Consecutive Executive George W. Obama

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.

LITERATURE REVIEW

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 Bush and Obama, and draws discourse analysis from speeches and interviews taken from the Congressional Research Service into comparison with news reportage and scholarly literature from the disciplines of human rights, international relations and political science. Theoretical assumption to the project is dedicated to queries on the application of Kant's Perpetual War Theory. It will sustain engagement with points of continuity and disaggregation, where consecutive presidential ascension is involved. It also advances discussion on the independent variable of economic globalization and its impact on U.S. foreign policy doctrine, where decisions between trade and war (i.e. oil) are not so apparent.

The Perpetual War Theory is part of a school of modern philosophy developed in close association with the Sciences of mathematics, optics, astronomy, and physics, takes inference from shared epistemological roots. Kant was no exception to the paradigmatic priorities (i.e. objectivity as knowledge) of the era, and brief reference to the episteme is serves accuracy in discursive analysis of this heritage within American politics and policy thought. For instance, Kant's Critique of Judgment is enormously influential in establishing a connection between judgment and political and moral precepts to conduct in communities. Intellectual lineage to Kant's model of Enlightenment 'reason" combines British Empiricism with Continental Rationalism; and partly explains why his philosophical proposition that the existence of persistent war against non-liberal states is a requirement to perpetual peace is reiterated in scholarly expiation since the Enlightenment period, making Perpetual Theory of War as lasting as seminal reference (Behnke, 2009, Caranti, 2006 and Murray, 2003). Discourse Analysis toward the study's cause-and-effect analysis is derived from speeches and interviews taken from the Bush administration in Table 1.

Table 1

President Bush -- Speeches and Interviews

1. September 20, 2001 Address to the nation Washington, DC

2. January 29, 2002 State of the Union Washington, DC

3. September 11, 2002, September 11 Anniversary Address, New York

4. September 12, 2002, Remarks to the U. Of New York

5. October 7, 2002, the Iraqi Threat, Cincinnati, OH

6. November 25, 2002, Homeland Security Act, Washington, DC

7. January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address, Washington, DC

Cheney - Speeches and Interviews

1. Transcript of Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press,

September 8, 2002.Interview with Dick Cheney: Part I: "discusses the effects of Sept.

11 on America, the threat of al-Qaida, and the status of the war on terrorism"

2. Part II: "discusses the threat posed by Iraq and the possibility of military action against Saddam Hussein. He also adds his personal reflections on the events of Sept.

11," PBS Online NewsHour, September 9, 2002.

Followed by commentary on speeches and interviews by Rumsfield, Powell and White.

Table 1. Bush Administration Speeches and Interviews.

Comparative articulation is found in public statements made by the Obama Administration in Table 2.

Table 2

President Obama -- Speeches and Interviews

1. 26 January 2009 Al-Arabiya Television Interview

2. 27 February 2009 Ending the Iraq War at Camp Lejeune Speech

3. 02 April 2009 G20 London Economic Summit Press Conference

4. 03 April 2009 Speech at Strasbourg Town Hall

5. 05 April 2009 Speech at Hradcany Square in Prague

6. 06 April 2009 Speech to the Turkish Parliament

7. 21 May 2009 National Security Speech at the National Archives

8. 04 June 2009 "New Beginning" Speech at Cairo University

9. 23 June 2009 on the Dignity & Courage of the Iranian Peoples

10. 23 June 2009 Third Prime Time Press Conference (Iran & Heath Care)

11. 11 September 2009 9/11 Pentagon Memorial Speech

12. 23 September 2009 United Nations General Assembly Speech

13. 01 December 2009 Afghanistan Troop Surge at West Point Speech

14. 10 December 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace Speech and Lecture

15. 18 December 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Speech

16. 28 December 2009 on NW Flight 253 Terrorist Threat and Iran Violence

17. 05 January 2010 National Security Review Press Conference

18. 27 January 2010 First Presidential State of the Union Speech

19. 29 March 2010 Speech to U.S. Military in Afghanistan

20. 09 June 2010 - Speech on UN Security Council Sanctions Against Iran

21. 15 June 2010 Speech to Military Personnel in Pensacola

22. 23 June 2010 Speech on the Removal of Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan

23. 02 August 2010 Disabled Veterans Conference Speech on Ending Iraq OPS

24. 13 August 2010 Iftar Dinner Speech on Religious Tolerance

25. 31 August 2010 Speech to the Nation on Ending Operation Iraqi Freedom

26. 23 September 2010 United Nations General Assembly Speech

27. 08 November 2010 Indian Parliament Joint Session Speech

Followed by commentary on speeches and interviews by Biden, Clinton and Petraeus.

Table 2. Obama Administration Speeches and Interviews

President Dwight Eisenhower's famous public statement against privatization of the U.S. Defense Department's interests was the first iteration of the military-industrial complex (MIC) as a policy framework. The MIC has circulated as a determinant to economic decision making, and a critical springboard for public debate related to the controversies of defense contracting. In the context of globalization, it is interesting to reflect on stodgy ideas such as the 'five pillars' of the Military Industrial Complex, illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3

1. Military

2. Arms

3. Political

4. Policy

5. Propaganda

Table 3. Military Industrial Complex (MIC) (Pavelec, 2010).

In Pavelec's (2010) the Military-Industrial Complex and American Society, the interconnectedness of the defense contracting industry and its lobby is examined where foreign policy is leveraged according to the inextricable interests of one industry facing the world. Contribution of this concept to studies of the military establishment furthers the study's engagement in the trends in war economy within international relations and looks at the periodic factors giving rise to NATO consolidation where global alliances are now in constant flux (Murray, 2003, and Webber, 2009).

Where economic theory supersedes the theory of perpetual war, the relevancy of the discussion to the wider debate on American foreign policy where tensions may be assuaged by concurrency in foreign relations, and this is respective in particular in regard to China, and the general trend since the Bush administration to steer confrontation toward economic and diplomatic initiatives with potential for mutual benefit (American Diplomacy, 2010 and Christensen, 2009). Still pragmatic differences exist between the two presidents, as seen in the shift in alignment between the White House and the Vatican during Obama's first two years in office, is somewhat retracted from more extensive Bush administration's diplomatic relationship with the theocratic state, which was of course consistent to the leadership's neoconservative values (Franco, 2010).

U.S. presidential foreign policy doctrine still serves as bulwark counter to diplomacy with theocratic states. The primacy of this assertion is seen in the continuity of "liberalism" expressed by Bush and Obama in response to the treachery of radical politics, where democratic institutions face threat of tyranny. The persistence of liberalism in multilateral positioning is further articulated and solidified through the discourses and policies of British Prime Minister, Blair and other allies to the United States (Del Monte, 2009 and Moses, 2010). Still there is some distance between the approaches to individual nations within enactment of policy (and finance), and that is quite clearly articulated in legislative allocations to nations that have not succumbed to the dangers of a tyrannical theocratic state (Sadat and Jones, 2009, and Traub, 2010). The war powers of the president the final measure (Hendrickson, 2010, and Murray, 2003).

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.