Terrorism is the phenomenon infecting nations throughout the world. Aiming to arouse a sense of fear through threats of violence used to be the guidelines for these acts of terrorism. However, the evolution of terrorism has made the threat into a reality. The progression from hostage situations to large-scale bombings have alerted Americans to the growing threat of international terrorism. The events of 9/11 have been the rude awakening of American’s to the outrageous lengths terrorists will go to. Realizing the need for drastic measures to be taken, America has taken the lead in properly equipping the free world against terrorist threats. Changing foreign policy and international law has been the first step toward aiding in quelling the war on terrorism. But more importantly, America has begun to match the intensity of the terrorists with the desire to not only help prevent future outbreaks, but stopping terrorists at the roots. This unconventional style of war has forced America to utilize methods that have not been used before and directed America’s foreign attitude in a direction never seen before. 
            America’s adaptation to their dedication to ending terrorism has revealed new aspects of how to combat the ongoing threat. The previous century saw warfare in a traditional sense where declarations of countries were made due to conflicts of interest either politically or religiously. America’s foreign policy response to this was simple, as witnessed during the great world wars. However, the tide began to turn in Vietnam with the introduction of unconventional warfare. Guerilla tactics brought about a change from the traditional sense to a more deceitful nature. America’s transition to this new attitude was slow and proved very detrimental during the conflict, as America inflicted heavy loss of life. But now, the changes are even more drastic in nature as the modern version, witnessed through the events of 9/11, has caused America to initiate more effective responses to the new threat. By forming an international consensus on the need to address the situation, changes have been made and the transformation of America’s policy has begun. Beginning on the domestic front, the creation of the office of Homeland Security and more stringent laws and regulations addressing the issue of immigration. Foreign policy has changed to adapt to these changes, but the need for a continued commitment to evolving with the threat.
            The War on Terrorism has been the primary role of America’s foreign policy. Locating each of the elements of terrorist organizations and stopping them has been the concentration of action and will continue to be so until the known organizations are dealt with. But what about those who act unbeknownst to the world? This question is one that America will need to be prepared to continually address as the nature of terrorism evolves into even more dangerous forms. America has learned from recent events that the only road to success is the continued commitment toward adapting to new situations that may occur. It is impossible to decipher what each new situation will present or what the effective response will be, but the dedication to relating foreign policy to defeating global terrorism in all of its forms is necessary to the success of the War on terrorism. War no longer embodies an apparent form, but it is still a war nonetheless that needs to be treated in a manner becoming of the threat it symbolizes to America and the world.

When the United States was still a young and growing country, the leaders believed it best to remain a nation isolated from the political disputes abroad.  The first president of the United States George Washington also agreed with this philosophy.  He announced this in his farewell address on September 17^th, 1796:

            The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our  commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.  So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.  Here let us stop.

This view of isolationism was later coupled with neutrality as seen with the coming of World War I.  With the beginning of this horrendous war, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed neutrality so as not to enter into the war.  However the United States eventually turned to other foreign policies.  Before World War II the desire of the United States was to protect and sustain democracy.  World War II caused this policy to advance from this nebulous commitment to the new policy that a speaker at Mount Holyoke University called “containment.”  This policy marked the beginning of the United States’ participation in world affairs.  It also determines how the United States should handle acts of terrorism either against the United States or other countries throughout the world. 

            The foreign policy of protecting democracy causes the United States to fight against countries that are threatening this freedom.  An example of this was what happened in Vietnam.  North Vietnam was a communist power trying to take over South Vietnam.  The United States was extremely anti-communist at this point of time.  The American government did not want another nation to fall under this growing power.  Thus the Vietnam War was fought.  The United States became greatly involved in this war, even if their attempt was somewhat of a failure.  Americans greatly supported democratic nations, such as when the French Revolution occurred.

The United States usually tried to be an isolationist nation, but when a country harms Americans, either by acts of terrorism or acts of war, the United States reaction is to obtain revenge.  There are many examples of this throughout the history of America.  Some of these events pertained to wars that were occurring.  Others were acts of terrorism that were meant to kill as many Americans as possible.  

The United States entered World War I when German submarines sunk a ship near Britain, killing many Americans.  The people of America saw this as an unfair act of war, since the people on the ship were innocent Americans from a country that was said to be neutral.  However it was found that the ship was actually delivering weapons to the enemies of the Germans, the British.  This event was followed by the entry of the United States into World War I, and the eventual defeat of Germany.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked during World War II, the United States’ view of the war greatly changed:

Japan’s hara-kiri gamble in Hawaii paid off only in the short run.  True, the Pacific fleet was largely destroyed or immobilized, but the sneak attack aroused and united America as almost nothing else could have done.  To the very day of the blowup, a strong majority of Americans still wanted to keep out of war.  But the bombs that pulverized Pearl Harbor blasted the isolationists into silence.  The only thing left to do, growled isolationist Senator Wheeler, was “to lick the hell out of them.” (844).

This is a great example of how an attack on America will lead strait to an attack on whoever harmed this country. 

            The current fear of terrorism was launched by the events of September 11.  Most citizens of the United States felt safe in their country.  However this event quickly brought the true feelings of other countries out into the open.  Osama Bin Laden, the self-proclaimed leader of this attack, has repeatedly stated his hatred for the United States, and any other counties in alliance with it.  The policy of the United States was then used.  U.S. soldiers were sent to Afghanistan to search for this horrible killer in search of revenge.  Along the way other leaders of the Taliban, Bin Laden’s group, have also been searched for and captured. 

            The United States was originally an isolationist nation.  It tried not to enter into any wars if it was unnecessary.  However as more and more attacks began to be targeted at Americans, this policy gradually changed.  The United States would want to seek revenge when their people were harmed.  This country became very active in world affairs and thought it their duty to protect the democracies of the world.  The United States of America is a necessary power of the world that fights to protect people of the world, and also to protect its own people.

Since the rise of terrorism and the events of 9/11, American foreign policy has been much more aggressive with its policies against terrorist leaders and groups.  We have lost allies and the support of many leaders because of these policies, but we’ve also gained other allies. We have also spent billions of dollars on invading two countries to go in and capture a charismatic Islamic leader (Bin Laden) and a secular Arab leader (Hussein).

            One obvious example of a country that was our ally but had disagreed with our foreign policies since Iraq was invaded is France. France has stated their disapproval of our policies; and Americans have reacted with such outrageous responses as changing names of foods like French fries to “freedom” fries. American and French politicians have also been quarrelling and making fun of one another, in my opinion, like callow children.

            Although there has been this disagreement about our actions in the opinion of many French citizens, they have recently outlawed the wearing of all religious articles of clothing by any students attending its state funded schools.  The target of this ban was the wearing by female Arabic students of their “niqab” or head scarf.  The reason given by French government officials for the ban was for the importance of maintaining the principle of the separation of church and state.

            The primary reason given by our President for the increase in our aggressive policies towards terrorist leaders and groups is to prevent another terrorist attack, similar to the attacks on 9/11 from happening again.  But does this reason, like the reason used by the French to ban female head scarves, have a foundation to rest upon, similar to the foundation of the separation of church and state?

            To answer this question, our President has had to tread upon new unexplored territory and has since been required to build upon a foundation of reason to justify the unprecedented actions that have been taken thus far in our war against terrorism.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 29, President George W. Bush uttered words that may have altered the course of U.S. relations with Iran - and the rest of the Middle East. He specifically named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being part of an “Axis of Evil” that shouldn’t be tolerated. All of these countries are led by dictators whom were not democratically elected, and we have recently finished a war with one. The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were not direct threats to the United States, but the breeding of potential terrorists and the brutality evident in their borders were hard to ignore. Since we had adapted aggressive policies, we moved in and overthrew the governments in place in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war with Iraq has cost more American lives than it should have, and the American people are tired of hearing about more troops dying in Iraq. There are many who aren’t satisfied with the way Bush and his administration are running things, within and outside of the country. In a statement from the foreign ministry, Pyongyang said Washington's recent problems were "entirely attributable to the unilateral and self-opinionated foreign policy, political immaturity and moral leprosy of the Bush administration". Many feel the same way about our sometimes-too-aggressive policies. These policies have forced us to stand alone in our beliefs and be defensive when critics attack our policies.

While many are against us, we have begun resuming relations with countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and of late, Iran. During the war on Iraq, American forces had to use these countries’ airspace and have tried to regain diplomatic relations since then. The progress is slow, but hopefully, someday, peace will come to the Middle East and other troubled countries.

The American foreign policy during the rise of terrorism during the events of 9/11 could be compared to the events during WWII.  Isolationism was the preferred way to interact with foreign countries.  During the Second World War, the United States did not willingly join the feuding.  This stage in WWII is comparable to the stand that the United States took after the first bombing of the World Trade Centers in 1993.  There was basically no reciprocation to this event, or to the USS Cole.  These terrorist acts were basically ignored, even though they were devastating acts.

          The turning point for America in WWII was the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  On December 7, 1941 the stand several Japanese kamikaze pilots dramatically changed point of the war.  After this event, the united States were actively involved in WWII.  The bombing of Pearl Harbor can easily be compared to the bombing of the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2000.  Ironically, planes were used in both attacks.  19 terrorists’ hijacked four planes, varying from 757’s to 767’s.  Two planes were flown into both of the World Trade Center towers, causing them to crumble mercilessly to the ground below.  Thousands of helpless citizens were killed and yet more were injured terribly.  Another plane was flown into the Pentagon, and the last crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania.  This devastating act of terrorism forced the United States to take action, and to isolate their isolationist ways. 

          In the cases of WWII and the War on Terrorism, isolationism was deserted in order to defend the country.  In both cases, acts of terrorism motivated America to take action against the enemy.