Subject

Students Name

Institution of Affiliation

Date

The United States has been involved in a number of peacekeeping missions in war tone countries. The U.S has a foreign policy that makes it stand for the restoration of peace in the regions especially if the country affected has been or is at a strategic point in terms of location or other relevant material gains and treaties that the United States share with the affected country (Hook & Spanier, 2018). For decades now, the U.S has assisted many countries, most of them being from the Asian regions and the main reason is that they are strategic for the trade especially in the oil industry. Therefore, there are some cases that the U.S have used an integrated approach to solve the war crisis in the region, some of them being successful while others failed.

In the first case where the United States has made success to restore peace is Libya, a country in the Northern part of Africa that had been involved in disputes (Woodward, 2016). As it has been said earlier that the United States does not venture or does not have interests with countries that it does not benefit from, Libya is an oil-producing nation, and therefore it becomes a country of interest. Another reason as to why the U.S had to step in and help the country solve its internal problems is that the then president of Libya, Muammar Gadhafi had been in power for long and was against the idea of the United States being involved in the country’s affairs. Most of the oil producing nations are engaged in domestic violence with antagonist groups rising against the government, trying to overthrow and take control of its country resources. Libya is not an exemption as antagonist gangs rose against the government forcing the U.S step in to assist. Here, the mission was a success, and the main reason for the excellence is that the government was weak as it had spent years fighting the opposition. Besides, the government was losing its popularity in that the president had been in power for a long time and the people needed a change, a transition to another government. The primary interest of engaging in the peacekeeping mission is that the U.S could enjoy the benefit of ripping the oil field and therefore the main areas that they secure first are the strategic points.

In another case, the U.S has had affairs in the Middle East especially in Syria. Syria has been in war for many years, and the main reason to be at war is for the control of oil, the only golden mines in the region as the country relies primarily on oil for their growth (Krieg, 2016). The fact that the government in Syria was not welcomed to the idea of the United States joining the war by deploying their troops in the country made it difficult for the U.S to bring peace. Syria is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the middle east, and therefore, the act of the U.S troops setting their foot in the country means that they were ready to take control of the golden fields, the only treasure for the government, depriving it of its main source of income. Due to this, it could not be simple to let it go in the name of restoring sanity in the country. The Syrian government stood strong, leaving no chances for the U.S troops. Due to this, the U.S had no other option other than using the usual tricks, attacking the enemy from within, and this meant finding an ally from the country to help stop the government. In doing this, the U.S took the initiative of sponsoring the antagonistic groups in the country, making them strong so that they could overthrow the government promising them that they will take the government once peace has prevailed. As these groups are power-hungry, they end up agreeing, getting ammunition from the U.S and fighting their own government. Through such sponsorship, the U.S contributed to the formation of the ISIS, Islamic groups to fight the government. The groups were formed to weaken the government, but they went out of control as they gained more power than what the U.S had expected. The U.S plans became a failure, leading the withdrawal of its troops from the region as their soldiers could perish in the region.

The two cases have some similarities in that the U.S is a superpower country and this means that it has ample resources that it can use to restore peace in areas of war. It, therefore, means that the country has strong and well-trained soldiers as well as tens of modern ammunition that help the soldiers fight and win the war against the countries of interest, restoring peace after destroying the present forms of government and instituting one of their kind. Getting into war is the main tool that the U.S troops have been using to restore peace as they have to subdue the resistance either by capturing or eliminating the leaders involved in the war. In the first case of Libya, the U.S succeeded because the people were in dire need of a new president and so, the government was losing popularity among its people. Besides, the presence a strong opposition that was reinforced by the U.S military made it possible to weaken the defenses allowing for an easy transition.

On the other hand, in Syria, it was difficult for the U.S to restore peace. The country had been in war for long, and the formation of the ISIS did not come in their favor. It is the same groups that turned against the U.S becoming more radical and uncontrolled and therefore making the restoration of peace in the region difficult. Besides, the region is known to be a terrorist background, with the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda having their basis in the regions. The terrorist groups have a lot of funding, and they are not afraid of engaging in war, unlike the U.S troops who fear death, the terror groups believe to be fighting Jihad, holy war and therefore difficult to deal with completely. It is due to this that the U.S troops failed to restore peace in a short period as the war became extensive against their will.

The two cases were of relevance to the U.S government in that, taking control of the region meant that they controlled the production as well as the sale of oil. Oil is the heart of both countries, and therefore it’s of strategic interests. Furthermore, in engaging in peacekeeping mission meant that they could have an opportunity to sell their weapons and at the same time making deals with the country concerning development, making them a preferred party to work with in future due to their aid. Besides, terror has been a major threat to the U.S since the September 11 attack and therefore it is the mission of the U.S troops to keep guard of its people preventing cases of terror attack in future and to do so they have to deploy intelligence from the terror tone countries as well as the breeding grounds for terrorists such as Syria and Libya.

There are a number of lessons that can be withdrawn from the two cases for the pursuit of the U.S foreign policy. Dealing with terror is a global issue, and therefore it calls for the action of all the relevant bodies to control. If it is not our responsibility to restore sanity and peace in war tone areas, then we shall become the victims either directly or indirectly. Another lesson is that, in peacekeeping missions, using rebels to fight against the government can be a success, while at the same time be a failure depending on the kind of group that one is dealing with, knowing the interests of each group makes the process of peacekeeping simpler and achievable at a lesser duration.

Reference

Hook, S. W., & Spanier, J. (2018). American foreign policy since World War II. Cq Press.

Krieg, A. (2016). Externalizing the burden of war: the Obama Doctrine and US foreign policy in the Middle East. International Affairs, 92(1), 97-113.

Woodward, P. (2016). US foreign policy and the Horn of Africa. Routledge.