Please Critique the first half of my thesis paper

[Standing Like A Rock]

EDIT: SEE LAST POST!



this is for my highschool US History class....Please by your toughest when critiquing and/or help me find better stuff on this.... note: superscripts didn't copy, but the list of all my sources in the order of appearance should be under. oh, and block quotes didnt stay that way so i quoted them using the bb code. also, its only the first half....
-------------------------------------------------------

One of the most important political issues facing the United States today is its foreign policy. While most discussion focuses on the specific details of our military intervention, like how many troops we have in a country, or for how many more years we are going to occupy another country, some fundamental questions regarding our affairs abroad are rarely asked. Perhaps the most basic question to ask is whether or not we should even have any military involvement at all in foreign nations. Once this question is asked, and the facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that the United States should have absolutely no military involvement in the rest of the world. Maintaining a humble foreign reduces the chance of a foreign country attacking the U.S. Additionally, the principles that the United States was founded on call for a noninterventionist foreign policy. Eliminating military presence abroad would also drastically reduce the amount of money that the United States spends on the Department of Defense.

While there are several reasons for the United States to adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy, perhaps one of the most glaring reasons is to avoid the unintended consequences caused by military interventionism. The CIA refers to these unintended consequences as “blowback” and uses the term to “describe the likelihood that our covert operations in other people’s countries would result in retaliations against Americans.” The United States’ occupation of foreign countries is the cause of the aggression toward it. An example of this is the 9/11 terrorism attacks on the United States. In a speech shortly after the terrorist attacks, President Bush claimed that al Qaeda attacked the United States because, “[t]hey hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” This explanation, however, is simply not true. Bin Laden’s and al Qaeda do not like the United States because of its involvement in their affairs. They openly state that they object to:

our government’s propping up of unpopular regimes in the Middle East, the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula, the American government’s support for the activities of governments that are hostile to their Muslim populations, and what they believe to be an American bias toward Israel.

In fact, Michal Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center in the late 1990s, “points out that Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini tried in vain for a decade to instigate an anti-Western jihad” on the basis of “hatred of Western liberalism or the moral degeneracy of American culture.” While this was unsuccessful, “[b]in Laden’s message has been so popular because it is largely defensive.” Possibly most revealing of his intentions is a content analysis of bin Laden’s statements and interviews. Seventy-two percent of the content falls into the “Criticism of U.S./Western/Jewish aggression, oppression”, and exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples” theme, while only 1.2 percent is regarded as, “Criticism of American society and culture” or “Spreading Islam to the West.”

Of course, 9/11 is just one instance when the United States has been targeted because of its military presence in foreign countries. Attacks occur regularly against American soldiers in countries like Afghanistan. The reason that these attacks occur is because the people of those countries “view themselves as being invaded and occupied.” The troops’ presence in these countries is the cause of the problem, not the solution. Another example of blowback is when the United States overthrew Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. The United States removed the popularly elected government and replaced Mossadegh with the repressive Shah, Mohammad Rezā Pahlavi. Twenty-six years later, a group of revolutionary students took fifty-two American citizens hostage for 444 days because they “resent[ed] that kind of interference in their affairs.” Furthermore, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s, the United States “armed and supported any and all groups willing to face the Soviet armies.” While the intervention did help achieve the United States’ goal of causing the Soviet Union to suffer the same defeat that the United States suffered in Vietnam, it also helped bring to power the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic movement with draconian policies toward women, education and justice.

A noninterventionist foreign policy would not only have the benefits of reducing foreign aggression toward the United States, but it is also based on the principles that the United States was founded on. The founding fathers intended for the United States to keep to its own affairs and not get caught up in the harmful affairs of other nations. In his farewell address, President Washington said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is … to have with them as little political connection as possible.” President Monroe felt that it was best for the United States to not intervene in other countries’ affairs. In the Monroe Doctrine, he says, “It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.” Additionally, President John Quincy Adams said in a speech to the House of Representatives that:

She [the United States] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

The founding fathers of the United States knew that foreign intervention would only inhibit the prosperity of the United States, which is why they warned future generations so vigorously as to how to conduct foreign relations.

In addition to the words of early presidents, the founding documents of the United States prove that the United States should have a noninterventionist foreign policy. The United States Constitution gives the legislature, not the executive, the power, “To declare War… To raise and support Armies … To provide and maintain a Navy … [and] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” While the executive only has the power to “be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” Basically, the Constitution gives the legislature complete control over the military except the power to command it, which is in the hands of the president. However, the president only receives that power when the legislature calls the military to service and the only way outlined in the Constitution for the legislature to do this for non-domestic purposes is through declaration of war.

Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist Paper No. 73 that “The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself… that little need be said to explain or enforce it.” The framers of the Constitution could not even imagine a president with full control over the military. Yet unfortunately, for the past 60 years, this portion of the Constitution has been ignored and presidents like Harry S Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson have taken advantage of this and waged interventionist wars. If the principles set forth by the Constitution had been followed, the United States would have not been in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War, or the “War on Terror,” as in none of these instances did the legislature ever issue a formal declaration of war and the president should have had no power whatsoever over the military. If the Constitution had been followed throughout its history, the United States would have never been able to get involved it all of these interventionist wars.

In addition to being the foreign policy that the United States was founded upon, a noninterventionist foreign policy would have an immense economic benefit................



Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American
Empire, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 2004), ix.
President George W. Bush (Speech, Joint Session of Congress, September
20, 2001), www.greatdreams.com/bush_speech_92001.htm (accessed May 20, 2009).
Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto (New York: Grand Central
Publishing, 2008), 17-18.
Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, 17
Ibid.
Bruce Lawrence, Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin
Laden (London: Verso, 2005),
Col. Andrew Bacevich and Sen. John Kerry (Testimony, Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations, Dirksen Senate Building, April 23, 2009), in U.S. Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, foreign.senate.gov (accessed May 20, 2009).
Ibid.
Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, 19-20.
Ibid.
Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 13.
Ibid.
George Washington, "Washington's Farewell Address" (Speech, 1796),
avalon.law.yale.edu (accessed May 20, 2009).
James Monroe, "Monroe Doctrine" (Speech, December 2, 1823),
avalon.law.yale.edu (accessed May 20, 2009).
John Quincy Adams (Speech, Address to House of Representatives, July 4,
1821), www.fff.org (accessed May 20, 2009).
The United States Constitution.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Alexander Hamilton, "Federalist Paper No. 73," Federalist Papers (March
1788), thomas.loc.gov (accessed May 20, 2009).
Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, 51
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would then go on to talking about the economic costs of interventionism, giving historical, modern, foreign and domestic evidence. I would also refute counterarguments claiming that interventionism is necessary for national security, for economic purposes (oil, etc.) and that noninterventionism is isolationism

[Aratus]

a few thoughts ---

john quincy adams and james monroe crafted the sentence
in the potuses speech that became the monroe doctrine.

potus george washington lived through the day where the news of
arthur st. clair's defeat meant that the deaths of 700 brave men
reduced our army down to 30% of what it was before the expedition.

we almost went to war with britain again in the mid-1800s and
our civil war was affected by the french incursion into mexico... likewise
one of the definitions of the word filibustering is the art of hiring mercenaries

sec' of state seward held potus andrew johnson back from going over
the mexican border in 1865, insted we sent old union springfield rifles to el paso

mckinley, although as a candidate he was critical of grover cleveland, he spends
the month of march/april 1898 holding back from war with spain as he asks for a
clarrifying report on the how, who and why of the explosion in or near the maine..

wilson was the antiwar candidate of 1916, and the fellow who henry cabot lodge sr.
outmaneuvors
during the peace after the first world war. wilson's sec of state was william jennings bryan...

harry truman was not part of the loop after FDR dumps Henry Wallace the Republican populist
from his ticket. he is very under-debrieffed as FDR passes away down in our own georgia...

the actual techical official start-date for our war in viet-nam is 1955 even though as the japanese
leave french indochina, and the french colonial gov't returns, there is an in place resistance movement.

we go from an industrial society in the year 1900 that burns domestic coal and some of our own
domestic oil from fields up on pennsylvania to a post industrial 21st century society that has expanded
past our fulsome texas fields of the 1930s to the 1950s. in the same timeframe we opted not to have electric cars...

[acptulsa]

Don't forget Oklahoma oil fields, Aratus! We supplied one third of the oil used by all the Allies in the Great War. Cushing and Glen Pools ftw!

You might mention what you're talking about, Rock--imperialism. More than one wise person has said that it's impossible for a republic to maintain an empire. And, by the way, our territories cover a lot of ground, from the Pacific to the Carribbeen, so 'pulling back to a defensive position' wouldn't cut down the Navy's field of operations much. Mainly it would just keep the Army and Marine Corps out of foreign, sovereign nations...

And you'll probably get a better grade if you address the usual argument for intervention--if we had tackled Hitler earlier less lives would have been lost. I find the fact of that debatable, and I certainly don't know how it could have been proven to decision makers in 1938; be that as it may it certainly isn't a rule of thumb for every situation. I personally believe the decision to kill should be made with considerable forebearance.

As for what you have there so far--very well done!

[MelissaWV]

Your actual writing could use work. Your opening paragraph, in particular, should contain fewer examples and modifiers, and instead work to draw in the reader and assert your stance. Think of it as your opening argument in a legal case, and put forth your strongest points. You will offer the proof later in the body of your work.

I will offer something more deliberate and constructive later tonight (I am at work by now), but reread it and consider how you can be more elegant in your writing. Suggestions regarding the facts thusfar presented were already made, so I won't address that

I find the following very helpful when writing: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/a.html

[acptulsa]

Your actual writing could use work. Your opening paragraph, in particular, should contain fewer examples and modifiers, and instead work to draw in the reader and assert your stance.

Not that it's bad writing at all--it isn't. But even in an academic essay, there's no law against avoiding being pedantic.

"Perhaps the most basic question to ask is whether or not we should even have any military involvement at all in foreign nations. Once this question is asked, and the facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that the United States should have absolutely no military involvement in the rest of the world."

I understand you think it important to ask the right questions in life. I do too. But don't fall so in love with such concepts that your narrative gets bogged down in them.

"[T]he principles that the United States was founded on call for a noninterventionist foreign policy. Eliminating military presence abroad would also drastically reduce the amount of money that the United States spends on the Department of Defense."

The 'additionally' is superfluous here; the 'also' in the last sentence makes it unnecessary and redundant. Otherwise, these two sentences keep the brain whirling right along with you--a sign of good, engaging discourse. I believe this kind of thing is what Melissa is referring to. If I'm not reading her mind correctly, I hope she'll say so when she gets more time.

It isn't about nitpicking, it's about style--and it does not imply you don't get your ideas across, because you do. It's all about keeping your audience riveted. Not enough academic papers are focused on that. I always found, however, that I got better grades on mine when I did focus on it--even from teachers who didn't really know why they liked the paper, they just did.

[Standing Like A Rock]

thanks, keep the constructive criticism and ideas coming!

[Standing Like A Rock]

Not that it's bad writing at all--it isn't. But even in an academic essay, there's no law against avoiding being pedantic.

"Perhaps the most basic question to ask is whether or not we should even have any military involvement at all in foreign nations. Once this question is asked, and the facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that the United States should have absolutely no military involvement in the rest of the world."

I understand you think it important to ask the right questions in life. I do too. But don't fall so in love with such concepts that your narrative gets bogged down in them.

"[T]he principles that the United States was founded on call for a noninterventionist foreign policy. Eliminating military presence abroad would also drastically reduce the amount of money that the United States spends on the Department of Defense."

The 'additionally' is superfluous here; the 'also' in the last sentence makes it unnecessary and redundant. Otherwise, these two sentences keep the brain whirling right along with you--a sign of good, engaging discourse. I believe this kind of thing is what Melissa is referring to. If I'm not reading her mind correctly, I hope she'll say so when she gets more time.

It isn't about nitpicking, it's about style--and it does not imply you don't get your ideas across, because you do. It's all about keeping your audience riveted. Not enough academic papers are focused on that. I always found, however, that I got better grades on mine when I did focus on it--even from teachers who didn't really know why they liked the paper, they just did.

yea, my teacher said that he doesnt really care about style or if it is a flashy paper or anything (thats what those darn english teachers are for), but rather that we clearly present our side of the argument and MOST IMPORTANTLY BACK IT UP WITH INFO

[Mosheh Thezion]

You failed to recognise that the constitution is not in effect, and hasnt been...

see..... google.....> (Senate Report 93-549)

read it...

it shows in part.... WHY the premise of our government not following the constitution, is not exactly right... because iT NO LONGER HAS TO..

IT DOESNT HAVE TO BECAUSE.... the constitution is no longer in effect, since the new deal of 1933, and the declared states of emergency.

So... while the overall thesis was ok... it is based on your lack of knoweldege of this one point.

undertanding it... you would see, that while indeed.. our foriegn policy is flawed.. that it is only allowed to occur, because we no longer have a constitutional government.

oh sure... it follows the general rules, and uses it as a guideline... for how the government operates... but that is not the same thing as having constitutional law.

i hope this helps.

-MEMAT

[emazur]

Excellent job - I would certainly recommend this to anyone. An additional source you might wish to include is ch. 5 'Afghanistan, The Untold Story' from Michael Parenti's "The Terrorism Trap". It's a short, inexpensive book and that chapter alone is worth the price of admission, and discusses why the Soviets went into Afghan in the first place, why the U.S. got involved, the aftermath and many other things. At the end of the chapter he references this article:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html

If we are to learn anything from this, it is important to understand that if the U.S. had left the Marxist Taraki government alone (in the same way that they should have left Iran alone in 1953), there would have been no army of mujahedeen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy in the U.S.

[MelissaWV]

Not that it's bad writing at all--it isn't. But even in an academic essay, there's no law against avoiding being pedantic.

Ah I forgot about this! So embarrassing...

acptulsa: What I was referring to is that, in general, it's a bit weak to start with "one of the most" or some other such shaky assertion. I've noticed a lot more of this going on lately, and have quietly wondered if it isn't the way schools are teaching it now.

"One of the most important political issues facing the United States today is its foreign policy" is just not a particularly exciting or informative way to start out a thesis, in my opinion It is a question of individual style, and the OP may be right: the teacher may not care about style at all. It seems more likely, though, that one is well-served by using style to get the point across smoothly (as you stated in your response to me).

Before:

One of the most important political issues facing the United States today is its foreign policy. While most discussion focuses on the specific details of our military intervention, like how many troops we have in a country, or for how many more years we are going to occupy another country, some fundamental questions regarding our affairs abroad are rarely asked. Perhaps the most basic question to ask is whether or not we should even have any military involvement at all in foreign nations. Once this question is asked, and the facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that the United States should have absolutely no military involvement in the rest of the world. Maintaining a humble foreign reduces the chance of a foreign country attacking the U.S. Additionally, the principles that the United States was founded on call for a noninterventionist foreign policy. Eliminating military presence abroad would also drastically reduce the amount of money that the United States spends on the Department of Defense.

After (?):
The questions on our leaders' lips are familiar: When should we act? Where should we act next? How many troops should we send? Lurking in plain sight is the real dilemma, one which is not being heard above the sabre-rattling: Should we act at all? A close examination of the facts raises the conclusion that the United States should have no global military involvement. Maintaining a humble foreign policy (you missed the word "policy" in your original, by the way!) reduces the chance of a foreign attack. The principles this nation was founded upon call for a non-interventionalist foreign policy. Eliminating our military presence abroad even has the side effect of reducing the amount of money allotted to the Department of Defense.

Anyhow, that's just one person's opinion of the thing. Your original is good, it could just be more elegantly delivered.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Ah I forgot about this! So embarrassing...

acptulsa: What I was referring to is that, in general, it's a bit weak to start with "one of the most" or some other such shaky assertion. I've noticed a lot more of this going on lately, and have quietly wondered if it isn't the way schools are teaching it now.

"One of the most important political issues facing the United States today is its foreign policy" is just not a particularly exciting or informative way to start out a thesis, in my opinion It is a question of individual style, and the OP may be right: the teacher may not care about style at all. It seems more likely, though, that one is well-served by using style to get the point across smoothly (as you stated in your response to me).

Before:

One of the most important political issues facing the United States today is its foreign policy. While most discussion focuses on the specific details of our military intervention, like how many troops we have in a country, or for how many more years we are going to occupy another country, some fundamental questions regarding our affairs abroad are rarely asked. Perhaps the most basic question to ask is whether or not we should even have any military involvement at all in foreign nations. Once this question is asked, and the facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that the United States should have absolutely no military involvement in the rest of the world. Maintaining a humble foreign reduces the chance of a foreign country attacking the U.S. Additionally, the principles that the United States was founded on call for a noninterventionist foreign policy. Eliminating military presence abroad would also drastically reduce the amount of money that the United States spends on the Department of Defense.

After (?):
The questions on our leaders' lips are familiar: When should we act? Where should we act next? How many troops should we send? Lurking in plain sight is the real dilemma, one which is not being heard above the sabre-rattling: Should we act at all? A close examination of the facts raises the conclusion that the United States should have no global military involvement. Maintaining a humble foreign policy (you missed the word "policy" in your original, by the way!) reduces the chance of a foreign attack. The principles this nation was founded upon call for a non-interventionalist foreign policy. Eliminating our military presence abroad even has the side effect of reducing the amount of money allotted to the Department of Defense.

Anyhow, that's just one person's opinion of the thing. Your original is good, it could just be more elegantly delivered.

Wow, yours does sound a lot better. While my (US History) teacher says he does not care about style, it cannot hurt to have something better. The only thing about yours is that he (and all the teachers in my school) frown upon the use of first person pronouns. But you are right that schools are teaching writing to be boring. Basically we are taught that our writing should be very formulaic. And yea, I caught that missed "policy" as I was rereading it.

Do you mind if I use your intro (with some changes) in my paper? I really appreciate your help with this.

[Standing Like A Rock]

For the opening sentence, which sounds better:

The questions on lips of the leaders of the United States are familiar:

Or

The leaders of the United States are asking familiar questions:

Or

The leaders of the United States have the same familiar questions on their lips:

[sratiug]

Here is my edit of your first paragraph, fwiw.

An important issue facing the United States today is foreign policy. While many discuss details of our military intervention, fundamental questions regarding our affairs abroad are rarely asked. The most basic is if we should have any military involvement at all in foreign nations. Once this question is asked, and the facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that the United States should have no military involvement in the rest of the world.

[MelissaWV]

Do you mind if I use your intro (with some changes) in my paper? I really appreciate your help with this.

No problem at all I'm flattered, but just be careful to change it enough that it's consistent with your other writing. You don't want to give your teacher/professor an excuse to doubt the meat of your thesis.

Good luck

[Standing Like A Rock]

I just got my paper back.

I got a perfect score, 270/270. 70 points for the end notes and bibliography being in the right format and all the sources checking out, and 200 points for the paper itself. Thanks for your help guys!!

[Sandman33]

I like it buddy! Keep up the good work. If I were in your class I would do one on the federal reserve that would be amazing.

[Standing Like A Rock]

I like it buddy! Keep up the good work. If I were in your class I would do one on the federal reserve that would be amazing.

I was split between writing on foreign policy and economic policy, but chose foreign policy because economics is based too much on theory and logic and I did not think that I had as many cold hard facts to back up my stance as I had for my paper.

[MelissaWV]

Congratulations You'll, sadly, have plenty of cold hard facts by next year to write an Economics paper about.

[pacelli]

I just got my paper back.

I got a perfect score, 270/270. 70 points for the end notes and bibliography being in the right format and all the sources checking out, and 200 points for the paper itself. Thanks for your help guys!!

Congratulations!!!!!!