3. II
Abstract
The terrorists’ attack of September 11, 2001 has completely
changed the U.S. foreign policy which had been decided after the
Cold War. In January 2002, President Bush delivered The State of the
Union Address: not only has the United States been threatened by
terrorists, but also the peace of the whole world has been shaken,
America has the right to fight against the terrorism under attract. The
United States attacking Iraq without the permission of the UN is the
summit of the anti-terrorism policy of March 20, 2003.
The theory of realism in the international relationship shows
that: the existence of a nation is to pursue the greatest advantages,
which are expressed in powers. All of the actions of the U.S. foreign
policy are for strengthening, expanding, even for showing its powers.
After 9/11, the United States invaded Iraq without thinking of
avoiding being attacked. We cannot help considering the significant
foreign policies are transforming? The foreign policy processes are
according for the interests or the ideology? Was all the actions taken
by the U.S. after 9/11 are really for the nation’s benefits? Is the
ideology or value also playing a key role in the process of policy
making? The purpose of this article is to prove that ideology dominate
the principles of foreign policies, demonstrating that a nation should
not make policies due to the pursuit of powers, which is the result of
the U.S.’s military actions against Iraq.
If ideology was a force to construct the foreign policies, then
the Neoconservatism was a power of Bush’s foreign policy. Being an
ideology, the Neoconservatism directly affected the decision. The
study will review U.S. foreign policy decisions processes, and explain
how the influence of Neoconservatism influenced by the decision
makers, the governments, the public opinions, the think tanks and the
media in 1997 from 2004.
Keywords: Constructism, Ideology, Neoconservatism, terrorism, U.S.
foreign policy.
