Analysis Of The Article ' The Obama Doctrine '

President Obama stated in his Anti-Terror Strategy address, "We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today” (Obama).The Middle East today is composed of very complicated religious tensions, unstable states, and rising terrorist organizations. The collapse of central governments and the rise of powerful non-state actors breed problems that foreign powers and the world’s only superpower, simply should begin to address. Many argue that the involvement in the Middle East is not our problem and that it will only cause our national debt to increase. As human beings we must began to realize the crimes against humanity occurring in the region and ask ourselves one question, can we truly turn a blind eye to the hundreds of innocent people dying and at what cost? The United States of America must get involved in the Middle East to ensure justice is achieved and maintained. Our interference will decrease the chances of terrorist attacking U.S. soil, and our military involvement will save the lives of many innocent citizens caught up in the turmoil. The United States must protect its interests and allies in the region. America stands for freedom, justice, and dignity; we must take a stand to defend ourselves and those in need, if we truly want to uphold the

I believe that President Obama will follow the preemptive route in terms of presidency. Todd Eberly mentions how with preemptive presidents “Such presidents are opposed to an existing, but still resilient, regime but they seek to manipulate and aggravate existing “cleavages and factional discontent” within a regime”. With that said, I believe that Obama is on the right path with his presidency, and he will land on the preemptive route because of how they will be willing to change anything wrong within a regime. This benefits us because we the citizens know that Obama will make changes to our society which shouldn’t be here in the first place. Obama will start to manipulate the small things before they become big deals and eventually we will

Although Obama has shown the few ways he can help America, there are many ways in which Obama has harmed and is starting to destroy the unity of the country as a nation and with others around the world. Obama’s policies, including both foreign and domestic, have hurt America in many ways. Obama’s foreign policies involved the Middle East. “Obama made clear to other Middle East leaders that his main concern was staying out of their affairs” (Greenwald). Obama did not want to get involved in foreign affairs, yet America is still sticking its nose in places it doesn’t need to be. If Obama did not get the U.S. involved in foreign affairs, there would not be as much conflict between the countries or a huge American death toll from wars.

The U.S. has a critical importance in regulating and protecting the supply of weapons in the Middle East. Martha McCoy, M.D., A.B.D., has studied extensively in the fields of political theory and

George W. Bush is often described as the worst president the US has ever had. For many, this harsh criticism is propelled by the great challenges of his presidency and the sheer problems that were left to his successor. Much of the reproach for Bush is valid, both domestic and international affairs worsened due to mistakes made under his leadership. We saw a rise in unemployment, an economy on the verge of collapse, and terrorist actions triggering two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the turmoil and challenges, George W. Bush demonstrates some positive change in his way of dealing with foreign policy. David J. Rothkopf in his book National Insecurity takes a look behind the scenes of George W. Bush’s decision-making and elaborates on the strengths and advancement of foreign policy throughout his presidency. Rothkopf is insightful and makes a strong case that Bush developed and improved overtime, comparing it to the lack of progress in Obama’s administration. So we must ask what can Barack Obama learn from his predecessor’s foreign policy decision-making. Is it too late for Obama to change?

Any discussion of U.S. Middle East policy is integral to the national political discourse. A presidential or congressional candidate has to prove her/his foreign policy knowledge on the campaign trail, but unfortunately the electorate is generally not informed enough to critically assess a candidate’s understanding, which risks giving our leaders virtually unchecked power to make policy in our name. An important part of educating young citizens in a democracy is to teach them the tools they will need to understand their nation’s foreign policy, past and present.

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

3 major patterns in US policy in the middle east have emerged: 1) the US can do as it likes because the Arab gulf states depend on the US in order to not be overthrown 2) ignoring other Arab gulf states wishes and opinions 3) ignoring the fate of the Palestinian people.

Over the past decade, the Middle East has proven to be a complex quandary that the United States is ultimately unequipped to handle. Before the U.S. can possibly pacify the region, it must first work to conquer obstacles domestically. The U.S. should also recognize the source of conflict in the Middle East and use this knowledge in the future as a foundation for a solution to amity. Thus, the approach that the United States should employ in regards to the Middle East is to gradually pull out and become a more self-sustaining nation. However, the U.S. should actively participate in global meetings with other countries as well. This proposal will prove to be the most advantageous solution for both the U.S. and the Middle East.

The Gulf war and the Iraq war were two wars in which the primary antagonist was Saddam Hussein. These two are current wars that coercied the establishment of the Middle East, as well as global security, it has been contemplated that the real direction leading toward the intervention of the west in both wars, was not what the alliance wanted that was, led by the United States. This brought about justifying their intervention, instead of targeting the retaliation from the West, which was protected by the Middle East and the oil supply that was close to falling in Sudan Hussein’s full control. Now these wars are both similar to the concept America’s policy in regard to its benefit, throughout the nation. One author and military patriot qouted

As we have seen, domestic policies are made by governmental institution and influenced by a variety of interest groups, political movements, and even the mass media. The president and his chief advisers are the principal architects of U.S. foreign policy, and the congress, the bureaucracy, interest groups also play important roles in the realm. Most American presidents have been domestic politicians who set out to make their place in history through achievements in domestic policy. Bush had traveled very little outside the United States, and had had almost no foreign experience as governor of Texas. Nonetheless, bush was decisive in the initiatives he took to define American's national interest for his administration. Barack Obama had put his

As millennials, deficit spending is something that we have always grown up with; this is no different than generations past. The Bush administration of the late 80s and early 90s spent a tremendous amount of discretionary funds on the Desert Storm initiative and other various military endeavors. The Clinton administration then shifted more toward internal spending of discretionary funds, attempting to stimulate internal economic growth and stability. Under the Clinton administration, America experienced the first budget surplus in almost 30 years in 1998, which lasted until 2001. The second Bush moved back to a large military focus, while Obama has favored internal stimulus packages. So is deficit spending is as necessary as the freedom with our budgets over the last several decades indicates? As millennials, most feel the last 30 years indicate that it is an integral part of our economy: there has never been a moment where the national checkbook has been completely ignored. Joseph Stiglitz, a nobel prize winner, argues that deficit spending increases economic growth and decreases long term government debt (governmentisgood.com). Deficit spending can stimulate the economy by putting money into the system through government sponsored projects and welfare spending. These projects employ workers and strengthen infrastructure. He points to instances such as WWII, when national debt was 120% of the GDP. This specific instance pulled us out of the Great Depression and set the

In his 2009 Cairo address, President Obama sought to recognize the growing tension present in relations between the United States and the Muslim world, while separating himself from past U.S. policy regarding the Middle East. Due to a tumultuous history of conflict between the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations, the rhetoric employed by Obama, while a step in the right direction, was insufficient alone to effectively improve relations. The conflicts that exists between the United States and the Middle East are more grounded in policy differences than religious or cultural ones, although the tendency of the general public is to believe otherwise. Despite this, different ideologies do make common ground difficult to reach, and a fifty minute speech

The United States has a complicated history with countries in the MENA region; the United States has great allies in the region, such as Jordan,Saudi Arabia, and Israel, however, there are also other countries that the United States has had mediocre relationships with such as Iraq. Due to the fact that there are multiple countries in the Middle Eastern region each with different relations to the United States, this essay will be focusing on the foreign policy and relations between Iraq and the United States from the start of the Gulf War to the Obama Administration. Although the United States has been in conflict with Iraq for the past few decades, the tables have turned and the U.S. is now aiding Iraq by fighting a common enemy: ISIS.

‘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