The US Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the Bush Doctrine and Obama Administration - Essay Example

? U.S Foreign Policy Comparison of the U.S foreign policy in the Middle East under the ‘Bush Doctrine’ and Obama Administration The election of President Obama into office in the year 2009 was thought to be a symbolic end of the Bush Doctrine which was associated a lot with neoconservativeness. However this does not appear to be the case. There appears to be similarities between the Bush Doctrine and the policies of the Obama administration which only serve to indicate a new manifestation of neoconservativeness disclosure evident in Obama’s foreign Policies. In the words of Irving Kristol, the heralded ‘Godfather of Neoconservatism’, Neoconservatism “is not a movement but a persuasion, one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one who’s meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.” Neoconservatism emerged as a dialogue with liberalism and these neoconservatives were driven to the right in the early 1970s when crime was increasing in the United States , the soviet Union was making a lot of progress in the cold war and the dominant wing of the Democratic party was not willing to get tough on their problem. With this, it bore another much broader concept: American exceptionalism. This discours according to Michael McKinley speaks of America as “embodying an inexpugnable uniqueness beyond the common conceits of national identity found universally.” In other words it is derived from the concept of manifest destiny and the declaration of independence. The Bush Doctrine lays its persistence upon the value of war culture as basis for maintaining strong nationalism and cultural unity. We see it creating the justification for the U.S to create a new enemy with the USSR. The presidents rhetoric “Either you are with us or you are against us” embodied the exceptionalist concept whereby the “terrorists” were characterized as “enemies of freedom”. It is a manipulation which serves to create an ‘us vs. them’ mentality in other words saying that if you are not for us then you are in support of the terrorists thus making you the terrorists too. Obama’s slogan “Change is for parking meters” seems to represent the traditional conservative stance on progress with a deeper meaningful representation of Obama’s liberal interventionist foreign policy- an aspect of the continuation of the Bush Doctrine. The main difference however is the liberal approach on the Obama’s administration on the United Nations, where he embraces the importance of multilateral organizations and uses more diplomatic stunts and mediation between states. There is no punishment to the country that does not offer assistance to the U.S in the Obama’s administration which was in contrast to the Bush Doctrine. The other difference between the two was that the Bush Doctrine has disdain for international institutions and sees them as constraints to the US power while the latter actually sees them as a useful way to legitimate America dominance. With this it is clear that both of them exploit the virtues of American Democracy, both resort to military power as a vessel of change and both seek to ensure United States as the global dominant. In as much as we see a lot of similarities, Obama’s more liberal approach seems to be more effective compared to the Bush Doctrine. This is because in as much as the Obama administration is trying to uphold the externalization, it also makes all the other nations feel like allies since there is no force used and thus feel more willing to join hands. Comparisons between the US foreign policy towards Russia and towards the European Union One of the priorities of the Obama’s administration foreign policies was to see upon the change of certain international agendas but with great observation to a more diplomatic approach. He also stressed in multilateralism. In other words this is increased relation with the third world countries with which the former presidents regime were in constant logger heads with like Iran. This is something that has greatly been embraced by the European Union since they believe that multilateralism is a way to create balance globally. This approach which is a twist to the past uninvolvement in international issues or its last minute involvement has increased the relations between the United States and the European Union. In his foreign policies, he lays most emphasis on: the improvement of America’s image globally, prevention of weaponry mainly the nuclear weapon, eradication of poverty in the Africa countries and the defeat of the al-qaeda. This brings out US as a cooperative country with common shared interests like the European Union and not a country that is domineering. We see almost the same diplomatic approach in Russia where Obama tries to make some negotiations with the Russian government on issues like the mass weapons of destruction. He tried to break the confrontational past methods that were used in the past since it is quite clear that this methods has just brought about clashing of interests which has just served to push the two countries further away from each other. But unlike the foreign policies towards the European Union where they offer full cooperation, it is quite different in Russia where the Obama administration offers selective involvement. In as much as the two countries share common interests their past history creates a major block with the two countries being threats to each other. The difference in the approaches to the two countries has served to bring different results though positive. We find the Russia undeterred on some issues like the dispute over arms control. Russia is in disagreement with the creation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe where they are skeptical about the intentions of the US. They also show adamancy on directly intervening with Tehran since they profit in the sales of arms to Iran. It thus quite clear that the new U.S policies that have been placed by the Obama administration as quite effective. The approach of multilateralism by the United States has been received with quite a welcome. The declaration of cooperation and partnering is viewed as a good way of regulating globalization. Ways in which the situation in Iraq after 2003 is similar to the situation in former Yugoslavia in the mid and late 1990s. The war invasion in Kosovo and Bosnia took place under Bill Clintons regime followed by the Iraq invasion by George Bush four years later. These two wars were to bring down tyrannical governments. Another similarity in these two situations was that the attacked regime did not directly affect the United States. These two wars therefore ended up as a provocation to the European countries and from all other countries with claims that the ground of attack on these two countries was insufficient. Despite the victories at the end of both wars, it is clear that both leaders only served to display the power superiority in their supposed security visions. However we see some major difference in the diplomacies surrounding them and the way they were conducted. We see that Clinton worked through NATO which was not the case in the Iraq attacks. Clintons approach served to bring the Europe and the USA closer through the formation of this alliance wit the involvement on NATO to achieve the same purpose. The U.S troops worked in collaboration with the European troops in the aim to achieve a common purpose of peace with the sponsorship of the U.N transition to success of diplomacy. On the other hand Bush used the complete opposite approach in the attack waged against the Iraq. He ignored NATO completely going round them and thus only serving to lose UN support and ultimately facing a lot of critics from the general world. What Bush’s war seemed to result to was division of the Europe countries leaving in question the future of NATO and the UN. The use of combined diplomacy and military force as it is in the case of the attack on Kosovo and Bosnia served as a balancing act since it created alliances which were broken by the Bush non compliance to the same in the Iraq attack. What are limits of using military power in trying to settle the conflict in Iraq especially the conflict between the Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? The cause of the wars between these communities originates from the difference in ethnicity and religious divide. They are in the battle for superiority. This has been the major war fight in the battle between Iraq and Iran and has gone on for quite a long time. With the war between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, the Kurds serve to hold the balance of power between the two. This war has brought to serious damages with all the bombings, murders, and fire fights which has brought to the loss of millions if lives both of the civilians and the military forces. Al-Qaida has suffered a couple of defeats with the loss of towns and villages that have been transformed to battle fields. The war has seen to the drag of the country’s economy as the losses incurred are major and no activities that are actually working towards building or reclaiming it. There is also the war on the boundaries with repeated adjustments in both the communities trying to reclaim what they say is their property. This ongoing warfare has seen the withdrawal of the US troops from the war as the costs keep flaring up. The use of military power just serves in causing more harm than well and thus the hope of regaining peace is being emphasized on the use of peace talks to try bring the fighting communities to come together. References Biddle, S. (2004). Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Blank, J. S. (1996). Preparing for the Next War:Reflection on the Revolution in Military Affairs. Strategic Review 24 , 17-25. Dolan, J. C. (2005). In War we Trust the Bush Doctrine and the Pursuit of Just War. Ashgate Publishing. Jr, N. K. (September 5,2007). Obama Tones Forign-Policy Muscle. The Wall Street Journal . Meiertons, H. (2010). The Doctrines of US Security Policy-An evaluation under International Law. Cambridge University Press. Read More