How has President Obama Changed the Nature of US Foreign Policy?
Most achievements of Obama’s foreign policy originate from assuming several policies from Bush. Also, other achievements of Obama originate from assuming a number of the strategic doctrines from the Bush government. Some strategic values by Bush government, which became either overlooked or belittled during campaigns, have currently been held by Obama.
Some of the values that Bush held closely include the defensive use of force, discriminatory unilateralism, powerful executive authority, democracy support and enormous power associations (Inboden 2011).
First, the defensive use of force is the planned doctrine at the rear of the government’s campaign of deterrent whine strikes in opposition to terrorists in regions, such as, Yemen and Pakistan, which cold be scheming against America. Second, discriminatory unilateralism became utilized to define the Obama government’s actions in opposition to Osama, with much of the structure leading the drone actions.
For instance, the Obama government made some resolutions regarding Afghanistan devoid of synchronization with aggravated NATO followers. Third, Obama has a powerful executive authority, which typified the government’s insolence of the legislature for the Libya battle, in addition to, much of the governments’ counterterrorism lawful framework.
Fourth, President Obama encourages democracy rather than autocratic strength. Lastly, Obama has vast power dealings founded on shared principles, which aids in elucidating why subsequent to its first grip of Russia and China, the government finally switched.
Thus, Obama is merely continuing Bush’s third phase. He still practices Bush’s reckless foreign policy, pursues the bailout ideas that Bush sustained, and a large, wild government similar to that of Bush.
How fundamentally, if at all, has President Obama Changed US Foreign Policy? Is Afghanistan a ‘Sensible’ War?
Firstly, Bush and his Neocon partners took America through two expensive wars (Creamer 2011). Obama is getting USA out of those two wars. When Barack became president, America had 180,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (Creamer 2011). We now have 150,000 soldiers in those nations. By the end of the year, that number will fall to 100,000 and to 70,000 by next summer.
Before the following year ends, the entire troop may have departed from Iraq. Barack has pointed out that all USA troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, with the hope that their warfare operation will end before that date.
There can be slight query that Bush’s combat in Iraq was among the costliest U.S. overseas policy disasters of recent times. Its direct costs are now impending $800 billion. However, an article by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, disputes that the real cost of the conflict in Iraq will eventually surpass $3 trillion if we take into account both regime operating expense and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy.
Since the warfare did not get paid for with increased returns, we will keep on paying interest on its cost for years. It pushed up the value of oil, to levels that have shattered the economy of hundreds of billions of dollars, and facilitated swift the financial collapse that outplayed eight million Americans their employments.
The Iraq conflict abstracted billions from significant needs here in the United States
It abstracted interest from the war in Afghanistan and possibly extended that war by years. In 2003, the year we attacked Iraq, the U.S. slashed expenditure on the Afghan war from $20 billion to $14.3 billion whilst adding $53 billion into the Iraq war.
Also, taxpayers will be paying to care for and revitalize injured troops from Iraq for decades. The conflict in Iraq had impact to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and dislocated millions.
As we go away from Iraq, there is entirely no proof that the conflict benefited America one jot much to the opposing. It made stronger the chief opponent in the area, Iran. Also, it fomented abhorrence for the U.S.A and served as a recruiting placard for terrorists universally.
George started the Iraq conflict to discover new arms, as well as, to put on trial the “War on Terror” though there was totally no link between the leaders of Iraq and the 9/11 assaults.
Obama vied for office as an adversary of that conflict, and he will complete it, together with, the assignment in Afghanistan that — but for the ignorance of the George Administration — should have ended years ago. Despite his “War on Terror” audacity, Bush and his Neocons failed despondently to debase Al Qaeda and terrorist groups globally. Obama has destroyed Al Qaeda and brought Osama Bin Laden to fair dealing.
At the moment, there are predictable to be fewer than 100 Al Qaeda left over in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Its dominion and power organization has become ripped apart, and its headship killed.
Barrack pledged to focus like a laser on Al Qaeda, and he just did that
Instead of focusing on America’s true terrorist adversaries, George and company concentrated on Iraq and downplayed the significance of osama Bin Laden — who at the moment turns out was still hugely in charge of the Al Qaeda set-up up to the time of his demise.
Also, let us keep in mind that the overconfident but unfortunate Bush Neocon mass lead over the most awful attack on the American, native soil since Pearl Harbor; ignoring intellect warnings of an imminent attack. Lastly, George’s unilateralist approach, down casted America’s repute in the globe to record lows (Zakaria 2008). Barrack Obama has reinstated America’s status in the world.
According to a BBC opinion poll, in 2007 — just before the end of the George Bush days U.S.A had down casted to become one of the nations with the down casted ratings. Half of those appraised in its 27-country poll had negative analysis of the United States, and barely 28% had positive analysis (Creamer 2008). Ever since, Barrack Obama came to office, observations of the U.S. have constantly enhanced.
Now the numbers have become overturned. Forty-nine percent of the populace has affirmative opinion of the U.S., and only 31 percent has off-putting opinions. For a sovereign world, the observations of human beings shape the capability of Americans to be triumphant in the prospect globe.
In particular, views of the United States unswervingly influence quite a number of youthful persons who sign up to be terrorists and assault the United States. Several have argued that; U.S. support of armed forces involvement in Libya stands in inconsistency to the opinion that his foreign procedure is qualitatively diverse from the policies of the past government.
In verity, the tactic that America have brought to Libya is an exemplar of that disparity. In Libya, the United States is an element of a true multinational attempt to defend the Libyan populace from a head that had declared to kill numerous people.
In his campaign for presidency, Obama alleged to stop the War in Iraq, redeploy America’s wealth on Al Qaeda, take the argument in Afghanistan to an end, and re-establish America’s position internationally.
The military condition in Afghanistan is susceptible, requiring solid executive U.S. direction regarding what the Middle Eastern society desires and requires. Bush’s foreign policy choices became rather haughty, with objectives to build states, in the Middle East, acting as posts of democracy (Cooper & Schmitt 2009).
As an internationalist, Bush persuaded the state to take a moral position in opposition to terrorism through intervening in Afghani dealings (Cox 2007). A number of people may say his that way of thinking was quite neo-imperialist, implying the methods his government took to tried to eradicate terrorism and reconstruct nations became parallel to colonial extension.
In addition, others may deem Bush’s position on Afghanistan as isolationist, as initially, Bush conflicted introducing peacekeeping groups in the state. He just visited the state once during his government, and he was a bit abstracted from actions in Afghanistan owing to his Iraq interests.
Conversely, President Obama and his government intend to broaden the participation of America in Afghanistan, while all at once contracting its plan on Al Qaeda instead of pursuing Bush’s open approach at building the state (Cooper & Schmitt 2009).
It appears like Obama is just abiding by the internationalist effort, which Bush began in his reign as it would be imprudent to remove all troops from Afghanistan devoid of follow-up. Nevertheless, Obama could be employing new isolationist logic, trying to maintain America from the war with the state (Cooper & Schmitt 2009).
He, as well, point, out that his main concern in Afghanistan’s foreign policy is to guard US citizens from terrorist assaults resembling that of 11th September 2001 (Cooper & Schmitt 2009; Drezner 2011). The approach of Obama’s foreign policy, appreciates that this circumstance is not to adore himself or the state, but defend as many inhabitants as possible from risk.
Thus, Obama’s tactics to foreign policy in Afghanistan appear to be well designed. Obama intends to send a prominent figure of civilian experts and diplomats in the country, and his policy is a bit focused (Cooper & Schmitt 2009). Moreover, Obama’s policies intend to keep the state secure, and thus, hoard money for the taxpayers (Belasco 2009).
It is apparent that the media became critical of the foreign policy of Bush in Afghanistan, more than that of Obama. The foreign policy of Bush gets placed in a dire light, even as news springs grieve that the Afghanistan policy of Obama is parallel to that of Bush (Cooper 2009).
There appears to be a shortage of information regarding the foreign policy of Bush in Afghanistan, with small lengths of accounts on the subject. Furthermore, the springs of the articles appear markedly one-sided, with several remarks from political figures condemning the Afghanistan policies of Bush (Cooper 2009). The kinds and tones of tales support Obama.
Early Ideas about How the Post Cold War World Would Develop
The 1990s get considered as the elongated decade in international affairs, because, in theory, it started with the disintegration of communism and the conclusion of the Cold War during late 1989(Hinds & Windt 1991), and came to an end following the United States terrorist attacks on 11th September, 2001.
All through this phase, United States foreign policy experienced basic modifications as the bi-polar globe order grew to a new, tentative, multipolar order.
The key change was the conclusion of the once powerful Soviet Union, and, consequently, the US association with the Federation of Russia and the neighboring area had to change to something totally different, with novel states recoiling as sovereign bodies in Eastern Europe, and the association with Russia as a developing democracy.
This section shall examine early ideas about how the Post-Cold war era would develop, and explain the reasons for American intervention and non intervention, in international affairs.
Europe security had been a chief foreign policy concern of the US before the end of Cold War convictions (Drinnon 1990). For 40 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) acted as a vital element of foreign policy machinery in the US. NATO became made from the skeleton of the post-Second World War in Europe, a phase whereby the Europe got debauched of military and financial resources.
In addition to, the economic improvement of the area, NATO was crucial in the re-growth of Europe, where the United States became the main player. NATO became designed to guarantee that Western Europe got wholly secured against a possible Soviet surge, also, ascertain that American interests remained preserved in the area. Moreover, it had to ensure that Europe did not become lured, nor attacked by the Soviet rule.
Following the decline of the Soviet Union, American foreign policy concerning NATO started to become unstable, and it stayed in that condition in the whole 1990s as the coalition endeavored to find a fresh identity. Nevertheless, the group did not collapse, since, during the Cold War, Europe had assumed a back bench regarding security concerns (Kagan 2004).
The United States did not consider ending the organization, because Europe lacked the machinery to operate as a sole entity. All through the Cold War and after, America desired a further sovereign Europe that was strong enough to be sovereign (Kagan 2004).
However, this did not take place. There was a high expectation on European measures, in the Balkans, but they did not thrive. Americans support became ordered, and operation of NATO deployed.
The changing of nuclear stability, which described the Cold War amid the USSR and USA, was one concern that would change the American, foreign policy. In the last three years of Bush administration, “five main nuclear arms control initiatives became accomplished” (Dobson & Marsh 2006 p. 155).
The support that America offered in the elimination of nuclear weapons from Russia aimed at making sure that the nuclear arms race ended. Nevertheless, this reasonable shift by the Russians became prepared in countering the verity that America had broken the promise not to incorporate previous Communist nations in the NATO alliance (Kramer 2009).
In 1990s, all that the United States foreign policy attained was a shift from the notion of a Russian region of control in Eastern Europe, via the insertion of countries, such as, Poland in NATO. The dedication to eliminating nuclear weapons entirely from Ukraine became finished at an instance of lack of apparent solidity amid Russia and the US.
The short of a sovereign defense plan during the Cold War enabled Europe to center on the economic face of recuperation, which implied that ahead of the phase leading to decline of the Soviet Union, Europe was just not prepared to react to the altering activities in the continent.
From 1989 to 2001, American, foreign policy went through extension of support towards the early Soviet Union, together with Russia and successor nations (Ikenberry 2001).
Furthermore, the unification of previous Soviet satellites to the NATO coalition, American participation in Europe was a little bit diverse in 2001 compared to 1989. Even as the European Union scheme built-in superior foreign policy machinery, much of it depended, on the utilization of NATO design, to execute its Berlin preparations.
The US longing for a new sovereign Europe, in regards to defense, swiftly unraveled thoughts on both areas of the Atlantic subsequent to the decline of Europe to act resolutely in Bosnia. The US guaranteed further participation with NATO airstrikes in the next Balkan crisis, during 1999, in Kosovo (Kagan 2004).
The extension of NATO came as a result of the decline of Europe to provide for its personal defense, whilst corresponding in the organization to alienate Russia with the addition of earlier Soviet allies in the coalition.
Nevertheless, this ignores one key topic – nuclear disarmament in the first phase of the decade functioned well, with significant American co-operation to guarantee the safe elimination of weapons from Ukraine and Russia.
The association between the US and Russia would change following 9/11; even as the American association with Europe in relation to the NATO coalition would persist to muddle along, with no decisiveness over the expectations of the union. We can thus say that the 1990s led to a phase in which the US tried to handle the reservations, which the new world order presented.
Actions and Policies of President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
Clinton had accepted that America would experience a different threat atmosphere from that of his antecedents. To deal with this threat atmosphere, Clinton extended the rhetorical alternatives available for portraying an opponent. The following analysis, in Somalia and Haiti, shows that Clinton utilized images of both colonial and modern savagery to typify America’s adversaries.
Somalia: Building the Primitive Savage
Clinton took over the Somalia condition from the preceding Bush government. The Somalia crisis commenced, in 1988, as the national administration under Siad Barre, became conquered in a coup d’état. The defeat of Siad left a power void that soon outcome in the civil war and a humanitarian catastrophe (Butler 2002; Edelman 1988).
Ahead of the 1992 fall, over 500, 000 Somalis passed on because of hunger or armed clash. The United Nations (UN) tried a relief operation for Somalia. However, it did not succeed because of the fighting that existed within the nation.
The failure to accomplish its humanitarian task made the UN Security Council, through the backing of America, to organize a fresh humanitarian operation, where America would offer the lead in making security for the state (Hirsh & Oakley 1996).
In 1992, December, Bush dispensed 25,000 martial workers to aid accomplish the relief task. Initially, the process seemed to carry on so well, that when Clinton received American forces home, in May the following year, he affirmed the intervention in Somalia as a “mission accomplished” (Hirsh & Oakley 1996).
Nevertheless, in the following three months, UN and American forces experienced violent attacks by Somalis, under the headship of General Mohammed Aided of Somali. The chief attack on American military happened on 4th October, 1993, leading to the death of 18 army men, many injuries and the confinement of an Army helicopter pilot (Hirsh & Oakley 1996).
Americans became astonished by the images of American militia that became hauled through the avenues of Mogadishu and anxiety mounted, upon the government, to remove American ground military. On 7th October, 1993, Clinton declared a scheme, to maintain, the Somalia action to stabilize the state, but pointed out that America would take away its forces ahead of March, the following year (Dauber 2001; Edwards 2005).
All through the disagreement in Somalia, Clinton described America’s opponent as a prehistoric savage in two manners. First, his opponent construction became created through ambiguous labels and unstructured terms. For instance, he typified the Somalia opponents as “warlords,” the “people who caused much of this problem,” a “small minority of Somalis” and “armed gangs” (Clinton 1993 p. 840).
As of this rhetoric, three things are evident. Firstly, using these expressions invited the listeners to see that no perceptible mark of civilization could be established in Somali community. Vague and amorphous expressions like armed gangs, warlords and, just a people, depicted an image of a state overwhelmed with chaos and disorder.
Clinton described Somalia as a pre–modern society incompetent to lead in the belligerents and attain independence without support from the United States and the worldwide society.
Furthermore, as turmoil reigned utmost within Somalia, the issues originating from this African state could be seen as a microcosm of the superior dangers the United States experienced in the post-Cold War era. By Clinton describing Somalis as ancient savages, he created the notion that the African state could not endure with out international intervention.
A different thing to note is that Clinton’s opponent construction was qualitatively dissimilar to that of his Cold War antecedents. In the Cold War, presidents centered their rhetorical concentration upon a middle opponent agent, classically the Soviet Union, which emerged the central point of American acts (Hargrove 1998).
Although Clinton did not charge one definite agent for Somalia’s issues, his representation of the Somali opponent was comparable to the Filipino predecessor. At one instance, American rhetoric portrayed Filipinos as a group that is unable to sustain a democratic shape of regime.
Americans, who lived in Philippines, fought a battle that lacked centralized control. President McKinley and Senator Beveridge regarded the Philippines as a “premodern” society, who could not rule themselves.
Therefore, they required the aid of America to support their development (Butler 2002). Clinton instigated this adversary portrayal into the presidential dictionary. Clinton held that the opponent in Somalia was not a federal agent, but a whole “premodern” society. By insinuation, the Somalis required American support to enable them become civilized.
In addition, reintroducing this grand predecessor into presidential foreign policy conversation widened the rhetorical alternatives Clinton and his successors had presented to describe enemies in the post-Cold War world.
Lastly, Clinton’s vague words made it further hard for the public to identify who was to blame for the day by day threats to UN and US military, rhetorically undercutting the capacity to unite public backing for an intervention.
The starvation and demise created by the civil war offered a primary validation for preserving an American intervention. The explanation of Clinton’s rhetoric was that the turmoil in Somalia had to be controlled and abridged, lest it broaden to other areas and threatens US interests.
Defining the Modern Savage: Haiti
Clinton succeeded an unsettled condition in Haiti from the Bush government. In 1990, December, Haiti held its initial democratic election, whereby Jean-Bertrand Aristide emerged the voted president (Kuypers 1997). Nevertheless, on September 30, the same year, Haiti’s martial leaders conquered Aristide and imposed a martial authoritarianism.
Bush disapproved the coup, instantly, and issued an administrative order proclaiming a trade embargo. At the same time, Bush took a careful pose regarding intervention in the Caribbean state. He bargained with Haiti’s army via the Organization of American States (OAS) in anticipation that the society could put stress on the military junta to depart the island and reinstate Aristide calmly.
In the subsequent months, Bush maintained his policy of trade sanctions. However, he also obtained pressure from a range of interest societies and nations to take further action, due to the enormous refugee evacuation from the island. Over 50,000 inhabitants left the island state in the subsequent year.
When Clinton assumed presidency, he pursued the policies of his antecedent. In 1993, July, General Cédras, the Haitian martial junta head, and Aristide arrived at an account that became called the Governors Island Agreement (Hyland 1999). In this agreement, the martial pledged to resign from authority by the ending of October 1993 and let Aristide assume power.
The America’s role in the accord was to assist, with a gigantic support package, to reconstruct the state, and coach a Haitian national police force that would offer security for the state. That idea became postponed on October 11, 1993, after the USS Harlan County, shipping Canadian and American martial trainers, got denied landing in Port-au-Prince.
Fortified junta cohorts’ surrounded the docks of Port-au-Prince objecting the American docking (Hyland 1999). The Canadian and American martial workforce had become lightly equipped, and because of the looming danger created by junta followers, the Harlan County reverted to America.
Clinton held the Haitian marshal responsible for breaking the accord. From Clinton’s viewpoint, Haiti’s martial leaders sought to cling to supremacy for a while. Therefore, the trainers got unauthorized to land in Haiti, the Harlan County catastrophe left the Governors Island Agreement dead.
In the following year, Clinton stayed devoted to re-establishing Haiti’s democracy, rhetorically. In 1994, July, America convinced the UN Security Council to permit a decree authorizing the utilization of force to induce the come back of Aristide (Kuypers 1997). The next month Clinton decided to organize an attack of Haiti to reinstate Aristide to supremacy.
Again, on 15th September, Clinton used a public address to declare his intentions for Haiti. He affirmed that America had exhausted all diplomatic endeavors, yet the circumstance had not been solved. Consequently, Clinton cautioned Haiti’s martial leaders that they had to depart the country or be ready for an American attack.
Furthermore, Clinton’s portrayal of the adversary made Cédras a federal pollutant in America’s symbolic world. Burke (1961) explains that all persons arrange their existence via a symbolic order and certain chain of command. In case, anything, which opposes that order, happens, then it grows to be polluted and requires purification.
Cédras was responsible for the mayhem in Haiti, according to Clinton (Ivie, 1994; Ivie 1997). Clinton said that Cédras desecrated US symbolic order through ordering violence that became consigned in America’s square, ensuing in the killing of guiltless civilians, in addition to, a migration of thousands of expatriates, which put the America’s coastline at danger.
Through putting the blame for Haiti’s predicament on Cédras, Clinton set the foundation to obliterate the “pollutant” from US foreign policy ladder (Hyland 1999). Using martial intervention, America could entirely eliminate the pollution and restore solidity to its symbolic world.
Clinton’s utilization of contemporary savage imagery in Haiti sustained ancient tradition of presidents employing parallel lines of argument. His speech maintained connection with the symbolic past.
Certainly, upcoming American presidents will undertake the use of force and possibly need the accessibility of both opponent constructs in their metaphoric arsenal (Edwards 2006). Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq is similar to Clinton’s description of enemies in various manners.
For instance, at the onset, President Bush described Saddam Hussein as the critical modern savage, a federal agent who can use the executive of his government organizations to create chaos for America and its associates.
Conversely, the moment Saddam Hussein became eliminated from authority Bush description of the enemy transformed. Bush sustained to lay the fault upon the customary suspects like Al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, the president turned to describing the Iraqi enemy in diffuse expressions, similar to how Clinton acted in Somalia (Butler 2002).
Thus, we have Bush portraying America’s opponents in both modern and prehistoric terms to control the conflict (Ivie 1990). Bearing in mind that the threats facing America are not likely to end shortly, one may get upcoming presidents construct opponents in both prehistoric and contemporary terms.
Has there been a Significant Change of Foreign Policy Direction under President Obama?
Four years, since Obama’s appointment, little has transformed d in America’s national and foreign security policy (Parmar 2011). Drastic transformation or even considerable policy reform is usually unlikely because of ingrained political forces and policies.
Again, hereditary legacies from the Bush epoch, Obama’s personal attitudes, designations to high office and longer-term propensity and mindsets have all restricted the latent for policy change. In 1941, following Japan’s assail on Pearl Harbor, a strong and clearly exclusive east coast foreign policy institution surfaced in America.
This institution has held control from that time (). Its structure changes quite slowly and functions irrespective of the political party in authority – which is responsible for continuity of foreign policy amid governments of both key parties.
Once more, in case Obama was stern about transformations, he would have chosen, to high administration, individuals who did not become drawn in the preceding policies or in the attitudes of America foreign policy organization, which largely maintains the policies of Bush.
However, regardless of his anti-Iraq war determination record, Obama has done the contrary, employing chief militarists allied to the Bush government and John McCain, his Republican adversary (Parmar 2011). Besides, Obama has, as well, pursued Bush into Afghanistan war, considering that the nation, and its boundary with Pakistan, is the actual vanguard of the soi-disant battle on terror.
The anticipated military surge in Afghanistan, a policy sketched by McChrystal, will take US troop number from 35, 000, during the reign of Bush, to 100,000 (Parmar 2011). An early beginning of departure date implies that the fighting has joined a further lethal stage. At present, it is the war of Obama as he spent days trying to establish his ideal policy and pick military intensification.
Briefly, Obama has principally elected persons who backed Bush’s policies, but thought that they could be executed in an enhanced way. Thus, change of a significant kind is improbable, regardless of popular hope and goals.
Obama and Bush governments both share an interest in increasing American supremacy through firm democracy endorsement. The growing function of the NATO van best explains this. Obama has selected Daalder, Ivo as US envoy to NATO. Ivo, a famous advocate of democracy from the top believe that NATO ought to become an international coalition for democracy.
In conclusion, some strategic values by Bush government, which became either overlooked or belittled during campaigns, have currently been held by Obama. Some of the values that Bush held closely include the defensive use of force, discriminatory unilateralism, powerful executive authority, democracy support and enormous power associations.
Instead of focusing on America’s true terrorist adversaries, George and company concentrated on Iraq and downplayed the significance of osama Bin Laden — who at the moment turns out was still hugely in charge of the Al Qaeda set-up up to the time of his demise. As an internationalist, Bush persuaded the state to take a moral position in opposition to terrorism through intervening in Afghani dealings.
A number of people may say his that way of thinking was quite neo-imperialist, implying the methods his government took to tried to eradicate terrorism and reconstruct nations became parallel to colonial extension.
In addition, others may deem Bush’s position on Afghanistan as isolationist, as initially, Bush conflicted introducing peacekeeping groups in the state. He just visited the state once during his government, and he was a bit abstracted from actions in Afghanistan owing to his Iraq interests.
Conversely, President Obama and his government intend to broaden the participation of America in Afghanistan, while all at once contracting its plan on Al Qaeda instead of pursuing Bush’s open approach at building the state. It appears like Obama is just abiding by the internationalist effort, which Bush began in his reign as it would be imprudent to remove all troops from Afghanistan devoid of follow-up.
Nevertheless, Obama could be employing new isolationist logic, trying to maintain America from the war with the state. He, as well, point, out that his main concern in Afghanistan’s foreign policy is to guard US citizens from terrorist assaults resembling that of 11th September 2001.
The approach of Obama’s foreign policy, appreciates that this circumstance is not to adore himself or the state, but defend as many inhabitants as possible from risk. Thus, Obama’s tactics to foreign policy in Afghanistan appear to be well designed. Obama intends to send a prominent figure of civilian experts and diplomats in the country, and his policy is a bit focused.
Moreover, Obama’s policies intend to keep the state secure, and thus, hoard money for the taxpayers. It is apparent that the media became critical of the foreign policy of Bush in Afghanistan, more than that of Obama. The foreign policy of Bush gets placed in a dire light, even as news springs grieve that the Afghanistan policy of Obama is parallel to that of Bush.
However, drastic transformation or even considerable policy reform is usually unlikely because of ingrained political forces and policies. Again, hereditary legacies from the Bush epoch, Obama’s personal attitudes, designations to high office and longer-term propensity and mindsets have all restricted the latent for policy change.
Briefly, Obama has principally elected persons who backed Bush’s policies, but thought that they could be executed in an enhanced way. Thus, change of a significant kind is improbable, regardless of popular hope and goals. Obama and Bush governments both share an interest in increasing American supremacy through firm democracy endorsement. , Obama is merely continuing Bush’s third phase.
Belasco, A, 2009, The cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global war on terror operations since 9/11. Web.
Burke, K. 1961, The rhetoric of religion, Berkeley, CA. University of California Press. Print.
Butler, J. R. 2002, “Somalia and the imperial savage: Continuities in the rhetoric of war”, Western Journal of Communication, vol. 66, pp.1-24.Print.
Clinton, W. J. 993, The president’s radio address: the public papers of the president. Washington, D.C, United States Government Printing Office. Print
Cooper, H. 2009. Fearing another quagmire in Afghanistan. New York Times. Web.
Cooper, H. & Schmitt, E. 2009, White house debate led to plan to widen Afghan effort. New York Times. Web.
Cox, M. 2007, “Still the American empire”, political studies review, vol. 5, pp.1-10. Print.
Creamer, R. 2011, The qualitative difference between Obama And Bush foreign policy. Huff Post. Web.
Dauber, C. 2001, “The shot seen around the world: the impact of the images of Mogadishu on American military operations”, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 4, pp. 653-687. Print.
Dobson, A. P. & Marsh, S. 2006, US foreign policy since 1945, London, Routledge. Print.
Drezner, D. 2011, Does Obama have a grand strategy, foreign affairs. Web.
Drinnon, R. 1990, Facing the west: the metaphysics of Indian-hating and empire building. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Print.
Edwards, J. A. 2005, Foreign policy rhetoric for the post-Cold War world: Bill Clinton and America’s foreign policy vocabulary, Atlanta, GA, Georgia State University. Print.
Edwards, J. A. 2006, The peacekeeping mission: Bill Clinton and Bosnia, Philadelphia, Eastern Communication Association. Print.
Edelman, M 1988, Constructing the political spectacle, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Print.
Hargrove, E. 1998, The president as leader: appealing to the better angels of our nature, Lawrence, KS, University of Kansas Press. Print.
Hinds, L. B., & Windt, Jr 1991, The Cold War as rhetoric: the beginnings, 1945-1950, Westport, CT, Praeger. Print.
Hirsh, J. L. & Oakley R. 1996, Somalia and operation restore hope: reflections on peacemaking and peacekeeping. Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace.Print.
Hyland, W. G. 1999, Clinton’s world: the remaking of American foreign policy, Westport, CT, Praeger. Print.
Hyller, W. H. 2000, American foreign policy. London, Thomson Learning. Print.
Inboden, Will.2011, Obama as Bush, foreign policy. Web.
Ikenberry, G. J. 2001, After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Print.
Ivie, R. L. 1990, “Images of savagery in American justifications for war”, Communication Monographs, vol. 47, p. 279-290. Print.
Ivie, R. L. 1994, “Presidential motives for war”, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 60, pp. 337-345. Print.
Ivie, R. L. 1997, “The metaphor of force in prowar discourse: The case of 1812”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol.68, p. 240-253.Print.
Kagan, R. 2004, Paradise and power Atlantic books, London, Sage. Print.
Kramer, M. 2009, “The myth of the no-NATO enlargement pledge”, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 32, p. 2. Print
Kuypers, J. A. 1997, Presidential crisis rhetoric and the press in the post-cold war world. Westport, CT, Praeger. Print.
Parmar, I. 2011, Plus ça change? American foreign policy under Obama, political insight.
Zakaria, F. 2008, The future of American power, foreign a affairs. Web.