Analysis Of George W. Bush 's National Insecurity

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has arguably been considered the greatest country in the world. The supposed leader of the free world, strongest and most powerful country in the world. The definition that the United States is the ‘greatest country’ in the world is open to discussion and can be compared at many different levels, however, for the purpose of this essay, the term ‘greatness’ is measured by its economic prowess and its hard power. The term ‘hard power’ is defined as ‘a coercive approach to international political relation, especially one that involves the use of military power’. After eight years of Obama doctrine, is it time to make America great again” must be broken down into two parts. What is Obama Doctrine, does it exist and then compare his Doctrine also tackle the quote of ‘making America great again’. This essay will argue that Obama Doctrine does exist and is linked to his foreign and domestic policies. It will also argue that America is still great but for different reasons. It will provide evidence that with the Obama doctrine it has moved from the historic use of hard power to a soft power footing. ‘Soft power” is defined as ‘a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economical or cultural influence’. However, even with this switch in posture, the United States has remained great. Albeit for

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, presidential powers have been a massive controversy on whether the powers are expanding in the nation’s best interest or if the President is accumulating too much power in the government. In Christina Lyons article, Presidential Power, she develops a historical scope of past presidential powers, ranging from Reagan to Obama. Also, Lyons discusses the many issues arising of whether the President is in need of constrictions and restrictions on the executive powers or if Congress has put a big enough indentation on these powers since September 1st, 2001 terrorist attack against the United States of America. Lyons examines the reasons behind presidents expanding their powers throughout the past two centuries, which recent terrorists attacks and congressional gridlocking play a major role. She provides specific types of executive actions that recent presidents have used to exert their powers, like President Bush, President Obama, and President Clinton. Lyons stipulates arguments of those who are opposed to expanded presidential powers, for example, setting policy for the country. Lastly, the author observes the Constitutional provisions of checks and balances between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches in constraining presidential power.

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

Another example of Bush’s obstinacy is the surge in troops he approved in Iraq. “The conventional wisdom about the U.S. troop surge was that by 2006, Iraq was in complete chaos, and because of this, many Americans called for the U.S. to bring the troops home. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, President Bush sent in 30,000 additional ones against the advice of a number of his advisors” (Bowman). Bush assembled a panel of scholars, historians, and retired four star generals to help him create a new plan for the war in Iraq. The majority of these panel members agreed on one thing, the current track that the U.S. was on was not working, and advised Bush to change tactics. After a number of meetings with the committee, Bush decided to stay on course with his original plan and completely ignored the counsel of his own hand-picked advising panel. “The justification was for such a move was that by the end of 2007, Iraq started to stabilize. For example, in 2008, Senator Lindsey Graham spoke out on the subject at Republican National Convention and said that, "by every measure, the surge of troops into Iraq has worked”’ (Bowman). In a 2007 speech to Congress on the surge in the Middle East, General David Petraeus agreed and proclaimed, "The military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met" (Bowman). “On the other hand, some disagree that Bush’s aggressive strategy and blatant disregard of his advisors’ wishes were the reasons for success. Doug Ollivant, an Army

Bush’s legacy as president has been debated politically among scholars since he left office back in 2009. Bush gained the support of many Americans due to all that was accomplished as president and the legacy he left behind can be seen as beneficial to the United States regarding growth in the economy, war in the Middle East, and the overall well being of the American people. In contrast, some people do not concur with all the decisions that Bush made. Those who are anti-Bush see his two terms as a failure because of the multiple mistakes made that were not beneficial to the United States. Seven articles were written to display facts and examples that criticize, support, and give an opinion somewhere in-between: “George W. Bush’s Damaging Legacy:

During a time of crisis and turbulence, the Bush administration ignored valuable lessons from history which could have guided them to safer decisions for the country. The decisions which resulted from their ignorance had many negative consequences. Among these were America as 'saviors of the world'; Assumption that American ideals = universal, and that nations would be thankful or even neutral in takeover = ; ability of oppressed nations to fight against powers trying to take their autonomy away.

With the US being a leader on the global scale militarily and economically, Trump has come into office with a new vision, a somewhat controversial one. This essay will critique Trump’s controversial foreign policy objectives

President Obama’s policies as head of States changed for the fact, the world has evolved compared to the Founding Father's era. There are more problems than they used to in the country and across the globe. The president now has more decisions to take, more wars, more natural disaster and more policies to pass. For example, the Iran nuclear deal, foreign policy presently, on “veto of resolution of approval”(The New York Times, 2015). Furthermore, Heads of States are currently more expose to what is happening

Today, we are just over 100 days into Donald Trump’s presidency. Within those 100 days, Trump has already made two high-stakes bombings in the Middle East: one in Syria and one in Afghanistan (Hartung). From these two attacks, as well as numerous statements made by the president himself, Trump’s ideas regarding international relations are becoming more and more clear. Unlike Trump, Barack Obama’s thoughts and ideas regarding international relations are murky. However, after comparing numerous international relations theories, the theory that Obama is most congruent with is constructivism. Introduction to Global Politics (Brief Second Edition) describes the central concepts of constructivism as, “[seeking] to understand change. Ideas are social creations. Relationships result from historical processes. Ideas can evolve, replace older ways of thinking” (Lamy et al. 90). Constructivism is the international relations theory that best encapsulates Obama’s time in the White House because his actions and

The Atlantic has recently published an article written by Jeffrey Goldberg titled “The Obama Doctrine”. In this article Obama is clear that he has taken a stance of retrenchment when dealing with the constant problems in the Middle East. In the article Obama outlined two tactics that he has been actively using, throughout his presidency, to shift American resources and focus away from the Middle East. In this paper I will address how two policies have successfully pulled America away from the Middle East and how a key assumption by Obama will ultimately save the United States years of worry.

The “Bush Doctrine” was outlined in a speech by President George W. Bush in 2002. The US “would no longer rely solely on ‘Cold-War doctrines of containment and deterrence.’”9 The US would adopt preemption as its foreign policy, meaning they “reserve the right to preempt threats” and act accordingly.10 Furthermore, President Bush stated that the US would promote US principles and ideologies to countries around the world.11 g74 Lastly, President Bush stated that the US “would do what was necessary to remain the world’s sole superpower.”12 Kaplan and Kristol neatly summarize the Bush Doctrine as an “affirmative vision of American leadership, one that is neither reactive to nor dependent on the emergence of a specific threat.”13

‘If you are going through Hell, keep going!’ When he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, the newly elected President Barack Obama could have had in mind this quote from Churchill for he was facing not only a still unstable new world order inherited after the end of the Cold War, but also an economic crisis qualified by many specialists as the worst since 1930. The political equation required to solve the problem wasn’t to be found on a dusty shelf and needed imagination. Therefore his democrat administration carried on building the policy and the strategy mentioned during the campaign. Highly influenced by Clinton’s, bound to initially follow the steps of the previous Bush era, they traced a path based on a comprehensive approach to the

The President of the United States sits at the epicenter of the U.S. Foreign policy establishment. Seen as the most power person in the world, the judgment of the president on foreign affairs is often regarded as unquestionable.1 For the president, policy-making power comes from Article II of the Constitution. This article outlines executive powers and the roles of the commander-in-chief, chief of state, chief executive, chief negotiator, and chief diplomat for the president.2 These factors, along with the unparalleled level of influence the president holds, shape his role in the foreign policy-making process, thus

President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush took different approaches to foreign policy. Lindsay (2011) suggests that the attacks on September 11th caused President Bush to take an ideological approach to foreign policy. Obama rejected Bush’s outlook and took a more pragmatic approach. Despite the differences between these two approaches, both Presidents were ultimately unable to meet their international goals. In this essay, I will summarize Lindsay’s main argument. First, I will review his discussion of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy. Second, I will review his discussion of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Third, I will review his discussion of why both foreign policy strategies failed, despite their differences. Fourth, and finally, I will conclude with a summary of the main points of the essay.