Criticism of United States foreign policy encompasses a wide range of opinions and views on the perceived failures and shortcomings of American foreign policy and actions. Some Americans view the country as qualitatively different from other nations and believe it cannot be judged by the same standards as other countries; this belief is sometimes termed American exceptionalism. This belief was particularly prevalent in the 20th century. It became less dominant in the 21st century as the country has become more divided politically and has made highly controversial foreign policy decisions such as the Iraq War, its support for Israel in the Gaza war and 2026 Iran war. Nevertheless, the United States is still generally considered a world superpower from an economic, military, and political point-of-view, and it has, in an unspecified number, disregarded international norms, rules, and laws in its foreign policy.

American exceptionalism and isolationism

Critics of American exceptionalism drew parallels with such historic doctrines as civilizing mission and white man's burden which were employed by European Great Powers to justify their colonial conquests.Chomsky, Noam. Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2006.

In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's 1995 book America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics, Benjamin Schwarz described America's isolationism as a "tragedy" and being rooted in Puritan thinking.

Historical foreign policy

18th and 19th centuries From its founding, many of the leaders of the young American government had hoped for a non-interventionist foreign policy that promoted "commerce with all nations, alliance with none". However, this goal quickly became increasingly difficult to pursue, with growing implicit threats and non-military pressure faced from several powers, most notably Great Britain. The United States government was drawn into several foreign affairs from its founding and has been criticized throughout history for many of its actions, although in many of these examples it has also been praised.

Revolutionary France After the American Revolution, the United States immediately began juggling its foreign policy between many different views under the George Washington cabinet. Most notably, the rivalry between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton arose due to their opposing views on how the United States should align itself with Revolutionary France in its war against Great Britain in 1793. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party, who viewed the French revolution as similar to the previous American revolution, believed the United States should declare war on the Kingdom of Great Britain as an ally of France, citing the 1778 Franco-American alliance which was still technically in effect. However, Hamilton and the Federalist Party desired favorable terms with the Bank of England in the hopes of establishing enough credit with the Crown to establish an American national banking system. Hamilton's camp would take the day and influenced Washington to remain neutral during the conflict, destroying relations with France.

Under the presidency of John Adams an undeclared naval war broke out from 1798 until 1799 against France, often called the Quasi War, in part because of the soured relations between the two nations. In addition, the United States would come under the influence of British banking power and regulations, heightening tensions between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.

Relations with Native Americans

While U.S. relations with the many Native American nations changed routinely throughout history, the U.S. has been criticized in general for its historical treatment of Native Americans. For example, the treatment of the Cherokee people in the Trail of Tears in which hundreds of Native Americans died in a forced evacuation from their homes in the southeastern area, along with massacres, displacement of lands, swindles, and breaking treaties.

After a long period of respect for sovereignty, United States policy for Native American territories shifted significantly again after the American Civil War. Previously, the pro-State Rights government believed in the legitimacy of Native American Nations' sovereignty. After the conclusion of the Civil War, conversely, views on the sovereignty of Native American nations diminished, as the United States government vested greater powers within the federal government. Over time, the U.S. government found more and more justifications for revoking Native American lands, greatly reducing the size of sovereign native territory.

Mexican–American War The U.S. government has been criticized, even in its time, for the beginning and violence of the war with Mexico in the late 1840s. Multiple Whig leaders, led by former president John Quincy Adams, accused incumbent James K. Polk of running a deceitful policy against the Mexicans.

20th century

Generally during the 19th century, and in early parts of the 20th century, the U.S. pursued a policy of isolationism and generally avoided entanglements with European powers.

Middle East

While it may be the case that the Middle East is a difficult region with no easy solutions to avoiding conflict, since this volatile region is at the junction of three continents; still, many analysts think U.S. policy could have been improved substantially. The U.S. waffled; there was no vision; presidents kept changing policy. Public opinion in different regions of the world thinks that, to some extent, the 9/11 attacks were an outgrowth of substandard U.S. policy towards the region.

Korea Candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower centered his 1952 presidential campaign on foreign policy, criticizing President Harry S Truman for mishandling the Korean War.Martin J. Medhurst, "Text and Context in the 1952 Presidential Campaign: Eisenhower's 'I Shall Go to Korea' Speech." Presidential Studies Quarterly 30.3 (2000): 464-484.

Vietnam

The Vietnam War has been called a decade-long mistake by many, both inside and outside the U.S.

Kosovo

The U.S. supported action against the rump state known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (also known as Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 and the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in 2008. The U.S. has continued to support its independence since then. Critics claim this policy breaks international treaties but they have been dismissed by the U.S. These critics say the Kosovo policy has given encouragement to secessionist uprisings in Spain, Belgium, Georgia, Ukraine, China, and others. They also claim that it gives precedent for other lawful successions that would be otherwise illegal because they represent a breach of UN Security Council Resolutions and treaties guaranteeing territorial integrity.

However, the U.S. has dismissed any similarities between those secessionist movements and Kosovo as most other secessionist movements are not facing multiple civil wars involving ethnic cleansing and genocide campaigns that require international intervention. Additionally, some do not accept that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the only legitimate successor state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) after its breakup. The SFRY was the actual party guaranteed territorial integrity under the treaties, not just Serbia and Montenegro.

Issues

Lack of control over foreign policy During the early 19th century, general Andrew Jackson exceeded his authority on numerous occasions and attacked American Indian tribes as well as invaded the Spanish territory of Florida without official government permission. Jackson was not reprimanded or punished for exceeding his authority. Some accounts blame newspaper journalism called yellow journalism for whipping up virulent pro-war sentiment to help instigate the Spanish–American War. This was not the only undeclared war the U.S. has fought. There have been hundreds of "imperfect wars" fought without proper declarations in a tradition that began with President George Washington.

Some critics suggest foreign policy is manipulated by lobbies, such as the pro-Israel lobby or the Arab one, although there is disagreement about the influence of such lobbies. Nevertheless, Zbigniew Brzezinski argues for stricter anti-lobbying laws.

Financial interests and foreign policy

Some historians, including Andrew Bacevich, suggest that U.S. foreign policy is directed by "wealthy individuals and institutions". In 1893, a decision to back a plot to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii by President Benjamin Harrison was clearly motivated by business interests; it was an effort to prevent a proposed tariff increase on sugar. As a result, Hawaii became a U.S. state. There were allegations that the Spanish–American War in 1898 was motivated mainly by business interests in Cuba.

During the first half of the 20th century the United States became engaged in a series of local conflicts in Latin America, which went into history as banana wars. The main purpose of these wars were to defend American commercial interests in the region. Later, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler famously wrote, "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."Butler, Smedley D. War Is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated General, Two Other Anti-Interventionist Tracts, and Photographs from The Horror of It. Los Angeles, Calif: Feral House, 2003.

Some critics assert the U.S. decision to support the separatists in Colombia in 1903 was motivated largely by business interests centered on Panama Canal despite declarations that it aimed to "spread democracy" and "end oppression". One can say that U.S. foreign policy does reflect the will of the people, however people might have a consumerist mentality, which justifies wars in their minds.

There are allegations that decisions to go to war in Iraq were motivated at least partially by oil interests; for example, British newspaper The Independent reported that the "Bush administration is heavily involved in writing Iraq's oil law" which would "allow Western oil companies contracts to pump oil out of Iraq up to 30 years, and the profits would be tax-free." Whether motivated by it or not, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East appears to much of the world as to be motivated by an oil rationale.

Allegations of imperialism and neocolonialism

There is a growing consensus among American historians and political scientists that the United States during the American Century grew into an empire resembling ancient Rome in many ways.Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Currently, there is a debate over implications of imperial tendencies of U.S. foreign policy on democracy and social order.Nexon, Daniel and Wright, Thomas. What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate. American Political Science Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (May 2007), p. 266-267Andrew J. Bacevich. (Ed.) The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003.

In 2002, conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer declared cultural, economical, technological and military superiority of the U.S. in the world a given fact. In his opinion, people were "coming out of the closet on the word empire". More prominently, the New York Times Magazine cover for January 5, 2003, featured a slogan "American Empire: Get Used To It". Inside, a Canadian author Michael Ignatieff characterized the American imperial power as an empire lite.