The idea of American Eceptionalism is nothing new to American Political Thought. American Exceptionalism has been historically referred to as the belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions. It was first referred to by Alexis de Toqueville in 1831. It was further evoked as justification for westward expansion under the Jacksonian era in the form of “Manifest Destiny” and used by Republicans in the 1890s and early 1900s to justify expansion outside of America.

The concept took on a global meaning during the Cold War era when America became the de facto world leader of the democratic nations. American Exceptionalism was made the rule with diplomats such as Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who saw the Cold War struggle as a clear division between the forces of good and evil. America, according to Dulles, represented the moral, Christian struggle against the morally and spiritually corrupt Soviet Union. It pinned the American Way of Life, as personified as Liberty, against the amoral Communist oppressor. According to Dulles, America’s foreign policy decisions were to be made according to a higher transcendent quality — and made by America, alone. This sort of moral imperative attitude underpinned the strategy of containment, the American Foreign Policy of the Cold War.

The strategy of containment postulated that the enemy — the Soviet Empire — would fall apart internally due to immoral leadership and weak political infrastructure, eventually leading to liberalization, from within. The Unique position that America found herself in lead it to the belief that it had not only the capability but the moral right to resist any communist expasino in the name of freedom and democracy. This “City on a Hill” complex cultiviated the Ameircan policies that made the prevention of communist takeover in Vietnam not just a geopolitical question but a moral question. And when American Exceptionalism is in debate over geopolitical realities and moral principle, principle trumps reality.

American Exceptionalism was held intact for the better part of the Cold War, with the exception of a brief retreat during the Nixon Administration, known as Triangular Diplomacy and Detente. It was reinstated with extraordinary vigor under Reagan and marked the cornerstone of Reagan’s policy of unrelenting confrontation — a policy that worked with a fledgling Soviet Union, bankrupt and socially dilapidated, and a willing compromiser under Gorbachev.

To what extent is the current American Foreign Policy driven by the concept of American Exceptionalism? Is the grand vision to transform the Middle East a product of American Exceptionalism? Can the current foreign relations woes be attributed to an overzealous American perception of its exceptional role in international affairs? There’s no question that many Americans feel there’s a moral imperative to intervene in the Middle East, in order to transform the region into a viable, workable democracy. Has America’s exceptional attitude left it exceptionally overstretched and exceptionally jaded? The idea that America can transform societies sounds particularly appealing, especially to visionary Foreign Policy makers, but it often induces a severe case of geopolitical myopia, leaving America blinded by a sense of exceptional morality.

It seems to me that the visionary neo-conservatives had this grand vision of transforming a region under the oppression of a ruthless dictator. They, however, completely set aside the geopolitical realities of the region. A religiously divided state kept intact by the very person they were seeking to overthrow. The state of Iraq was a product of British colonialism, not ethnic self-determination; much like Yugoslavia, a dictator was the only capable leader able to keep such an ethnically and religiously divided state unified. I am not saying that dictators are good or should be supported. However, if one wished to transform an entire region, they should understand the political realities. Iraq has never known democracy. Sunni has never been friendly to Shia or Kurd. The fact of the matter is that the state of Iraq is anything but a functional state. It can be reasoned that American Exceptinoalism has an exceptional amount of fixing to do.