Ranshaw | 1

John Ranshaw

Professor Gordon

UWRT 1103

March 17, 2017

Annotated Bibliography

Bremmer, Ian. "Managing Risk in an Unstable World." Harvard Business Review. N.p., 31 July
2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2017. https://hbr.org/2005/06/managing-risk-in-an-unstable-world
Some reasons for influence is protect those businesses that have plants or

producers in those countries, that are important to our economy. Overall, we make

sure that the big businesses dont fail to keep the US in the driver seat as the

worlds superpower. That if the economy in a country goes down the rest of the

worlds economy begins to crash in response. This idea is that we must get

involved to avoid shocks, so are involvement is stemmed in resistance to possible

shocks aboard that may cause undue influence to American interests. Acting as a

political and economic police force for the world to keep the world market in

check. These describe very possible reason for why the US would get involved in

foreign affairs in the first place and be obligated to do is in the first place.

Donnelly, Jack. HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND AMERICAN

FOREIGN POLICY: Law, Morality and Politics. Journal of International Affairs, vol.
37, no. 2, 1984, pp. 311328., www.jstor.org/stable/24356933.
Intervention itself is immoral and illegal yet the US does this all the time to other

countries. Intervention is the grey area between intervene and interfere. Everyone

looks at intervention in different context based on the situation at hand.

Intervention is essentially the violation of sovereignty of a country just short of

 Ranshaw | 2

war. When intervening, there are two ways it is mainly justified, either the country

pushes for acceptance from the country that is being intervened or the intervention

itself is defined in the context of nonintervention. The overall understanding

that nonintervention includes no real substantial support taking place. The right

and wrong of intervention is why the US getting involved in not appropriate nor

allowed.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Lonely Superpower. Foreign Affairs, vol. 78, no. 2, 1999, pp. 35
49., www.jstor.org/stable/20049207.
That international relations lie on the fundamental idea that power is needed for

foreign relations to occur. That a single country to be able to be involved in

foreign affairs must be one that holds substantial power. This idea developed

thanks to the cold war that the US and Russia were involved in. We today in the

world, have a hybrid of a uni-multipolar system of power in which we have many

major super powers and many minor super powers as well. US has sole

preeminence in every domain of power: economic, military, diplomatic,

ideological, technological, and cultural. How world power plays a role in control

across the world and intercontinental relations. This describes how the US had the

ability to intervene themselves.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Erosion of American National Interests. Foreign Affairs, vol. 76,
no. 5, 1997, pp. 2849., www.jstor.org/stable/20048198.
National interests derive from national identity and that is the premise for the

reason of certain US intervention. US identity is founded around two major

components: culture and creed. Meaning that the culture is the melting pot in

which we live in today and all of the cultures that assimilated and joined into our
 Ranshaw | 3

society bring about our need to respect and hold these traditions as our own.

Creed includes our for fathers writing that include words such as freedom,

equality, and democracy which shape our every founded principles that this nation

was built upon. These ideas are what shape our reason to intervene as our duty as

a nation to make the world more like the US itself. The reason we get involved in

other countries is solely based on our interest and those interests come from how

we became a great nation.

Modarressy-Tehrani, Caroline. "Why Does the U.S. Keep Getting Involved in Conflict?" The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Aug. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-tehrani/why-does-the-us-keep-getting-
involved_b_5666898.html
Perpetual war for perpetual peace, is how historian Charles Beard named it.

In this country, we tend to look at foreign problems in a military way. So, send in

the marines. Sell military goods. And a lot of the reason is because we dont really

get involved in crises very often until it becomes an overwhelming problem, and

theres almost nothing left to do except using military force. I think as hard as this

is to realize, I think part of the problem is, we dont back up and pay attention to

situations as theyre developing. David Wood explains, senior military

correspondent at Huffington post.

Per this, the US is always getting into wars, the count at 74, which are mostly

undeclared wars. These wars arent all boots to the ground exclusive it includes

anywhere the US uses its money or weapons to help another nation. Reasons for

helping vary: nation building, remove certain rulers, eliminate terror groups,

spread true democracy, free people from the cycle of fear, keep old foes in
 Ranshaw | 4

check, and to settle disputes. The US gets involved where it pleases and that is

mostly in part to the military and pentagon being given a free range of access to

do what the please in intervention thanks to the war on terror. However, these

interventions never go smoothly and almost always end up in some form of

failure to the public eye, the US wastes money and troops to not leave its mark

behind. President Obama states that people forget that the US is the number one

superpower in the world and that idea is what gives us the license/duty to get

involved in every conflict related to our nation, in other words the problem. The

US just tends to intervene in foreign affairs and we always do it without

permission or with an excuse.

Powers, Samantha. ""A Problem From Hell"." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.
https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=LTAgAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=american%2Binvolvement
%2Bgenocides&ots=qbyj4ARxiF&sig=TkDYJ2KX_5nfr4SiH6EGBcOf3v0#v=onepage
&q=american%20involvement%20genocides&f=false
In regards to genocide, the public as well as the US officials spin give the idea

that the nature of violence rendered to be inevitable. That the people feel that

intervention would make the issue worse than it already is as well as jeopardize

our moral or strategic interests. A lot of the people did not want US involvement

and that this humanitarian act was not something they wanted to be a part of in the

first place. The leaders of our country over the years overall made the decision on

whether to get involved and help with the genocides, however, they were not

prepared for the amount of resources and effort it would take to get involved. That

these decisions were made based off the pros and cons of getting involved and

where concrete decisions on the matter. We as a nation were also heavily

 Ranshaw | 5

nationally interest oriented, feeling we need to get involved in every issue or

dispute. They had two objectives when deciding to help being that they did not

want to get involved in something that posed little threat to American interests

and they hoped to contain the costs and avoid the moral stigma of genocides.

Consider our involvement in genocides to be that of a humanitarian act and that it

was our choice on what was done or not.