You have been given the opportunity to present your case to an influential interest group in your community. You will use information gathered in each of the previous assignments to create a compelling presentation with the goal of persuading the interest group that your position on the policy is worthy of being implemented.

Create a 6–8-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you:

• Provide a historical perspective of the policy from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective.
• Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy.
• Present both of the positions of the policy from the Week 8 assignment, Position Paper.
• Persuade the audience that the position you have chosen is worthy of the policy being implemented.
• Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than five years old) from material outside the textbook. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other websites ending in anything other than “.gov” do not qualify as peer-reviewed. 

Your assignment must include:

• Title slide with the name of the policy, your name, and date.
• Reference slide with at least four peer-reviewed references formatted according to the Strayer Writing Standards.
• 6–8 slides (the title slide and reference slide are not included in this number).
• A typed narration of each of your slides in the Notes section of the PowerPoint presentation.

This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:

• Defend positions (for and against) on policy issues using various argument types.

Running Head: THE US FOREIGN POLICY UNDER BUSH’S ADMINISTRATION 1

THE US FOREIGN POLICY UNDER BUSH’S ADMINISTRATION 7

The US Foreign Policy under Bush’s Administration

Kendall Brooks

Strayer University

Intro to Public Policy Analysis

March 1, 2021

The US Foreign Policy under Bush’s Administration

The United States of America has witnessed the most crucial time of history since 2001 since it has been engaged with war on terror. In such a critical phase, the US was ruled by two Presidents: George W. Bush and George H.W Bush. Each one had his different views concerning the foreign policy of the country. The US foreign policy is formulated based on its relationship with the foreign nations, and the way it sets its relations with international organizations. This report will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the foreign policy of the US under the Bush administration.

There is a school of thought that views President George W. Bush to be successful in the context of the war on terror. President George W. Bush has ruled the country during the most critical time of history of the USA. Bush administration had taken certain policy measures that ensured the US hegemony of the globe. That is, President Bush, defined the world order to be uni-polar in the Bush Doctrine. This can be attributed to the great success of the US foreign policy that it has attained the position of the sole superpower of the world, and since then the US foreign policy is formulated accordingly so that it could maintain its hegemony over the world. One can say that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in the US, the US has launched the global war on terror by violating the United Nations Security Council resolution. That is the US did not even comply with international norms and laws provided under the UN Charter. Consequently, the Security Council had to pass the UNSC resolution 1373 against terrorism in 2001 (United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, 2021). It implies that the US exercises its influence not only on sovereign nations but also on international political organizations. Another aspect that shows the success of the foreign policy of the US under the Bush administration is that it had waged a war against Iraq in 2003 in an attempt to promote democracy. The point is it is in the core interests of the US foreign policy to promote liberal values of democracy all across the world (Cox, 2018). The basic objective of the Bush Doctrine was to identify the connection between democracy, liberalism, and security to influence the defense and foreign policy of the US. And this was successfully attained under the Bush administration.

There is another school of thought that believes the foreign policy of the US has been proving to have flaws because the time has changed now, while the foreign policy has not been involved from conservative approach. The point is till the time, the US economy was not hurting, Bush’s foreign policy was all success for the US, but the changing scenario of the world presents an opposite picture. One must not forget that the changing world order has become a serious concern for the status of the sole superpower of the world because the trade competition in the world has been rising, particularly between the US and China. As per the official record, the war on terrorism has been the most expensive war of US history as it had cost nearly 1 Trillion US Dollars. The point is global politics have been evolving, and the world has gone economic conscious, and sovereign nations try to avert wars. Moreover, humans have developed consciousness and awareness regarding their rights. So, the actions of the US regarding invading the nations have become hard to justify now. Because one can see by the situation of Afghanistan that it has been more than two decades passed and the peace cannot be seen as restored. Furthermore, the US foreign policy would not be the same irrespective of the outcomes of the war on terrorism. One can see by the present-day foreign policy of the US that the initial impact of the 9/11 tragedy has started to fade away. Since, the country wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan under the peace deal signed by the Taliban and the Kabul government in Doha on February 29, 2020. However, because of the violation of the terms and conditions of the peace deal by the Taliban, peace in Afghanistan would be hard to achieve, and there are likely chances that the US would not evacuate from Afghanistan. So, the US foreign policy would always reinvigorate the engagement of the US in global affairs.

Going ahead, it is believed that US policymakers have been comparing the 9/11 attacks with the attack on Pearl Harbor within the first hour of the attack. This comparison was being made because of the massive killings of US nationals. However, there was no vulnerability of the US as it was in the case of a clash with Japan. Thereby, it can be said that the minds who were framing the foreign policy of the US must have considered the use of nukes to contain terrorism. This was one of the main reasons that the US had violated international law by violating the sovereignty of Afghanistan. Moreover, this particular concern of the US policymakers was legit in the sense that the US has become the sole superpower of the world after disintegrating the Soviet Union in the Second World War. Therefore, it was the duty of the US to frame the global order by maintains peace in the international world. Moreover, after the Second World War, the top priority of the US foreign policy was to contain communism. And the world has seen that how the incident of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 has taken the two rivals on the verge of nuclear war. The result of the cold war led the US to be the winner and becoming the sole superpower of the world. The same can be seen in the case of the war on terrorism. The main aim of the US is to promote democracy in the world and to contain the threat of terrorism. It has been more than two decades, since the US has been engaged in the war on terror, and ultimately leading to a peace deal that has been signed between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan under the leadership of the Zalmay Khalilzad on behalf of the US government. So, this could be stated as the success of the US foreign policy so far.

On the flip side, it would be too soon to say that the US foreign policy remained flawless. The 9/11 attacks have a great opportunity on one hand, and a great risk for transatlantic relations on the other hand. That is it would a great opportunity for the US to reconsolidate an Alliance whose was in fray in the absence of common threat, only if the US would have carefully managed the war on terror and avoided provoking a clash of civilizations by staying in collaboration with the European allies (Lee, 2016). As the sympathy of the Europeans after the 9/11 attacks was genuine and real, and the population on both sides have become more conscious about the common threat of terrorism. On the contrary, the US would lose the support of the Europeans if it would ignore the international concerns about preemptive strikes and assuming the righteousness of its actions. So, this can be viewed as a narrow path to tread because the war on terrorism has been fraught with various complexities and without having any easy options. However, the stakes of the US concerning its relations with Europe have not been much higher. Besides, the tragedy of 9/11 was unfortunate because it acted like adding fuel to the fire to the expansionist’s design of the US. That is soon after invading Afghanistan on September 11, 2001; the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled the government of Saddam Hussain. This invasion was based on Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides the right to self-defense. So, the misuse of article 51 was again a violation of international law as the UN did not accede to the US invasion in Iraq and the US did it unilaterally as it did in the case of Afghanistan in 2001. So this policy of George W. Bush posed threats to Jews and Americans in the Middle East, and consequently, it led to the emergence of several non-state actors that did not pacify the situation, rather it further exacerbated the situation (Kattelman, 2019).

To sum up, foreign policy is the agenda of a state to serve its national interests by maintaining relations with foreign nations. The US needed to formulate the world order being the victor of the Second World War. Thereby, the foreign policy of George H.W Bush has been regarded as more counseling because it was more complying with international norms and was adherent to globalism. While, the foreign policy of Junior Bush was based on more nationalistic views, and it has been regarded as the most conservative because it has repeatedly violated international norms because of the unilateral decisions being taken by President George W. Bush. Besides, the Bush policy has remained somewhat flaws in terms of economics because its impacts have still been faced by the world.

References

Cox, M. (2018). Safeguarding democratic capitalism: US foreign policy and national security, 1920–2015. Cold War History, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682745.2018.1533687

Kattelman, K. (2019). Assessing success of the Global War on Terror: terrorist attack frequency and the backlash effect. Dynamics Of Asymmetric Conflict, 13(1), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2019.1650384

Lee, M. (2016). Us, them, and the war on terror: reassessing George W. Bush’s rhetorical legacy. Communication And Critical/Cultural Studies, 14(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2016.1257817

United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. (2021). Counter-Terrorism Committee – United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. Retrieved 2 March 2021, from https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/.

FOREIGN POLICY 6

Foreign Policy of USA

Under

George H.W. Bush and Georg W. Bush

By Kendall Brooks

Intro to Public Policy Analysis

Dr. Timothy Smith

Strayer University

January 25, 2021

Foreign Policy of USA under George H.W. Bush and Georg W. Bush

George H.W Bush and George W. Bush are two former presidents of the United States of America who ruled the country in a critical phase of history. George H.W Bush assumed power when the cold war was in its last breath. The period was significant for America and had a profound impact on the entire world simply because the end of the cold war led to the emergence of new world order. In this juncture of history, George H. W. Bush’s foreign policy has been remarkable, particularly for international law supremacy. Senior Bush’s political insight and ability to understand the foreign policy and complexities of the situation were fair enough to shift the world from the cold war to the new world order. During his entire time, he focused on international laws, took consultative policies, accepted multilateralism, and avoid unilateral decisions. Unlike his father, George W. Bush pursued his foreign policy in different ways. George W. Bush’s foreign policy mostly revolved around his nationalism and his unilateralism. Disregard his allies and world views. Junior Bush framed policies in foreign affairs that impacted America’s social and economic matters but have a profound and disastrous impact on some parts of the world. His approach to the war on terror persists even after two decades of its initiation, putting an adverse effect on America and the regional economy. Moreover, his unilateral foreign policy maligned America’s position on Human Rights, international laws, and globalization. The following are the details of senior and junior Bush’s foreign policy of the United States of America (Reilly 2006). 

Foreign Policy of George H. W. Bush

As the 41st president of the United States of America, George H. W. Bush came into power in 1989. It was a time when the Soviet Union was disintegrated after four and half decades of ideological and economic war with the United States of America. In this critical juncture of history, it was imperative to have a statesman who led America and give direction to the rest of the world. Being a sole superpower, it was indispensable for the United States of America to lead the world. Keeping the view of this importance, George H. W Bush gave a new guideline to the world what we called “The New World Order.” The new world order was a guideline that how the international system should run. Previously there were two aggressive approaches: Soviet-led communism and USA lead capitalism. The Soviet Union’s disintegration provided an open field for America to implement its agendas that had long been struggled for them. The situation in the Middle East was also different in those days. Iraq- Iran war, though, ended but had put adverse impact on the regional peace.

Moreover, the Iraq attack on Kuwait’s small kingdom has created another challenge for America in the post-Cold War phase. Reacting to the Iraq action, George H.W. Bush demanded a complete withdrawal of the Iraqi force. Consulted with allies, the United Nations, and even with the broken Soviet Union, United States used force against Iraq. Since the U.N. Resolution’s very purpose was to evict the Iraqi force from Kuwait, George H.W. Bush did not need advanced and remained under the aspiration of U.N. resolution (Nelson 2014). 

Foreign Policy of George W. Bush

George w. Bush came into power in 2000 and ruled the country with different foreign affairs approaches. Unlike his father, George W. Bush’s foreign policy was assertive, unilateral, and nationalist. He focused more on America than the rest of the world. His predecessors advocated globalization, international laws, human rights, etc., but George W. Bush completely deviated from these norms. Like his father, W. Bush renovated the American military and spent more its rebuilding. But unlike his father, he initiated a costly national missile defense system that protects America against the enemy’s missile. His primary focus remained on federal building and disregarded globalization. With his unilateral decision, Mr. W. Bush rejected the 1997 Koyoto Protocol, a commitment of the international community to thwart the hazardous gaseous emission; withdrawal of International Criminal Court (ICC), which had a deal to punish the culprit who abuses human rights; and imposed a unilateral tariff on steel which deviates the principle of World Trade Organization (WTO) discourage protectionism. Through these decisions, he turned from international norms, human rights, and fair trade. In the initial time, his unilateral approaches annoyed enemies and friends alike. The unfortunate tragedy of 9/11 provided him an excuse to advance his expansionist policies. Immediately after an attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, W. Bush declared war against Al-Qaida and its facilitators. In October 2001, the United States of America invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan (Guzzini 2002).In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq and eliminated Saddam Hussain. Though the attack on Afghanistan was invoked by article 51 of the UN Charter, which gives to self-defense, the Iraq attack by the United States was unilateral and against international laws’ norms. U.N. did not allow invading Iraq, but this decision was unilateral. The unilateral decision of W. George W. Bush’s policy related to Saddam Hussain of Iraq was of his view that the latter could pose a threat to Jews and Americans in the Middle East. Under the guise of the Weapon of Mass, Destruction America attach to Iraq.

On the other hand, Bush remained cautious in dealing with Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs. Bush’s policies had an economic and social impact on the United States and the world. The excessive spending on the military, open two wars, and tax cuts had a tremendous impact on the United States of America’s economy. 

Critique of Policies of Both the administrations

The foreign policy of George H.W Bush always remained pragmatic and consultative. After the end of the cold war, it was necessary to give a new order. He valued international laws and adhered to globalism. On the other hand, the junior Bush was nationalist, disregarded international norms, and formulated foreign policies unilaterally. George W. Bush’s policies not only affected America but equally harmed the world at large. The economic impact of Bush’s foreign policy still affects the world.

References

Guzzini, Stefano. 2002. Foreign Policy Without Diplomacy: Bush Administration at Crossroad. International Relation, 16(2). Pp 291-297.

Reilly, Marc J.O. 2006. Like father, like son? A comprehensive of the foreign policies of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Historical Actual Online (10). Pp 17-36

Nelson, Michael & Barber A. peery. 2014. Inside the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. New York: Cornell University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt5hh0w3

Powaski, Ronald E. (n.d). Ideals, Interests and U.S Foreign Policies from George H. W Bush to Donald Trump. Berlin: springerlink. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-97295-4

Running Head: FOREIGN POLICY 1

FOREIGN POLICY 7

Foreign Policy

Kendall Brooks

PAD510: Introduction to Public Policy Analysis

Strayer University

February 15, 2021

Introduction

The two ex-presidents of the U.S., George W. Bush, and George H.W Bush ruled the country in a critical phase of history. Both had different views on US foreign policy. The US’s foreign policy consists of its relationship with foreign nations and the way it sets US residents’ associations, companies, and applications collaborative norms the way it sets US residents’ associations, companies, and applications collaborative norms. In this report, the light will be shed on the motives, conflicts, interrelationships, and impacts on the policy by the two presidents. 

Summary

From the period of 2001 to 2009, the President of the state, George W. Bush, served the nation. During his time several policies were reformed for the betterment of the country. State Secretaries, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell, were among the principal policy advisors during the president bush era (Issues in Foreign Policy, 2021). For nearly half a century, the major objective of American foreign affairs is to fight the Soviet threat. While the foreign policy agenda still includes national security questions and relations with Russia, new issues are at the forefront. The increasing interdependencies between domestic and foreign policies are blurring in economic development, communications, and the environment. However, the terrorist outbreak on September 11 in 2001, steered president bush to reframe the foreign policy of the US as a War on Terror, along with two other wars in the Middle East. On September 11, the Pentagon of Washington, DC and the New York City World Trade Center were hijacked and crashed by 19 al-Qaeda associated terrorists. Soon after the attack, the Bush administration launched a global war on terror. Afghanistan was the primary front during this attack. Furthermore, the United States of America went to war with Iraq in 2003 (Sotirović, 2019). While American forces quickly drove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein out (and eventually killed him), the conflict has lasted for years. In the US and around the world, intelligence agencies believed that before the war began, Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but they did not find such weapons during and after the war.

On September 14 2001, the Agreement for the Use of the Army against Terrorism (AUMF) was introduced. The strategy enabled the US Armed Forces to use the forces accountable for the September 11 attacks. The President allowed the use of any legitimate and sufficient force by means of this Act. By preventing terrorism, the powers will guarantee the stability of America. Organizations or individuals who, against them, are deemed to be intended, permitted, or supported in the event of terrorist outbreaks that took place on September 11 2001, or which were carried out by such organizations. Another approach used by bush’s administration was referred to as the “Bush Doctrine”. The term means taking the war to the terrorist. In simple words, it meant to attack before being attacked. Distributed nature of terrorism on an international level, lead to pre-emptive war all over the world (George W. Bush: Foreign Affairs | Miller Center, 2021). 

Similarly, the United States Patriot Act (2001) was a key component of the Global War on Terror which sought to protect the country against potential acts of terror through the expansion of national surveillance programs and enhancement of surveillance techniques to obtain information from detainees. Law criticism insisted that it subverted precious human liberties and that by authorizing what they perceived to be torture; the Act violated the Geneva Convention. In a period of terrorism, the Patriot Act has contributed to an ongoing national dialogue about the balance between security and freedom. Bush’s strong engagement and direct contact with international leaders shocked many departmental career officers, and not everyone was satisfied with informal communication networks (Bush’s Foreign Policy – Short History – Department History – Office of the Historian, 2021).

Stephen Hadley

Stephen John Hadley has assisted as the twenty-first US National Security Adviser from the year 2005 to the year 2009. He was a prosecutor in states and as well as a government functioning. During the first term of Bush, Hadley had been Deputy National Security Advisor. Hadley previously served in a range of defense and national security capacities. He was an assistant to Paul Wolfowitz during his presidency and served from 1989 to 1993 as Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Policy. He was in charge of the security strategy against NATO. He also acted as a leader in Western Europe, the defense of atomic arms and ballistic missiles, and the controller of weapons. He also took part in export control and space management policy concerns (George W. Bush president center). Throughout, the presidential movement, in the year 2000, Hadley functioned in the Bush National Security Council as a leader of external affairs. He was also a defense policy advisor. After, president bush claimed the office, hardly served in the panel of a nuclear weapon. The issues are supported by the National Institute for Public Policy. Stephen Cambone and Robert Joseph were some of the other people in the panel, along with William Schneider. This panel argued that the US defense arsenal would use tactical nuclear weapons as usual. From the period of January 22 2001, he was a secretary to the President and Deputy Advisor for National Security. Also, He was a member of the Iraq Party of the White House in 2002.

Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice’s is currently Institution Director at Stanford University is a US diplomat, political scientist, civil servant, and teacher. From the year 2005 to the year, 2009 Rice functioned as the sixty-sixth secretary for the United States of America. She also acted as member in the 20 National Security Advisors for the United States till 2005. Rice, the first female African American State Secretary to serve as a National Security Adviser, was one of the Republican Party members. As secretary of America, Rice’s program regarded counterterrorism as preventive rather than just disciplinary (Oppel, 2000). On, December 18 2005, Rice in an interview stated: “We have to remember that in this war on terrorism, we’re not talking about criminal activity where you can allow somebody to commit the crime, and then you go back, and you arrest them, and you question them. If they succeed in committing their crime, then hundreds or indeed thousands of people die. That’s why you have to prevent, and intelligence is the long pole in the tent in preventing attacks”. Rice was the one who promoted the knowledge of counterterrorism. This doesn’t only involve confronting the officials and governments which promote terrorism but also the system which powers terrorism. 

On July 29 2005, in a speech Rice mentioned “securing America from terrorist attack is more than a matter of law enforcement. We must also confront the ideology of hatred in foreign societies by supporting the universal hope of liberty and the inherent appeal of democracy”. Condoleezza Rice was the national security advisor during the attack of September 11, 2011, under the presidency of the bush. She was the one who informed president bush about the attack on the third plane in the pentagon. 

Conclusion

Bush was ranked as the 30th president, according to the poll of 2018, the Bush administration’s foreign policy successes are published by historian Melvyn Leffler. He mentioned “were outweighed by the administration’s failure to achieve many of its most important goals” (Rottinghaus, 2018).

References

” Stephen J. Hadley”. George W. Bush Presidential Center. www.bushcenter.org. Retrieved November 11, 2016

Bush’s Foreign Policy – Short History – Department History – Office of the Historian. History.state.gov. (2021). Retrieved 10 February 2021, from

https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/bushi

.

Issues in Foreign Policy. Cliffsnotes.com. (2021). Retrieved 10 February 2021, from

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/foreign-policy/issues-in-foreign-policy

.

George W. Bush: Foreign Affairs | Miller Center. Miller Center. (2021). Retrieved 10 February 2021, from

https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/foreign-affairs

.

Sotirović, V. (2019). The nature of the US and the American foreign policy. Vojno Delo, 71(5), 54-62. https://doi.org/10.5937/vojdelo1905054s

Oppel, R. A., Jr.; Bruni, F. (December 18, 2000). “The 43rd President: The White House Staff; Bush Adviser Gets National Security Post”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 23, 2020. Retrieved May 27, 2019.

Rottinghaus, B; Vaughn, S. (19 February 2018). “How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?”. New York Times. Archived from the original on 10 March 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2018.