This thesis uses social constructionisim to examine the motives for U.S. intervention in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Haiti (1994). Content analysis is applied to news editorials, Congressional in-session remarks and Presidential addresses, remarks, and press conferences to link national rhetoric to U.S. intervention policy. The case studies identify a shift in the pattern of debate within and between the American public and policy makers simultaneous with the end of the Cold War. Review of the case studies suggests that in the future U.S. policy makers must contend with an intervention policy characterized by: (a) multilateralism; (b) vague, mutable national interests; (c) obstructionist Congressional procedures; and (d) an intolerance for casualties. Alone, the information provided by rhetoric is incomplete, but when combined with analysis of the external variables that affect the actions of states, the results are a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic nature of U.S. foreign policy and an insight into the nature of interventions in the post Cold War world.