The Search for Order

Background:
Containment was the standard for foreign policy but would be challenging to maintain
following the collapse of the Soviet Union. For more than forty years, the Cold War had served
as an almost unbeatable showy device. The specter of Sovietism had provided an enduring
consensus in support of containment. The political strength of the doctrine was obvious
throughout the Cold War. As questionable polices and hundreds of thousands of U.S. casualties
altered only the tactics, but not the basic premise, of the nations security strategy (containment).
By. 1991, there was no longer such an obvious measure of foreign policy. Instead of
facing a single dominant threat, The United States now confronted multiple perils. Moreover,
although each of these challenges was no doubt dangerous, none was sufficiently menacing to
nail American attention as the Soviet threat had. This was a basic problem of public thought on
foreign policy in the early 1990s: it stated the U.S. diplomacy should be clear and coherent but
failed to identify a single overriding threat or objective that would make it so. When Americans
demanded a replacement for containment, they therefore sought a strategy that would reduce an
undeniably complex situation to a one-size-fits-all formula. From Berlin To Baghdad:
Americas Search For Purpose In The Post-Cold War World by Hal Brands.
Introduction:
With the collapse of the U.S.S.R., suddenly the U.S. was the sole superpower-a
militaristic global leader with no blear enemy or foreign policy goals. President George H.W
Bush said he wanted to make kinder the face of the nation and gentler the face of the world.
Bill Clinton said, Communisms collapse, he recognized, the world is more free. But it was
also less stablethreatened still by ancient hatreds and new plagues. Clinton declared that
America must continue to lead the world. The New World Disorder illustrated the
unprecedented turbulence of the fractured post-Cold War world during the George H.W. Bush &
bill Clinton administration: the U.S. invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, ethnic cleansing in the
Balkans and Rwanda, and famine in Somalia.
Task:
You are to research, analyze and interpret the success and failures of foreign conflicts
during George H.W. Bushs and Bill Clintons presidencies. You will choose one policy failure
and one policy success from George H.W. Bushs and Bill Clintons presidencies. You are to
place your topic in the historical context of the 1990s in the post-Cold War world. All your
information needs to be historically accurate and show a wide range of research. Your will be
creating a Prezi presentation. Your topic has to clearly relate to the themes covered and discussed
in the background and introduction section.
Panama, Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo

Process:
Students will be creating a Prezi presentation about your conflicts. You are to be in the
mindset that the outside world knows little about this conflict and needs to be informed about the
conflict describing the hows, whys, wheres, and whose of the conflict. The following questions
will help guide your research but is not how your project should be structured. Do not think by
answering the questions and putting them in Prezi that you have created the project because you
have not done the project correctly.

Summarize and explain George H.W. Bushs & Bill Clintons foreign policy (New World
Order & Enlargement)
Summarize your Conflicts
What happened in the region/country that would explain why the country broke out into
conflict? (Background knowledge leading up to the conflict. This could mean previous
United States cooperation, lack of cooperation, or no cooperation with your conflict.)
Who were the government leaders involved prior, during, and after the intervention or
invasion and what was their role/policy decisions that led to an end or
prolonging of the conflict.
How did the foreign policy initiatives of George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton (A New World Order/Enlargement) prompted the intervention or
involvement or lack of intervention and involvement. Why did we
choose to help in some areas and ignore and fail to help in other
regions? Explain the thinking process of the administration for acting or
not acting.
What action did the U.S. take (multi or unilateral) in dealing with the
conflict. Why?
What are some of the major events that happened with your conflicts?
A timeline my help you put things into perspective.
o How long did the U.S. intervention last? Explain the details of
what occurred in that time of involvement?
o What were the effects of the results?
o What role did the U.S. play in establishing a new government if
one was created? Was the role beneficial to the people of
conflict? Explain.
o What challenges did U.S. face at home, abroad, or in the country
that they were innerving in? (ex. Ethnic division, anti-American
sentiment, protesters.) Address each area.
o Describe the current situation of the country today and what role
does the U.S. play if any in that area.
How has the conflict or involvement impacted the region today?
Explain by providing examples.
How would you describe this countrys relationship with the U.S. today?
Explain by providing examples.

Conclusion:
Students will be able to assess how formulating a grand strategy for a
country as large and powerful as the United States is not easy. Through
this project students will be able to compare and contrast the foreign
policies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Both presidencies failed to
articulate and implement a grand strategy. Both combinations prohibited
the United States from defining clear priorities and accepting necessary
sacrifices in the pursuit of national interests. Both combinations
constrained American foreign policy performance, encouraging
inconstancy, uncertainty, and half measures.