I will pay for the following essay Comparison of the foreign policy decision making by the United States and Germany on the example of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF. The essay is to be 14 pages with th

I will pay for the following essay Comparison of the foreign policy decision making by the United States and Germany on the example of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF. The essay is to be 14 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

1. Foreign Policy Decision Making of the US 1.1 Constitutional Conditions By virtue of his constitutional prerogatives, as set up in Article II, Section 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, the President of the United States is the nation’s chief executive and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, as well as is granted the power to make treaties with foreign nations, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate… provided two thirds of the Senators concur” (Clause 2). This postulate not only outlines the presidential powers in regard to foreign policy decision making, but also gives the Senate quite a passable share in that process by requiring Senate approval and confirmation of any treaty before it comes into effect. However, the President is allowed to enter into “presidential or sole executive agreements” concluded on the basis of his constitutional authority in regard to Article II, Section 1, Section 2, Clause 1 and Clause 2, as well as Section 3 of the Constitution (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 4). In addition to his control over the military forces, the President has the authority to deploy them at his discretion – in other words to wage war – while the Congress is empowered to declare war, and to raise and support armies, as well as to provide and maintain navy, which alongside the control of funding the military provides another way of keeping the executive branch in check (Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 13). Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is additionally empowered to “make all Laws which shell be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers” (Clause 18), which clause enables the legislature to use any reasonable means to put the powers in question into action, and authorizes the Congress to enact legislation necessary to carry out the powers of the other branches as well (Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 8, Explanation). This division of the war powers had repeatedly been put to the test in Korea, Vietnam and other places, where the US were involved in a number of intense conflicts without any declaration of war. That had provoked congressmen’s concern and a national argument over the meaning of these powers and the erosion of congressional authority to decide whether and when the United States should be involved in a war. As a consequence, both the House of Representatives and Senate passed the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) which, although being vetoed by the President Nixon, was enacted in 1973. The resolution has been intended to guarantee “that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities” (War Powers Resolution, Sec. 2a), as well as to stipulate the procedures of consultation, reporting, congressional action, etc. in regard to the US involvement into such situations. 1.2. Participating Institutions As seen from above, the institutions all-important in the process of creation (decision making) and implementation of U.S.