Continuity in U.S. foreign policy from Bush to Obama administrations

Consecutive Executive

George W. Obama & U.S. foreign policy doctrine

When the speech writer for the former U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Christian Brose (2009) predicted that the continuum in foreign policy initiatives as undertaken by contemporary U.S. presidents would be advanced by Barack Obama in the Making of George W. Obama, he argued that virtual erasure of bi-partisanship posturing is the domestic raison d'etre to foreign policy, and the impetus to diplomatic secession. Indeed, Brose's claim goes so far to say that Obama would continue to adopt the same international relations posture associated with the administration of predecessor president George W. Bush.

An alternative vision of the transition between the two presidencies where foreign policy doctrine is concerned is offered by way of public media commentary in Britain, and especially regarding what is discussed within the proposal as the Perpetual Theory of War, first posited by Enlightenment political philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Counterpoint perspective is generated through discussion with British allies. As presented by UK Guardian Senior Foreign Correspondent and in-house columnist on international affairs to the news concern, Jonathan Steele (2010) in Defeat in Iraq: The Challenges for Obama and the Region, argues that the Bush administration was already defeated in Iraq on a number of fronts, and that under the Obama administration U.S. influence was set to decline further across the region. Ushering in the new era of 'Soft power' maintains Steele, will serve Obama in the region if diplomatic exercise replaces military might; releasing the nation from its longstanding debacle in the Middle East.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

In retrospect, when political pundits examine the transition of the United States presidential administration of George W. Bush to that of Barack Obama, international relations characterized by an emphasis on U.S. security might be the most persistent thread between eras in the Executive Office. Points of distinction in the history of military force, regulation of national economic interests in response to global capitalism, and multilateral U.S. diplomacy are bound to international law ostensibly; yet as we observe in the capitulation of foreign policy doctrine it has often been difficult to discern where radical deviations from those articulations violate international law (Nau, 2010). While research on the 'preemptive' enforcement of international law is a valuable yet entirely different endeavor, the entrance of U.S. legislative policy into a relationship with the rules and accords of multi-lateral decision making -- especially where NATO and the United Nations are concerned -- is certainly relevant to an analysis of American statecraft in the fields of international relations and political science.

Presidential interest in the promotion of security in recent years has pushed the envelope in the area of international human rights law, where contestation over the legal rights of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, for example, forced the international community to reconsider the legal mechanism by which a "global war on terrorism" might be waged. So too, the continuity of several decades of "new wars" waged in Iraq and Afghanistan in the nightly news has revealed much about the effects of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, amidst wavering domestic and international public support.

In general, continuity in foreign doctrine is largely depicted as a struggle between bipartisan interests at the domestic level, where we can see that "although the Obama presidency is widely heralded as a repudiation of [the neoconservative] agenda" the seeming a priori concept of the United States as a moral power" is deeply rooted in U.S. foreign policy traditions" (Homolar-Riechmann, 2009). The result is that an adherence to social conservatism tends to foster a climate of neoconservatism in U.S. foreign policy abroad. How consistent this is to public perception is a core topic to be covered in the proposed research study. The inquiry also looks at the development of foreign policy doctrine between the Bush and Obama administrations, and examines how it has been transformed through four (4) central tendencies: 1) reliance on multilateral organizations; 2) human rights; 3) historical wrongs; and 4) globalization.

First, the Obama doctrine is exceptionally reliant on multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Elevating the UN Ambassador's role to a cabinet position was a tell-tale sign. Most significantly, the channeling of U.S. goals through the UN Security Council notwithstanding the veto of any one nation is already seen as a 'custom' in the current administration. This is certainly the case in U.S. led Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well as the attempt to prevent the nuclear ambition of Iran. Second, Obama reversed the decision of previous presidents, in support of the Human Rights Commission and its monitoring activities; despite the fact that opponents to the commission argue that the body is populated by the most egregious abusers of human rights. Critiques of the exclusion of human rights in democratic principle as part of the Obama foreign policy doctrine still does not go far enough in upholding the legal, moral and ethical expectations of the international community (Muravchik, 2009).

'Historical wrongs' provisions also constitute a unique perspective within the candid ideological ingenuity of the Obama administration. This in fact pertains quite directly to at least one third of the directive in the Obama foreign policy doctrine. As the U.S. attempts to forge a new legacy -- redressing the mistakes of the past -- the priority stands in lieu of assertion of American power. The impetus to the declination of 'war win' thought within the Obama administration is two-fold: 1) it may not present the best case scenario for peace; 2) nor does it inherently support 'historical wrongs' as a priority to policy. The U.S. maintains balance of power interests through support of foreign militaries, however, where it is believe imperative to global peace, as is the case in funding of Lebanon's military. Only through this balance of power might peace with Israel be achieved it is said, and the U.S. is likely to promote resolutions where both militarization and multilateral understanding through diplomacy is required. The consensus is that the dual approach in the most violent contexts will ultimately have a more stabilizing effect.

Finally, the forth theme within the current Obama foreign policy doctrine links U.S. security interests to the economic and political transactions of globalization. Continued reliance on multilateral arrangements such as NATO, made credible through the impetus of unilateral agendas which require consensus and use of established international legal mechanisms. Where foreign policy doctrines frameworks of the Bush and Obama administration give way to theoretical considerations in this scholarly analysis is in instances of war. Interpretations of the proper place of war in foreign policy doctrine is the subject of much debate, and certainly the fuel to furtherance of such discussions in the disciplines of international relations, human rights, and political science, all proposing a different way of reading Political Philosophy, and particularly the incursions into state violence by Immanuel Kant in his Enlightenment philosophy on the nature of state sovereignty, Perpetual War Theory.

The proposed research is a 'situation analysis' made possible through examination of the history, discourse and political-economic impacts to foreign policy during the presidencies of George W. Bush (2001-2003) and Barack Obama (2009-2011) in their first two (2) years in office. Hypothesis to the study of continuity in presidential foreign doctrine in the 21st century, proposes an examination of the evolution of policy, and trends in the international leadership of the U.S. presidency, and asks: how will the change of U.S. president impact U.S. foreign policy decisions and approach, and can a change in style over substance reverse the decline of U.S. power and influence?

Impetus to the investigation is to: 1) described and evaluate the factual circumstances leading to major U.S. foreign policy doctrines, with attendant or lesser-included policy in support of the broader doctrine; and 2) assessment of the consequence to enforcement of those policies. Core methodological consideration to the study uses the Case Study approach, toward evaluation of praxis and qualification of results to foreign policy doctrines when observed in application to external conflicts. Other considerations to the study redeem inconsistencies, where independent evidence may emerge in respect to the variables of policy formation in the contemporary moment, and the volatility and international circumstances where it is evidenced to warrant preemption by way of international law and peace keeping security enforcement.

METHODOLOGY & RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The chosen methodology for the proposed research is a comparative analysis, which will be conducted through examination of the history, discourse and political-economic impacts to foreign policy during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama during their first two years in office. The purpose of the research is to study the continuity in presidential foreign doctrine throughout the 21st century, examine trends in the international leadership of the U.S. presidency, as well as the evolution of U.S. policy.

In seeking to answer the question of how the change of U.S. president may impact U.S. foreign policy decisions and approach, and whether or not a change in style over substance reverse the decline of U.S. power and influence, the overall goal of the investigation is to: 1) describe and evaluate the factual circumstances leading to major U.S. foreign policy doctrines, with lesser-included policy in support of the broader doctrine; and 2) assess the consequences of the doctrine, and the enforcement of its policies.

The proposed study is a comparative cause-and-effect analysis of U.S. foreign policy doctrine during the first two years of the presidential administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and draws discourse analysis from presidential speeches and interviews as compared with periodical articles and scholarly literature from the disciplines of international relations and political science.

Although mostly focused on the 'scientific' methodology of comparative assessment of Foreign Policy Decisions in the first two years of both presidents, the project also explores the impact on international public consensus through global participatory media, as qualitative methodology to construction of an index of open ended opinions about the enforcement of U.S. foreign policy abroad, based upon an overriding theory of Perpetual War.

Methodological consideration on the project is based on a three-part research design, and will be conducted in three phases. Phase I: Case Studies; Phase II: Public Media (Secondary sources and publications); and Phase III: Data Analysis. The purpose of the study is to describe and evaluate the broad U.S. foreign policy doctrines of both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, with a lesser-included policy supporting the broader doctrine, and to describe and assess the consequence of that policy and doctrine.

PHASE I: CASE STUDY

The research undertaken for this project pertained specifically at the foreign policy doctrines of the two most recent U.S. presidents during their first two (2) years in office, and as such the subjects of the case study will be the George W. Bush, Administration from 2001 to 2003, and the administration of Barack H. Obama, from 2009 to 2011.

Comparative Analysis is the method to be used not only for evaluating the circumstances assessed in the research, but also to test a theory, in this case, Perpetual War Theory. Applying this theory to the evaluation of the case study material will allow me to 1) test Perpetual War Theory as a valid theory or explanation, 2) look for observable phenomena predicted by the theory, and 3) assess whether it is confirmed (or falsified) by the results of the policy doctrine itself, or by other evidence that has emerged since it was adopted.

In addition, discourse as a form of cause-and-effect analysis will be derived from speeches and interviews taken from the Bush administration, while comparative articulation will be extracted from public statements made by the Obama Administration.

PHASE II: PUBLIC MEDIA

METHOD a: FOREIGN POLICY NEWS

Secondary sources and publications in addition to pertinent scholarly analysis will provide an alternative perspective to the archival case study research in the observation of presidential decision-making, specifically in the Administrations of our two case study subjects. In determining the impact of U.S. foreign policy decisions and the changing perspectives of the international community as a result of those policies, selective footage from news reportage, articles published in periodicals and scholarly contributions to international relations and foreign policy journals and will serve as the source to this portion of the study.

METHOD B: INTERNATIONAL NEWS and COMMENTARY

U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrines and their discussion in the 'policy talk' in the everyday lives of foreign citizens is the site of an alternative approach to public media analysis. Dissemination of public knowledge and opinion on U.S. foreign policy comprises a large segment of international public dialogue within the international press, and the commentary by citizens abroad can provide tangible insights into U.S. foreign policy decisions which affect their populations. The research will look at a wide range of international commentary found in online blog sessions and in the independent newspapers during the first two years of Bush and Obama's presidencies, and subsequently draw upon those discussions as citizens abroad watch and read the unfolding of current politics.

PHASE III: DATA ANALYSIS

The final phase of the research will be dedicated to data analysis and augmentation of the findings to the research through additional archival research. While significant attention has already been given to the study of U.S. foreign policy during the first two years of both the Bush and Obama administrations, additional archival research using resources made electronically available by the National Archives and Records Administration based in Washington D.C. will serve to strengthen the analysis, and provide additional support in preparation of the final thesis.

Comparative analysis will allow for an examination of the case study materials, analysis of similarity or dissimilarity between the evidence and predictions based upon the theory, as well a final interpretation of the results. The primary qualitative data from the case study will comprised of: 1) information drawn from public media communications, and 2) statistical reporting on foreign policy outcomes and international public perception, indicated by international public approval ratings as related to the U.S. presidency, and where the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are discussed. Ongoing congressional debates on related topics dedicated to defense investment will supplement the research.

TIMELINE - Insert

EXPECTED FINDINGS

Expected outcomes to the research support the null hypothesis that it is virtually impossible for U.S. presidents to completely alter the course of foreign policy substantially; and that this is due to what Kant conceived as Perpetual War Theory. An example of contemporary war as a point of stasis is presented in retrospect discourse analysis of the George W. Bush foreign policy doctrine, which was predicated on three principles outlined in a host of speeches from 2002 to 2008: 1) challenging radical Islamist havens abroad (what Vice President Cheney called "draining the swamp"); 2) building democratic institutions as a moderating influence in tyrannical states that harbor radical Islamic factions; and 3) preemption. An example of this type of research, where presidential impact where public consensus on key issues such as foreign diplomacy and war is posited to aggregate analysis and statistical calculation, is seen in the findings of Curry and Morris (2010), the Contemporary Presidency Explaining Presidential Greatness: The Roles of Peace and Prosperity?, illustrated in the chart in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Values and Descriptive Data on the insignificance of the 'war win' variable (Curry and Morris, 2010)

Working from the Curry and Morris (2010) sample, and example of the type analysis proposed in the current study is seen in the aggregate distribution of individual President C-Span score data, depicted in a Scatter Gram in Graph 1.

Graph 1

Graph 1. Scatter Gram Chart of the Curry and Morris sample.

In Graph 2, a trend analysis looks at the evolution of the insignificance of the 'war win' factor in public consensus of Presidential diplomacy in foreign doctrine.

Graph 2

Graph 2. Trend analysis of the C-Span looks at the evolution of the insignificance of the 'war win' factor.

The insignificance of the 'war win'factor as expressed in C-Span for each President, represented in the comparative perspective in the Bar Chart in Graph 3.

Graph 3

Graph 3. Comparative analysis of insignificance of the 'war win'factor as expressed in C-Span for each President in the Bar Chart.

Data analysis to the proposed project will utilize similar methodologies of statistical definition and dissemination to articulate findings to the study. Complexity in the current investigation is found where political science veers from law; as seen in the discretionary interpretation of the 'preemption' mechanism and its character in dialogue. To this end, there will be some disaggregation in confidence according to interpretation of terms. Exacting distance between theoretical assumption and legislative enforcement where something like the preemption concept of "attacking those intent on doing harm to us before that harm is inflicted," once tested according to the legal perspective which is classified as "supersession" we may then have clearer understanding of the Perpetual War Theory. The distance between these two interpretations of the term 'preemption' underscores the power in discourse analysis once coded as (A1, A2). From the social science perspective, law must be given priority where judgment on diplomacy rests, as law supposes preemptive measures as rules first and foremost, and that all acts by states, including war, must fit within the framework of international law which works in supersession of U.S. federal foreign policy doctrine.

Consistent to the scope of research in international relations and political science, the current study addresses comparative analyses of presidential authority through both discourse, and the Curry and Morris model of aggregate analysis. Reliability is ensured through discretionary selection of only the first two years of the Bush and Obama presidencies. Data from the project will potentially contribute to the dialogue invested in engaging formative public consensus, and the implications of U.S. foreign policy doctrine within both international media and law toward enrichment of the broader compendium of research in this area, and of course its forthcoming dissemination in the dissertation, publications and conference talks.