"Wag the Dog" theory: domestic scandal and foreign policy [Author] [Institution] "Wag the Dog" theory on domestic scandal and foreign policy The "Wag the dog" theory of domestic politics Scandal and foreign policy are put forward by some experts through which US presidents have engaged the United States in overseas conflicts in order to divert public attention from the unrest or by national protests does not necessarily apply to all U.S. presidents. Some US presidents have indulged in foreign affairs, foreign travel, summits with foreign leaders, foreign conflicts, or some bold or reckless decisions when faced with economic or political problems on the home front. Harry S. Truman atomic bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which he could have avoided, but that would have dragged out World War II a little longer and created more problems for him on the home front. Kennedy's poorly planned Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba in support of Cuban exiles planning to overthrow Fidel Castro. Reagan's Iran-Contra affair of secretly selling weapons to hostile Iran and funneling illicit profits to Nicaraguan rebels. But the classic example of the practice of the “Wag the dog” theory was Bill Clinton. To divert attention from his personal indiscretions, on the day Monica Lewinsky was due to testify before a grand jury, Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan under the pretense that it was a chemical weapons factory. Targets in Afghanistan were subsequently attacked under the pretext that they were linked to the Saudi terrorist Osama Bin Laden, suspected of having orchestrated the attacks on American embassies in East Africa. Clinton's actions that led to his impeachment were not simply personal misdeeds, but lasting stains... middle of paper... from time to time continuing to pretend that the internal affairs of the United States are very close to his heart and have his undivided attention. If we take a deeper look at the foreign relations adventures and gimmicks of US presidents over the last 50 years, it is quite evident that they did not get involved in these out of necessity, but to divert the nation's attention from their politics internal or their personal failures. Surely, future presidents of the United States will continue to indulge in such adventurism unless the nation, through its legislatures and public opinion builders, seeks to put an end to such practices and bind the presidency with necessary laws. References Scheer, Robert 2002 Published in the Los Angeles Times www.mediamonitors.net/alan1.html www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html www.freeman.org/m_online/jan99/eidelberg.htm