American Interventions Since World War Ii Essay Example for Free

American Interventions Since World War Ii Essay Since 1940, the United States has a long history of foreign interventions, long since leaving behind its former isolationism. Its motives have included the urge to fight fascist aggression, the desire to contain communism’s spread (and protect American economic interests), and preserving American access to plentiful Middle Eastern oil. Before December 1941, much of the American public favored isolation from world affairs, especially in the wake of World War I, to many a pointless conflict. However, others looked warily at the spread of fascism and militarism in Europe and eastern Asia. President Franklin Roosevelt believed by 1938 that the conflict would eventually draw in the United States, and he wanted to assist the United Kingdom in its war against Germany (which it fought with virtually no help beyond American aid programs like Lend-Lease). Roosevelt, aware that many Americans were wary of another futile war, framed the conflict in moral terms, presenting Hitler’s fascism and Japan’s militarism as evils that needed eradication by the forces of democracy. He cautiously began preparing the nation for war by expanding the armed forces and defense economy, aiding the British, and imposing embargoes on oil and metal sales to Japan, vainly hoping that Japan’s military-run government would desist from its aggressive expansion throughout eastern Asia. The Cold War began almost immediately after World War II, giving the United States no real opportunity to revert to isolationism. By mid-1945, the Soviet army had already occupied much of eastern and central Europe, claiming its right to â€Å"buffer nations† and using a dying Roosevelt’s agreement at Yalta to justify their domination of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and much of the Balkan region. Very quickly, the Soviet Union began expanding its assisting communist rebels in various nations, and the United States saw a threat not only to its own dominance but also to capitalist economies abroad (many tied to American economic interests). Aware that much of Europe was devastated and impoverished by the war (and thus vulnerable to Soviet influence), the Truman administration actively intervened in European affairs with aid packages like the Marshall Plan, the Truman doctrine (which led to American intervention in Greece and Turkey, where communist insurgents actively sought control and the British were unable to cope), and the creation of NATO as a military response to the Soviets. The Cold War also drove the United States to intervene further in Asia, after the communist takeover in China in 1949 and the outbreak of hostilities between North and South Korea in 1950 (which turned into a sort of proxy war between the United States and China). After a cease-fire halted the Korean conflict in 1953 (indeed, it has not officially ended and American troops remain there in large numbers), the United States followed the policy of containment, initially outlined in 1946 by George Kennan NSC-68 document. Accepting the existence of both the Soviet Union and China, American policy aimed to prevent communist expansion into other nations, particularly the newly-independent Third World nations that had been European colonies before 1945. This often involved behind-the-scenes support of various regimes (sometimes democratic, often authoritarian and repressive) Though Lyndon Johnson framed the Vietnam War in Cold War terms, using the â€Å"domino theory† to argue that halting communism in southeast Asia was pivotally important, the conflict’s roots lay in the mid-1940s, when the Vietnamese declared independence from France and fought an eight-year war for liberation, ending with France’s defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The United States, which began providing aid to France as early as 1950, increasingly viewed Vietnam’s fight to reunify under Ho Chi Minh through the lens of Cold War thinking, and Johnson approached the war as a battle against communist expansion, rather than as a guerrilla war for national liberation and unity. In the Middle East, American interventions generally concerned both the region’s rich oil supplies and the nation of Israel, whose independence the United States recognized within minutes of its declaration in 1948. American support for Israel was motivated in part by Truman’s sympathy for the Jews, given their horrific experiences under Nazism) complicated relations with Arab states and incurred long-lasting Arab mistrust of the United States. In addition, the United States (being the world’s largest oil consumer) was eager to protect the region’s vast oil fields from the Soviets and drove the United States to support dictators such as the Shah of Iran and later Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – with negative consequences in both cases. When communism ended as an international threat, American leadership increasingly viewed Arab extremism as the new threat to its hegemony. The Gulf War of 1990-1991 grew from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, which upset the region’s political status quo and jeopardized the West’s access to Kuwaiti oil. The current conflict in Iraq is a continuation of this, as well as an effort to assert American authority in a region which has long regarded the United States with suspicion and disdain. Economic and geopolitical motives were the chief factors behind American interventions abroad after 1940. The United States entered World War II to fight fascist aggression and expansion, while the Cold War was a struggle against both growing communist influence and the resulting threats to global capitalism and Vietnam transformed from efforts to help a colonial power to a Cold War fight. Finally, American activity in the Middle East has been motivated by a desire to keep the region a stable and dependable source of oil, as well as a desire to combat Muslim extremists aiming to undermine American domination. REFERENCES Boyer, Paul S. et al. The Enduring Vision. Third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Goldfield, David et al. The American Journey. Third edition. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005.

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre †A Story of One Abused Child :: Jane Eyre Essays

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre – A Story of One Abused Child According to Alexandria’s daily newspaper, The Town Talk, approximately 34,910 cases of suspected child abuse were reported in Louisiana alone last year (Crooks). Charlotte Bronte tells of one victim of child abuse in her novel Jane Eyre. In Jane Eyre, Bronte chronicles the life of Jane, a notoriously plain female in want of love. After being abused, Jane portrays many characteristics which other victims of abuse often portray. Throughout the novel, Jane is reclusive, pessimistic, and self-deprecating. Although Jane does display such traits through most of her life, she is finally able to overcome her past. By facing her abusive aunt, Jane rises above her abuse to become truly happy. In his essay â€Å"Jane Eyre: The Quest for Optimism,† Frederick L. Ashe writes, â€Å"It is hard to imagine anyone learned enough to read Jane Eyre who would consider her first ten years emotionally healthful ones† (Ashe). Ashe, whose criticism appeared in Novels for Students, Volume 4, is correct in his opinion. Jane’s abuse first begins in her own home. Her life until age ten is filled with abuse from her cousin John Reed, the mockery of the household servants, and the physical and mental abuse of her Aunt Reed. John’s first abuse of Jane comes when he throws a heavy book at her head. Bronte writes in Jane’s voice, â€Å"I saw him lift and poise the book and stand in act to hurl it, I instinctively started aside with a cry of alarm: not soon enough, however; the volume was flung, it hit me, and I fell, striking my head against the door and cutting it. The cut bled, the pain was sharp† (Bronte 13). John’s physical abuse of Jane is no t the only abuse she receives, though. After Jane recovers from the abuse bestowed upon her by John, Miss Abbot, a servant, says of Jane, â€Å"If she were a nice, pretty child, one might compassionate her forlornness; but one really cannot care for such a little toad as that† (Bronte 28). Although this abuse pains Jane, it is the abuse of her Aunt Reed that hurts Jane the most. Aunt Reed’s first maltreatment of Jane is on the first page of the novel. Aunt Reed gathers her children around her for a happy family moment. Jane, however, is left alone. Jane says, â€Å"[Aunt Reed] regretted to be

The Cons of Mandatory Marital Counseling

â€Å"Until death do us part† does not hold the meaning or weight that it used to in many marriages.   Divorce rates began to soar in the 1980s and by the early 1990s, the average divorce rate was 50%.   That means that every other marriage ended in divorce.   One reason many believe so many divorces occur is due to the fact that they are too easy to obtain. While this may be true, recent movements to require marital counseling prior to allowing couples to apply for a divorce have raised many questions as to the effectiveness of mandatory marital counseling.   While mandatory marital counseling may seem like a good idea, it is bad for many reasons.   Mandating couples to obtain marital counseling prior to a divorce can raise unrealistic outcomes, obstruct schedules that are already constrained, and take away more freedom of the individual. Many states are trying to pass legislation that would require pre marital counseling as well as several years of counseling before granting a divorce to couples seeking to separate legally.   While counseling may help some work out their problems, this can also lead to unrealistic expectations.   Couples who have been together for several years already know what they can and cannot work out with each other.   They may have tried previous counseling and failed at it. Just offering the counseling does not mean that it is going to work.   Counseling and working through problems can only work if both parties are open to it and wish for it to work.   When one partner is not willing to resolve issues, the other partner may be left with unrealistic expectations that the relationship can be salvaged, when in fact, the promise of counseling is only delaying the inevitable. Marital counseling takes time.   With two people on different schedules who may not even live together, time is constrained enough as it is.   Mandating someone’s time who did not commit a crime is a crime in and of itself.   Wanting a divorce is not a crime, and sentencing couples to seek counseling is like treating them like prisoners.   If one parent has restricted access to the children, this obligation could also cut into his or her already limited parenting time. Mandating marital counseling is a violation of personal freedoms.   It takes away an individual’s choice to make decisions regarding whom to be with.   It forces people who do not want to see each other to spend time together talking about their already troubled relationship.   This type of communication can often lead to more hurt and anger as more secrets are revealed during counseling sessions. Things that were not going to be shared to keep the other party from being further hurt or angered often end up being aired.   What once could have been an amiable parting gets drawn out.   There is no choice but to remain legally married until the sessions are over and the court sees fit to grant a petition for divorce. While counseling can help in some situations, mandating counseling never seems to be a good idea for non criminal activity.   When two people decide to end a marriage, they should be allowed to do so without being mandated by the government.   Forced counseling can provide unrealistic expectations and make separation all the more painful.   Already busy schedules become blocked off with mandatory meeting times with counselors and government has more control over people’s personal freedoms and rights.   Even though the divorce rates are high and don’t seem to be getting any lower, mandating marital counseling is not the answer.   

What Was the Umayyad Caliphate

The Umayyad Caliphate was the second of four Islamic caliphates and was founded in Arabia after the Prophet Muhammads death. The Umayyads ruled the Islamic world from 661 to 750 C.E. Their capital was in the city of Damascus; the founder of the caliphate, Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, had long been the governor of Syria. Originally from Mecca, Muawiya named his dynasty the Sons of Umayya after a common ancestor he shared with the Prophet Muhammad. The Umayyad family had been one of the major combatant clans in the Battle of Badr (624 CE), the decisive battle between Muhammad and his followers on the one hand, and the powerful clans of Mecca on the other. Muawiya triumphed over Ali, the fourth caliph, and Muhammads son-in-law, in 661, and officially founded the new caliphate. The Umayyad Caliphate became one of the major political, cultural, and scientific centers of the early medieval world.    The Umayyads also began the process of spreading Islam throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe. They moved into Persia and Central Asia, converting the rulers of key Silk Road oasis cities such as Merv and Sistan.   They also invaded what is now Pakistan, beginning the process of conversion in that area that would continue for centuries. Umayyad troops also crossed Egypt and brought Islam to the Mediterranean coast of Africa, from whence it would disperse south across the Sahara along caravan routes until much of West Africa became Muslim. Finally, the Umayyads waged a series of wars against the Byzantine Empire based in what is now Istanbul. They sought to overthrow this Christian empire in Anatolia and convert the region to Islam; Anatolia would eventually convert, but not for several centuries after the collapse of the Umayyad Dynasty in Asia. Between 685 and 705 CE, the Umayyad Caliphate reached its apex of power and prestige. Its armies conquered areas from Spain the west to Sindh in what is now India. One after another, additional Central Asian cities fell to the Muslim armies - Bukhara, Samarkand, Khwarezm, Tashkent, and Fergana. This rapidly expanding empire had a postal system, a form of banking based on credit, and some of the most beautiful architecture ever seen. Just when it seemed that the Umayyads truly were poised to rule the world, however, disaster struck. In 717 CE, the Byzantine emperor Leo III led his army to a crushing victory over the Umayyad forces, which had been besieging Constantinople. After 12 months trying to break through the citys defenses, the hungry and exhausted Umayyads had to retreat empty-handed back to Syria. A new caliph, Umar II, tried to reform the financial system of the caliphate by increasing the taxes on Arab Muslims to the same level as taxes on all other non-Arab Muslims. This caused a huge outcry among the Arab faithful, of course, and caused a financial crisis when they refused to pay any taxes at all. Finally, renewed feuding broke out among the various Arab tribes around this time, leaving the Umayyad system tottering. It managed to press on for a few more decades. Umayyad armies got as far into western Europe as France by 732, where they were turned back at the Battle of Tours. In 740, the Byzantines dealt the Umayyads another shattering blow, driving all Arabs from Anatolia. Five years later, the simmering feuds between the Qays and Kalb tribes of Arabs erupted into full-scale war in Syria and Iraq. In 749, religious leaders proclaimed a new caliph, Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah, who became the founder of the  Abbasid Caliphate. Under the new caliph, members of the old ruling family were hunted down and executed. One survivor, Abd-ar-Rahman, escaped to Al-Andalus (Spain), where he founded the Emirate (and later Caliphate) of Cordoba. The Umayyad caliphate in Spain survived until 1031.