Allisons Foreign Policy Models

Allisons Foreign Policy Models Graham Allisons Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the models strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis. Number of criticism has risen regarding Allisons conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Cornford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allisons model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allisons model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis. This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allisons conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allisons Essence of Decision, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Allisons Conceptual Framework Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM) Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in states action. The model reduces the organizational and governmental political complications by looking at government as unified actor.  [1]  Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as black box- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate theà £Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€š ¬pros and cons, and afterward, rank all the options by their chance to succeed.  [2]   Its feature of being simple and easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Moreover, RAM which stresses on interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Therefore, since it does not require much information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suitable in a crisis situation. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process. On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually impact the policy making process. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives.  [3]  Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are very importantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model.  [4]   Model II: Organizational Process Difficulties will arise when the cases that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with a complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III. Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme.  [5]  Each organization has its own mission and function and series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II is restricted based on SOP that they believe, will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors. Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, produces some advantages. It emphasizes the importance of domestic political influences in foreign policy decision making process that sometimes missed out in RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization.  [6]   Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analysts understanding of organizations and their behaviour.  [7]  Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model II. Model III: Governmental Politics Governmental politics or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational action. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (where you stand depends on where you sit).  [8]  Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision.  [9]   Between Allisons three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III does not only explain the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why sometimes individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective. Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside. Criticism toward Allisons conceptual framework Allisons conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allisons model à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is misleading, dangerous, and compelling.  [10]  Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allisons model will be critically discussed and assessed. Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art have claimed that Allison did not present a completely brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Cornford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March.  [11]  Furthermore, Cornford has claimed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Model IIIà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is pure Neustadt.  [12]  Horelick et al. supported Cornfords argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists.  [13]  Ball and Art also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt.  [14]   Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilized and developed earlier scholars work as he mentioned in his book, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this encourages much repackaging of existing theoriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [15]  Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II.  [16]  Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.  [17]  Moreover, Bernstein has argued that the model is a helful summary of earlier decision making research to present a practical mode of analysis and guide to understand business and organizational decision.  [18]  Hence, we coul d argue that Allisons originality does not claim the originality of development of the model. The originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  [19]   Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM.  [20]  As Cornford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process.  [21]  Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application. In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model.  [22]   However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics models major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model.  [23]   Allisons alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.  [24]  The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.  [25]  In contrast, Smith argues that criticism regarding the elimination of bureaucrats responsibility à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carrie d out.  [26]  In some cases, the President still has the power and responsibility in deciding the final decision and for most of the cases, the President will be the one who chose the key group of decision maker. Therefore, even though Allisons model can be an excuse for bureaucrats, we can argue that the criticism from Steel and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified. Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allisons model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Unions policy making)  [27]  , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is a growing consensusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.  [28]  Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process.  [29]  Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allisons model is not a universal model and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.  [ 30]  Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis; as he has noted that examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.  [31]   Nevertheless, some analysts have argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party.  [32]  Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allisons model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the extension of Allisons model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies.  [33]   Case Study: Singapores Defence Posture Change In the early 1980s, Singapore announced a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (poisonous shrimp) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the porcupine). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allisons model to analyse Singapores domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapores ruling party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III.  [34]  The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapores defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change in its defence posture from a poisonous shrimp to a porcupine. Model II first reveals the appropriate developm ent of both Singapores military capability and military planning ability. Furthermore, model III then proves details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat.  [35]  Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allisons model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Pak Shun Ng has argued Allisons assumption that policy is the outcome of bargaining process is not applicable policy making in reality. In fact, decision makers do not automatically have different missions.  [36]  Therefore he argued that political bargaining model assumptions are too restrictive to explain real-life government decisions sufficiently, they should be relaxed so as to increase the explanatory power of the model.  [37]  Furthermore, the case study of Singapores policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allisons models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate. Conclusion The essay has discussed Allisons conceptual frameworks, by looking at each model and its pros and cons. Moreover, a number of major criticisms about the utility of Allisons model have also discussed and critically assessed. The first criticism is regarding the originality of the model, which has been criticised that, in fact, Allison did not bring anything new to the table; instead the models are just developed from earlier scholarship. However, we can argue that the originality of Allison model does not lie in the formulation of the models, but at the consistency in applying the model to one case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hence, the fact that it focus on Cuban Crisis has leaded us to the following criticism, the flexibility of the model to be utilized to other countries. Some foreign policy analyst have argued that Allisons conceptual framework is not applicable to other country that is not industrialized enough to have a complex bureaucratic politics, like the United States. A group of analyst also argued that the model actually is not applicable for country with strong influence of communist party, namely the Soviet Union, even though it is heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. Another criticism also attacked the relationship between Allisons model, especially model II and model III. There is an argument that model II and model III are hardly separated from each other, and in some cases, they are combined into one major model, the bureaucratic politics model. Moreover, problem arose from the model about the availability of the data. The bureaucratic politics model requires specific data and evidence that hardly available. The model has also been argued to eliminate responsibility of top level bureaucrats in policy making. However, we can argue that in some cases, the President will be the one who holds the final decision and responsibility toward the outcome (policy). In the final section of the essay, there is a case study about Singapores policy change in early 1980s. By looking at the case study, we can conclude that after some modification, we can apply Allisons model to small and non-western countries like Singapore. Moreover, after Ng modified the model to be more applicable to non-western countries, he argued that model II and model III give better explanation on the policy change, rather than model I. However, from the case study we can also point out that model II and model III are completed each other and hardly separated. This essay has discussed some general criticisms, aside from specific criticism about its utility on Cuban Missile Crisis. Even though its a complex model and has been heavily criticized by some analyst, Allison has successfully provided fresh yet provocative alternative conceptual frameworks in decision making process. Allison does not intend to supplant any previous model, rather just provide a supplement framework in decision making study. Furthermore, in his book, Allison strongly emphasized that the model itself is unfinished; therefore he encourages foreign policy analysts as well as the reader to join and carry on the discussion about the model. Moreover, even though it cannot be fully utilized in all states, as case study of Singapore has shown, with small modification, the model can be utilized and proved to give better explanation than RAM.

Mindset Case Study Essay

I read the Mindset book by Carol S, Dweck. This book really made me think and reflect about what kind of person I am. It focuses mostly on the benefits of having a growth mindset and the downside of having a fixed mindset. I learned a lot about how you can grow as a person instead of failing and giving up. Most of the most successful people are people with the growth mindset who learn from their mistakes and apply it to their career or everyday life. I use to believe that some peoples born talents are better than those who work harder but are not as naturally good. For example Michael Jordan got cut from his high school basketball team. Instead of giving up after he was told he wasn’t good enough that motivated him more and he worked hard and improved and eventually became one of the most talented basketball players in NBA history. One thing that I disliked was that the writer focused on the positive of the growth mindset when sometimes the fixed mindset can be useful. It sounds like common-sense but it is in how it carefully uses both biographical data and scientific research to strengthen the reader’s understanding of the true implications of this finding. After I read ‘Mindset’, I understood much better why John McEnroe was famous for his tantrums (he had a very fixed mindset, a tennis loss meant that he was inherently worthless, that he was, permanently and in all aspects of life, a ‘loser’), as well as why a four-star chef like Bernard Loiseau committed suicide. I learned that Chinese students who think that intelligence is unalterable don’t follow remedial English courses, but also that American medical students who believe in innate ability flunk chemistry much more often than students who consider early failure as a sign that they haven’t worked hard enough or that they should try other learning strategies. I also learned some things that are counterintuitive, such that you should never praise children for being smart or talented. I knew I liked the book from the beginning because it had situations I could relate to and made me actually think about my life and how I can become the best I can be.

The Biggest Myth About 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics Exposed

The Biggest Myth About 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics Exposed It is essential that the thesis statement ought to be slimmed down as a way to stick to the guidelines of the given writing exercise. If your professor didn't provide any particular requirements, you can decide on the subject all on your own. You may continue to keep your argumentative essays for your upcoming job portfolio in case they're highly graded. Irrespective of the quantity or variety of research involved, argumentative essays must set a very clear thesis and follow sound reasoning. The Advantages of 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics In general, the procedure for argumentative essay writing is quite much like that of writing different essays, but there are a number of specifics to look at. Before writing an argumentative essay, there's one important thing which you should know. When asking us how to begin an argumentative essay, many students forget that they should begin with an outline. Simply speaking , an argument essay has to be logical from starting to end. Argumentative essays utilize logic, facts, and reasoning to figure out the victor. A fantastic argumentative essay ought to have a particular statement that's arguing. Whether it's an argumentative or expository essay that you're writing, it is essential to develop a clear thesis statement and a very clear sound reasoning. What to Do About 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics A superior persuasive argument will use the latest data and data from verified sources. The shortage of fantastic support sources will end in a decrease grade. You may have a look at the extra info about how to compose an eye-catching essay introduction with a hook. An argumentative essay example will reveal the should possess some important components which make it better in the practice of convincing. An argumentative essay presents either side of a problem. Young writers may try simple on-line citation generators which are generally at no cost. In addition, you'll want to learn how your readers will object to your argument. Put simply, it's a controversial matter. How to Choose 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics An argumentative essay is a kind of essay that presents arguments about either side of a problem. A complete argument As mentioned before, it does not have to be formal. Additional a verbal argument often focuses on who's right regarding a particular issue, even though a well-written, researched argument essay focuses on what's the best side of a certain issue. Winning an argument isn't easy. The Debate Over 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics Facts, finally, will always win out against how folks are feeling at a specific moment. The first thing you're likely to have to do is to choose a topic that has more than one clear side. You will need to see that different individuals have various points of view regarding the identical topic, so be patient. Even in the event that you don't like to argue with the points of different folks, it's still true that you have to be prepared to compose an argumentative essay at any moment! Care ought to be taken that the data utilized in the essay is related to the topic. A manageable topic is one which can be successfully performed within the page demands of the essay. You can be certain that the UK Essays web site is shielded and risk-free. Shopping online isn't secure or secure. When it has to do with writing an argumentative essay, the most significant point to do is to select a topic and an argument you may really get behind. You have to make an endeavor to collect all your thoughts in 1 place and focus on what's essential and related to your topic. A debatable topic is one which has differing viewpoints. The topic chosen for the purpose should be attractive in the view of many readers. Choosing 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics Is Simple Argument essays can be organized in an assortment of means. An argumentative essay is among the many aca demic essay types. Every argumentative essay should depend on a topic which can be debated. It is crucial to be aware an argumentative essay and an expository essay could possibly be similar, but they vary greatly regarding the quantity of pre-writing and research involved. In this kind of situation, it's more convenient to discover ready-made essays and use them as an example. The conventional five-paragraph essay is normal in writing argumentative essays, but it's only one means to write one. The Ultimate Argumentative Essay Topics Trick Even when you're writing an informative essay, it's still true that you have the job of attempting to convince your audience that the info is vital. It is very important to check reviews about essay writing services in order to be confident they can deliver your task before the deadline. After all, the duty of the student is to just explain how other positions might not be well informed or updated on the subject. If you're searching for help, BibMe has a grammar check service you can test out. Besides, keep in mind that the secret to a prosperous argumentative essay is in finding good evidence to back up your opinion. If you've got more information to share, you might include as many as five body paragraphs. Ba sed on your argument, the variety of body paragraphs you have will vary. Each paragraph needs to be restricted to the discussion of one general idea. The Key to Successful 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics An excellent argumentative essay is going to be based on established or new research instead of only on your ideas and feelings. Argumentative essay topics are so important since they are debatableand it's critical to at all times be critically contemplating the world around us. Frequently students are permitted to choose argumentative essay topics independently, which can be both challenging and interesting at the exact same moment. Another reason is to observe how well students argue on distinct views and demonstrate understanding of the studied subject. Top Argumentative Essay Topics Choices No wonder, you might get lost in all that writing assignments which must be done at precisely the same moment. Put simply, you want to attempt to comprehend where they're coming from. If you wish to learn what an argumentative essay is, the very first thing you ought to remember is that its principal aim is to convince the audience to accept your standpoint. An argumentative essay is a writing piece intended to persuade a person to believe the way that you do. Questions are a standard method of getting interest, together with evocative language or a strong statistic Don't assume your audience is already acquainted with your topic. A researchable topic is one where the writer can locate a wide variety of credible and current sources. Today, the entire basis of socialism was transformed into a small device that occupies the palm of your hand. Essentially anything that must be understood before reading the remainder of the essay is background info, and ought to be included in the introduction. What to Do About 1984 Argumentative Essay Topics Before You Miss Your Chance At some time, you're likely to be requested to compose an argumentative essay. Overall , you ought to have an obvious statement to argue. When selecting a topic make sure you like it, as you should devote days or even weeks on it, so it's important to stay motivated in regards to the matter you discuss. Actually, the action of arguing involves providing proof to strengthen your claim, with or without emotions.

The War On Drugs And The United States - 1063 Words

The War on Drugs has become an epidemic today afflicting United States and the United Nations; which are swayed by global drug laws which preserve the criminal justice system. These new laws promote an ineffective policy on the war on drug. Therefore, communities are locked while the promotion of illicit drugs becomes the dominate framework to organized crimes. Today, the war on drugs continues to be an ongoing battle within our society. This paper will examine these issues focusing primarily on historical struggles controlling our society. Improvement must be lenient punishment policies based on the relevance and/or risk of these psychoactive drugs. EXTENT OF THE WAR ON DRUGS The U.S. government defined â€Å"war on drugs† as a â€Å"series of actions tending toward a prohibition of illegal drug trade† (War on drugs law). According to Beccaria (1974), laws were conditioned under man as a way to unite our society. On the contrary, the term war on drugs was coined by President Richard Nixon in 1971. He described these illegal drugs as public enemy number one in the U.S. (A brief history of the drug war)†. During the late 1980s, the political mania about drugs led Congress and state legislatures to increase campaigns against drug use. For instance, First Lady Nancy Reagan began the â€Å"Just Say No campaign in the 1980s (Drug Law Conviction). To illustrate, the â€Å"just say no† campaign was underway as an outlet for children to say no to those who offered them drugs. Beccaria (1974)Show MoreRelatedThe War On Drugs And The United States956 Words   |  4 PagesThe War on Drugs has become an epidemic today that has afflicted in the United States and the United Nations; both are influenced by international drug laws which preserve the criminal justice system. These new laws promote an ineffective policies on the war on drugs. Therefore, communities are locked while the promotion of illicit drugs become the dominate framework to organized crimes. Today, the war on drugs continues to be an ongoing battle within our society. This paper will examine these issuesRead MoreThe War On Drugs And The United States1506 Words   |  7 Pages When, in 1971, Richard Nixon infamously declared a â€Å"war on drugs† it would have been nearly impossible for him to predict the collective sense of disapprobation which would come to accompany the now ubiquitous term. It would have been difficult for him to predict that the drug war would become a hot topic, a highly contentious and polarizing point of debate and, it would have difficult for him to predict that the United States would eventually become the prison capital of the world, incarceratingRead MoreDrug Wars : The United States1643 Words   |  7 PagesDrug Wars. When people hear the term â€Å"Drug Wars† they think that the cause of all the Drugs and Violence flowing through into the United States, is all Mexico’s fault, that Mexico is the cause of so many deaths and a War that the United States thinks it’s â€Å"Winning†, but they are not even making a little dent. Interestingly enough, Mexico is not the only cause of this War going o n around the Border, The United States plays a big role around the Drug Wars as well. THE TIES THE U.S. HAS WITH MEXICANRead MoreThe War On Drugs And The United States1555 Words   |  7 PagesThe War on Drugs has been an ongoing effect ever since the Civil War introduced the drug morphine to the world. In the years since people have been coming up with drugs more lethal than morphine such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and so on and so forth. The War on Drugs is dangerous and leads to many deaths throughout the years. America has set up agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other drug task force teams throughout the United States. Even though we may not be ableRead MoreThe War On Drugs And The United States1063 Words   |  5 PagesThe War on Drugs has become an epidemic today afflicting United States and the United Nations; which are swayed by global drug laws which preserve the criminal justice system. These new laws promote an ineffective policies on the war on drug. Therefore, communities are locked while the promotion of illicit drugs b ecomes the dominate framework to organized crimes. Today, the war on drugs continues to be an ongoing battle within our society. This paper will examine these issues focusing primarily onRead MoreThe Drug War Of The United States1626 Words   |  7 PagesThe drug war in the U.S. has been waged on civil fronts for over four decades and has not only proven to be not only futile but at times even more damaging to society than the drugs themselves. The once virtuous intent of this ‘war’ has been corrupted by police unions and dirty politicians who have turned it into a carefully crafted system of capitalistic enterprise, designed push their political agenda by perpetuating the myth that drugs are the primary threat to our nation. Zero tolerance lawsRead MoreThe United State War On Drugs1005 Words   |  5 PagesThe United States government has been wasting millions of dollars each year on a worthless war that cannot be won. This war is explained in detail by author Art Ca den in their essay â€Å"Let’s Be Blunt† about the United State war on drugs. The war on drugs began in 1971 under the order of President Richard Nixon, and it was one of the worst decisions he ever made. It has been nothing but a waste of government funding, time, and manpower that can only be described as a dismal failure and should be repealedRead MoreThe War On Drugs And The United States871 Words   |  4 Pages In the United States crime rates have been on a decline for years, but the United States still has the largest number of people incarcerated in the world. The â€Å"war on drugs† as well as policy’s by the government to be â€Å"tough on crime† has lead to the uprising of corporate prisons, which are known as for-profit prisons, and private prisons. Private prisons have also lead to States, and federal prisons to become worse when it comes to programs to rehabilitate those who are incarcerated, so thatRead MoreUnited States War On Drugs Essay1575 Words   |  7 PagesHumanities Independent Research Essay Thompson Lin Block B 10-1 Research Question: To what extent has the United States’ â€Å"War on Drugs† been successful in reducing illicit drug abuse in the country? The â€Å"War on Drugs† is a term generally referred in America to the campaign aiming to reduce drug abuse in the country. The term first appeared in July 18 1971, when former U.S. President Richard Nixon started the campaign. However, on April 9, 2015, President Obama publicly announced that the policyRead MoreThe War On Drugs And The United States Essay2046 Words   |  9 PagesFor many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the â€Å"War on Drugs† in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of The War On Drugs And The United States - 1063 Words The War on Drugs has become an epidemic today afflicting United States and the United Nations; which are swayed by global drug laws which preserve the criminal justice system. These new laws promote an ineffective policies on the war on drug. Therefore, communities are locked while the promotion of illicit drugs becomes the dominate framework to organized crimes. Today, the war on drugs continues to be an ongoing battle within our society. This paper will examine these issues focusing primarily on historical struggles controlling our society. Improvement must be lenient punishment policies based on the relevance and/or risk of these psychoactive drugs. EXTENT OF THE WAR ON DRUGS The U.S. government defined â€Å"war on drugs† as a â€Å"series of†¦show more content†¦HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS War on Drugs is not a new phenomenon in the United States. During the 1960s, drugs were a symbol of rebellion for the youth halted the research on the medical safeties and various drug’s efficacies. At the height of the drug war panic, a movement transpired demanding a new tactic toward drug policies. Proposals were made in order to decriminalize some drugs such as marijuana. These proposals were later abandoned because parents were concerned by the high drug rate among teenagers. To illustrate, marijuana began receiving backlash in 1935. Hart and Ksir (2012:350) stated that 35 states had laws regulating the use, sale, and/or possession of marijuana. However, the concerns of illicit drug use escalate throughout the 1980s. These modifications were brought out based on media outlets portrayal of people becoming addicted to the improve form of cocaine labeled â€Å"crack.† As a result, the first anti-cocaine laws were established in the South towards black men in the 1900s .. During the era of George W. Bush, militarized domestic drug law enforcement were enforced to stall the growth of the drug war. Obama has stated in his latest â€Å"State of the Union† address that he determined to advocate these reforms. For instance, there would be a reduced sentencing for crack/powder possessions, resigning the ban on syringe access