Analysis Of Jack Snyder's One World, Rival Theories

It has only been a little more than a decade since the grave events of September 11, 2001, a tragic day forever marked in America’s history. The attack on the World Trade Center was a pivotal occasion that began the crisis that is the United State’s moral and political ambiguity of the 21st century. This has been a decade of vague and changing policy when looking at international affairs. From the power change in the Pentagon to the transition of circumstances across the globe, the years following the 9/11 attacks have emphasized the point of stance that Jack Snyder has taken in his “One World, Rival Theories.” Black and white cease to exist when foreign policy ideologies are put to practice; the theories are bent and blended to suit the present
Again, the United States played and is playing a pivotal role in the development in the growth of this reformed theory of liberalism. Constructivists work to be transparent as “such groups typically uncover and publicize information about violations of legal or moral standards at least rhetorically supported by powerful democracies” (Snyder). Ironically, constructivists provide little aid for the problems that they expose. Although human rights and justice are of great importance, laying guilt with no production of beneficial results keeps constructivism from being a palpable option for the spread of a singular foreign policy
The year of 2014 has proven to be that no president gets a free pass when it comes to difficult international decisions. Over the last term and a half, the Obama administration really has been picking up the disruptions of the Middle East right where Bush left them while simultaneously being dealt with more issues of diplomacy. The occurrences involving Ukraine and Syria have, in opinion, shown the current administrations true colors. It is the prime example of the realism ideology and the contrast between “hard” and “soft” power. In both situations, Obama has shown great reluctance in putting to use the American military. Although tens of thousands Syrians have been murdered and Ukraine has been under direct attack from Russia, present administration has moved from the “hard power” that killed Osama bin Laden and essentially ended the war in Iraq to a potential isolationist. However, as some could argue, like Stephan M. Walt, “foreign policy is not philanthropy.” Unless allies have direct benefits for the United States, perhaps the nation has no business jumping to the rescue (Walt). In other words, America is once again bringing focus back to the home front and has the potential of taking a more realist approach to foreign policy than ever before. If the nation truly does not want to look out for the interest of fellow democratic states simply because it