn things in their favor. Oil form an essential part of the global economy, country’s that mine oil is a force to reckon with in the global affair, for the thus reason the US government wanted to be the power behind the power. In the pretense of creating stability and peace in the Middle East, the US government have continued to see their interest and influence sour both politically and economically for this reason (Kuniholm 78). The U.S maintains a vigorous and abroad engagement with Iraq on a diplomatic, political, and economic and security issues. They have influenced every arm of the Iraq government to ensure smooth flow of their interest.
Statistical evidence suggests that the US economy has been boosted by his growing influence in the Middle East. For generations, the infiltration of US commodities into the Middle East market was marred with a lot of obstacles as most believers in Islam termed non-believers infidels and their products not accepted in the Islamic faith. Right now was see doubled figures of US products going round in Iraq and another part of Middle East. In 2011 the two-way trade registered 16.9 billion dollars with US exports to Iraq running at 2.4 billion dollars which were an increase of 46.8% from 2010 while Iraqi exports most notably being oil was at 16.9 billion dollars almost entirely as suggested before consisting of crude oil (Tenet 73). It is a two-fold increase in oil exportation because the figures registered before the invasion way below. In 2012 exports totaled 951.7 million down and imports totaled down from 1.365 billion dollars.
To get their oil without much fuss, the US as integrated Iraq into the International community and Iraq for the first time as become a member for accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). US government being the superpower, is pulling his weight, resources and influence to please Iraq and make them owe the US debt so that one day it can back out of the deal (Sharp 52). In a way not understood by Western nations religion remains a uniting factor in most countries in the Middle East, to divide and rule them The US government has championed for freedom of worship and allowed Christians to become part of this region without getting persecuted. With their hands tied, the Iraq government has decided to sing to the tune so as to continue enjoying the benefits accorded to them in the international scene. With the creation of division due to the many Christians who leave with a different mindset and liberation of women as compared to Islamic teachings, the US government has been able to boost its trade and gains from the oil exploration. A divided nation focuses on the individual accumulation of wealth. The Iraq people has lived in a condition of dictatorship, and lack of freedom and ideal sovereignty and now they see the US government as Allah sent and will do anything to make sure their diplomatic relationships is not violated.
Many world emerging powers depend on oil to survive, so there is a second-order effect to the US if supply is reduced from the Middle East or compromised. They see the essence of control of oil exportation to other countries like Japan which is the world’s largest importer of liquefied natural gas. Control of Middle East means control of other parts of the world. The US needs oil to continue its influence in the world. The only way to do this promotes propaganda and find reasons to invade a country and exert its influence (Kuniholm 45). We see this in Libya case, a country which is now dwindling economically after the death Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled his country with an iron fist even though at that particular time Libya was enjoying world’s status as a developed country. Libya’s influence in Africa was growing by the day due to good use the leader placed on its natural resources. The world accused Libya's leader for being dictatorial, and he was ousted and killed after years of proper use of natural oil reserves (Tenet 68). The US feared a rebellious country, especially in Africa, and thus decided to end the so called tyranny. Years after Gadhafi’s death, Libya’s citizens are still in shock of the high instability that has engulfed the country. The same is going on in the Middle East where countries with large oil fields are destabilized and then the world’s superpower comes in to rescue the situation and later leaving behind a system that will ensure that their interests are safeguarded.
The US troops are evenly found all over the Middle East and foreign military presence in a country means that the sovereignty of that country has been violated. It lacks the freedom to conduct government business without the interference of the US government (Sharp 52). Countries in the Middle East will never be sovereign not unless the troops, and secret intelligence of US government totally evacuates.
"When it became evident in 2014 that the US Air Force was providing indirect air support for Shiite militias and Iranian advisers in Iraq in the fight against the group known as ISIS, the world was stunned" (Krieg par.3). It is this type of actions that have started to raise eyebrows and make the US intentions questionable. As Krieg said the world was stunned, stunned by the US's abuse of monetary power to influence outcomes to their liking. A country that has the amount of power like the US,needs to use its power responsibly. The responsible way of utilizing power is making decisions that are in the best interest of populations of all countries rather than shifting it all towards their nation’s well-being. Even though the US is fighting a war against terror, one might question their integrity on the matter. Since the US started to rise to power they hold today and be one of the most powerful nations (or most powerful) they have used the art of violence to create fear in civilians and other nations. Terrorizing Violence is defined by Bonds as "methods of violence in which civilians are intentionally targeted with the goal of creating fear or intimidation. “This kind of military action involves counter attacking the opponent's military and directly threatening or attacking innocent civilians to create fear and make a statement of power. We have seen the US committing several of such attacks that clearly fall under terrorizing violence. A good example was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2.Apart from destroying a massive amount of civilian territory, the attack also took the lives of thousands and thousands of people (many times more than 9/11 attacks).
It defeats logic for the US to be at the frontline wedging war on terrorism and yet it has been terrorizing other nations and even its citizens. The US military is reported to have been torturing suspected militants in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also conduct air raids and other military operations that end up affecting the civilian settlements and even causing death (Gerges par.3). The Abu Ghraib horrors and other forms of torture are just clear examples of how the US cannot have the confidence to say that it champions human rights. The blame and condemnation are further shifted to the Obama administration for its failure to prosecute any persons involved in torture during the Bush's administration. It is the same script that is played by every successive regime, and that puts to doubt America's position on protecting human rights. It cannot be forgotten that torture existed in the history of the US more so against the slaves. The police department is blamed for some of the tortures especially against people of color. In the past, an African-American could be tortured to send shivers or fear to the rest of the black community. The US does not regard its actions as terrorism and yet they cause suffering to the populations. Drone attacks are common in the Middle East, and the US uses that as a signal to its enemies that they can be attacked anytime so long as they pose a danger. These drone attacks cause fear to the rest of the population. In general, the US involves itself in both domestic and international terrorism, but it would not admit.
Conclusion
The legitimacy of the US in fighting international or global terrorism is put in doubt because it dishonestly aims to benefit itself either directly or indirectly. The US is not morally right to hide its antiterrorism agenda. Although I started to think really of a solution to solve the question of whether the US has abused its military presence in the Middle East, the answer didn't seem to pop up quickly into my head. Reflecting on this I thought of something I saw, where people voted to raise awareness of corruption with the goal of having some public justice for the crimes committed by corrupt leaders around the world. I believe the court’s judgment on this issue should be open to public opinion since the ability of abuse of power by big nations is common. Most of these hearings where leaders exchange information are closed, and little information is leaked. The world has been overwhelmed by wars in Middle Eastern regions which Iraq started and led the way. The wars have caused increased terrorist attacks all over the world. If the US pulls back from military infiltration, would it be possible to make the war stop? Or will control over terrorist groups be lost, and they become more powerful, thus increasing the threat?
The USA government has been known for mediating in civil wars of other countries if there are possible economic, social and political interest in them. It is obvious that their intervention in Middle-East territories is driven by their interest in the oil fields that are not depleting. The US, as mentioned above, first supported Saddam Hussein during his war against Iran and the question is why it had to change that position and later fight him. Although he is dead and buried, US military presence is still heavy in the war-torn areas like Libya. The US mission in Iraq will continue being relevant unless they lose the power to control the region or the oil depletes. Some countries have faced unfairly been mistreated by USA government and the USA military. Libya for instance serves as good case study on the USA dictatorial measures of controlling the most valuable commodity on the planet (Kuniholm 37). After years of mining oil, especially during the Rockefeller days, US oil fields have depleted and owing to the largest yearly budget in the world,they had to find ways to get back into control so as to maintain their country’s status and also exert influence on a global scale.
Works Cited
Gerges, Fawaz A. "The Obama Approach to the Middle East: The End of Americas Moment?" Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Krieg, Andreas. "Externalizing the Burden of War: The Obama Doctrine and US Foreign Policy in the Middle East." Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. N.p., Jan. 2016. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Lynch, Marc. "Obama and Terrorism: Rightsizing the U.S. Role." Foreign Affairs 1 Sept. 2015: n. pag. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Simon, Steven, and Jonathan ,Stevenson. "The End of Pax Americana: Why Washington's Middle East Pullback Makes Sense." Foreign Affairs1 Nov. 2015: n. pag. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Stern, Jessica. "Obama and Terrorism: Like It or Not the War Goes on." Foreign Affairs 1 Sept. 2015: n. pag. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Telatar, Gökhan. "Barack Obama, the War on Terrorism and the US Hegemony." Web.b.ebscohost.com. Alternative Turkish Journal of International Relations, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
The judiciary has a central place in the United States government and politics – as well as in our legalistic national culture. Should we mandate more transparency for judicial operations – televise supreme court oral arguments, for example, regulate that court conferences be transcribed and publicized?
Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
When Europeans look to the EU to enact regulations or new policies governing the member states, sometimes it is the European Commission that will play the leading role in the steps from proposal to enactment. Sometimes it will be the European Council. Sometimes it will be the European Parliament. Each institution tends to represent a different "constituency", influencing the goals and nature of policies created by that institution's leadership in the policy making process.
Using the module lectures as a guide and the Europa web site on institutions (http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/index_en.htm) as a source of examples choose a specific area of EU policy that demonstrates the most extreme differences that you can find in the role of the above institutions in the making of policy (for example: the European Commission driving the entire policy design process with the European Parliament barely involved; or the European Council having nearly full control over the policy area.) Comment on how the primary constituency of that institution might effect the policy choices made for the policy area you have chosen as your example. Finally, briefly comment on what the strengths and weaknesses are for each of the above institutions from the standpoint of building an effective European Union, as guided by the example you have chosen.
Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
it may be an institution (Congress, Supreme Court), an agency (FBI, CIA), a movement (Women's Movement, Anti-War Movement, Civil Rights Movement), a biography ( a President, or other important figure), a period of US History (Cold War, Great Depression) or a political party (Democrats, Whig, Republicans). Anything that has relevance to American Government.
Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
Analyze the democratization of American political life in the early 1800s. What were the major changes that happened, what caused those changes, and how were they reflected in the presidential elections of 1824 and 1828?
Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
Scholars of American politics have debated the question of "divided government," where different parties control the executive and legislative branches. One example of divided government is where the Republican party control the Presidency, while Democrats control the House of Representatives and the Senate. Another example is where the Democrats control the Presidency and Senate, but the Republicans control the House of Representatives.
Some scholars have argued that having a single party control both the executive and legislative branches is good, in the sense that it prevents prolonged debate and ensures that policies are implemented in a quick and decisive manner.
Other scholars have argued the opposite, claiming that having different parties control the executive and legislative branches is better, in that it ensures that policies are only implemented after thorough debate and public discourse that considers multiple possible options.
For this assignment, answer the following prompt:
Is the federal government effective if separate parties control the Executive and Legislative branches? Why or why not?
Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
Public Opinion Prepare 250- to 300-word response to one of these questions:
How does public opinion influence American politics? Be sure to cite 3 examples of how public opinion affected political decisions in the last year. Research public opinion in one issue area.
How did it change over time? How did these changes affect policy decisions?
Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer: Paper Instructions:
Describe the major points made by the author in this article. What is the thesis statement (the main idea) of this article? (in your own words) Summarize the evidence that the author presents to back up his/her argument. Do you find the argument and the evidence logical and believable? Why or why not? Do you agree with what the article says? Choose one quote from the article that you feel is particularly important, properly cite it, and then give your own explanation and interpretation of it. Explain some specific ways that this article relates to what we are and will be studying this summer.
This website is owned and operated by PFS Limited.
Company Registration office is at:
2875 NE 194st St 404, Miami, FL 33180
Edudorm.com provides writing and research services for limited use only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references and in accordance with Terms & Conditions
