President Obama 's Foreign Policy

The U.S. foreign policy has always been linked to the domestic policy since the U.S. never feared of expanding its national interests over the national boarders. Isolation for the U.S. usually implied slow economic growth and the large number of destructive conflicts within, while impudent foreign policy always guaranteed an abrupt economic growth for the U.S. economy. After the U.S. intervened in the WWI and the WWII, the U.S. economy witnessed a tremendous economic growth, nearly elimination of the unemployment, rapid urbanization and overall growth of the standards of living across the country. Decisive foreign policy has always been providing the U.S. economy with the sustainable and rapid economic growth, unlike the policy aimed at isolation of the U.S.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

George W Bush’s presidency can be associated with an infamous term that stood out from the State of the Union address, that term being ‘Axis of Evil’. In this context, Bush categorised the countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being ‘evil’ states. This neoconservative comment left little doubt as to what Bush’s foreign policy towards these states was going be (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008). This comment would then define George W Bush’s presidency, due to the controversy over this phrase and the results that it would have on US foreign policy as “rarely had such a rhetorical device had such devastating consequences” (Ansari, 2006:186). This paper will argue how the use of the word ‘evil’, and the categorisation of these ‘evil’ countries, had a large impact on US-Iran relations.

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

Public approval has always been an essential part of the American Presidency. But times have changed and today U.S. Presidents make public appearances to make sure that the public approval rating of them is favorable. These public appearances allow the president to show off positive characteristics like integrity and courage which makes the President likeable to the American people. The president’s public displays to the American people has essentially turned him into a spectacle. The change of the Presidential image into to a public spectacle is being used by modern presidents as a propaganda tool that helps them to implement each U.S. president’s national policy.

Between 1918 and 1953 there was a major change regarding the foreign policy of the United States. At the end of the First World War, we practiced a foreign policy that was first established by George Washington in his Farewell Address back in 1796, which set a precedent of isolationism that was adopted until the beginning of World War II. Following Washington 's Neutrality Proclamation, the US did not engage in many global affairs such as the French Revolution and remained neutral through all foreign affairs. At the end of World War I, we continued to practice isolationism by not engaging in foreign affairs and limiting military spending believing that by pursuing this policy we could maintain peace and avoid war. Unfortunately, this

Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the war against terrorism has become “the” major foreign policy objective. Violence is a hallmark of terrorism; terrorist groups participate in gruesome acts to create widespread revulsion and fear. According to Sandler, the true target of terrorism is a wider public, who will then pressure the government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.

After U.S. had an isolationist foreign policy for a long time, U.S. has shifted its power from isolationism to the internationalism. In international relations, united states is the dominate force, which has the biggest military arsenal in the world. However, the position on how the United States should deal with terror is not only relay on the preeminent power that American security has. It also depends on the policymaker. According to James N. Rosenau, the foreign policy can be influenced by five potential resources(Michael Cox &Doug Stokes p6). There are external government, social environments, government structure, bureaucratic roles and personalities of individuals. The directions in U.S. foreign policy moves differently because

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired liberty by serving as an exemplar of liberty and to assist others through armed intervention if necessary. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, Thomas Jefferson warned on the potential dangers of foreign affairs during his first inaugural address by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”, pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John

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.

The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves (Kroc). The United States president role in foreign policy is very important. Foreign policy has always been a job part of all presidencies that deserves the president’s full attention as well as part of American History. Many believe George W. Bush made America look horrible with his term of being our leader; however one reason was how he dealt with foreign policy. Our recent president Barrack Obama did two terms and people thought he was not a good leader, but his foreign policy benefited the country in some ways. Each has main characteristics that separate them from each other which I will be bringing about. By comparing the two presidents’ foreign policy will

The War on Terror required utilizing pre-emptive war, regime change, and unilateralism. An example of all three foreign policy tools is Afghanistan. Bush took a hard line approach with the Taliban government of Afghanistan, who had a semi-friendly working relationship with Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group, al Qaeda, by declaring that if the Taliban government did not hand over bin Laden, the U.S. would invade Afghanistan. The War on Terror created a renewed moralism that had effectively disappeared in the 1990s and was reminiscent of the moralism of the Truman years, as mentioned previously. This new moralism framed the war in terms of good versus evil as a mobilization tactic for the public to support ("After Sept. 11, 2001: A Transformed US Foreign Policy."). Bush’s famous words about “axis of evil” were reminiscent of both World War II, with the axis powers, and the Cold War, with the evils of communism (“After Sept. 11, 2001”). This rekindling of American’s moralism of international liberalism is a characteristic of an all in president because the issue is no longer only a factual and risk debate, but an ethical one as well.

Presidential power can be viewed in terms of Domestic and Foreign affairs. This chapter discusses how the presiden’ts normal problem with domestic policy is to get congressional support for the programs he prefers, while in foreign affairs he can almost always get support for policies that he believes will protect the nation. The president soon discovers that he has more policy preference in domestic matters than in foreign policy.

The article ‘The ideological roots of failure; the appreciation of kinetic Neo- Liberalism’ by Tony Dodge analyses the American Policy within Iraq during the Iraq invasion in 2003. In addition, it also analyses the policies taken by the Bush administration and assesses the relationship between the ‘ideology, policy making and foreign policy.’ Furthermore, Tony Dodge continues to examine how neo- liberalism and neo-conservatism shaped Bush’s foreign policy.

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership