| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "FLAWED FOREIGN POLICY BUSH ADMINISTRATION": |
|
|
The Bush Revolution of Foreign Policy, 2007.
An analysis of the way that the current George Bush administration has changed the United States foreign policy.
825 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the American foreign policy under the current Bush administration differs significantly from the foreign policy even of Bush's father or of Ronald Reagan, two recent presidents sharing similarly conservative values and objectives. It describes the three core principles of the Bush revolution and gives examples of their implementation into foreign policy.
From the Paper
"The United States pursued, during the early decades of the 20th century, a noninterventionist foreign policy that differs sharply from the interventionist one pursued by the Bush administration. Not only did World War Two-era policies forge multinational coalitions and multilateral organizations, but America's foreign policy under Roosevelt and Truman also shunned the notions of preemption and overt desires to cause international regime changes. At the same time, intervention and regime change have characterized the unspoken foreign policy ideologies of past presidents. Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Serbia are only a few of the nations targeted by the United States in a covert attempt to cause regime change. The United States, by instigating regime changes in nations viewed as possibly hostile, also acted preemptively to avoid economic or political fallout. Whereas Reagan asserted the evils of communism, Bush declares terrorism as the primary target of American interventionism."
| |
|
The Bush Administration?s Middle East Policies, 2002.
A discussion on George Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East.
1,080 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper discussing the Bush Administration?s Middle East Policies in the light of the recent comment by Joseph Nye regarding extremism. The author of the paper argues that the U.S. needs to steer a cautious and well-thought out Middle East Policy in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan and its declared ?war against terrorism.? He continues that in the ongoing standoff between Sharon?s Israel and the Palestinians, the continued U.S. tilt towards Israel and dithering towards exerting its influence to restrain Israel from excessive use of force, is not going to help either the establishment of peace in the Middle East or its anti-terrorism crusade.
From the Paper
"Joseph Nye?s warning comes at an appropriate time. He has a point because in the Middle East, and the Third World in general, the US Policy in the Middle East is viewed as arrogant and overbearing. Israel has not let go of the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza that it occupied in the 1967 war, on the excuse that that they are essential for its security, and kept them under military occupation ever since and built settlements on land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. It has not implemented the Oslo Accord meant to allow the Palestinian Authority to govern these areas. The real reason for the control of these lands by Israel is its right-wingers obsession to claim these areas under the justification that the land belonged to them in biblical times. This argument is so dangerous and can unleash unlimited wars in the world if it is universalized."
| |
|
Congressional-Executive Rivalry in Foreign Policy, 2006.
An examination of the congressional-executive rivalry in foreign policy in the Bush administration.
7,806 words (approx. 31.2 pages), 20 sources, MLA, $ 169.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the congressional-executive relationship and distribution of power in the area of foreign policy. It discusses the George W. Bush administration as a case study to demonstrate the expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress. The paper begins with an overview of the relationship between Congress and the President in the realm of foreign policy. It then examines the presidency of George W. Bush and describes the role the Bush administration has played in expanding its own powers, as well as Congress' role in allowing the administration to do so.
Table of Contents:
The Two Presidencies Thesis
The Modern Era of the Strong Presidency
Explaining the Congressional-Executive Distribution of Power and the Decline of Congressional Power--Delegating Authority in International Affairs
Rise of Assertiveness by Congress in Foreign Affairs
President George W. Bush: A Case Study in the Expansion of Executive Power in Foreign Policy
The Importance of September 11 to the Bush Presidency and the Increase in Executive Power
An Increase in Executive Power through a Reduced Congressional Role and Reluctance of the Executive Branch to Work with Congress
The Iraq War and the War Powers Act Resolution-Congress Permitting an Increase in Executive Powers
Expansion of Presidential Powers by Ignoring and Bypassing Congress
Expansion in the President's Role as Commander in Chief
Spending Powers in the War Against Terror and Iraq
From the Paper
"For Wildavsky, the key to presidential power in foreign policy does not lie in constitutional foundations, but in changes that had taken place in the world since 1945. He cites the growth in the number of Third World nations, the existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of holocaust, and the cold war as reasons why foreign policy tends to drive out domestic concerns. Reasons for this are the speed of international events and their irreversibility. The presidential advantage in foreign affairs is derived from institutional and informational advantages, as the president has greater access to information that other actors and has greater control of expertise, as well as at times widespread public consensus on foreign policy that reflected the Cold War threat. The interconnectedness of foreign policy necessitates that presidents actively engage in all facets of international affairs. Unlike domestic policy, a single foreign policy failure could lead to an array of catastrophic disasters. Wildavsky also suggests that policy preferences are more varied in the domestic arena and therefore more likely to lead to conflict. Moreover, he argues that presidents are successful due to the weakness of other rivals. Rivals for power in foreign affairs not only have fewer resources at their disposal but are "weak, divided, or believe that they should not control foreign policy." The list of potential rivals he includes are: the public, special interest groups, the military, the military-industrial complex, the State Department, and of special interest here, Congress."
| |
|
The Bush Administration and Lobbying, 2002.
An examination of factors which influence decision making in the Bush Administration.
4,150 words (approx. 16.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 151.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores how the Bush Administration is driven by concerns from industry, including oil and transportation, and that this might arguably impact national policy. Currently, the environmentalist movement is worried because many of the members of the Bush Administration are themselves former lobbyists for industry and fuel businesses. This paper investigates the current policies of the Bush Administration and their interests in industry- related lobbies. This paper shall be written with an emphasis on environmentalism in order to demonstrate why some organizations feel that the industries and the Bush Administration are too closely connected at this time.
| |
|
American Foreign Policy, 2008.
This paper explores the U.S. presidential foreign policy doctrine as based on the pursuit of world power.
4,028 words (approx. 16.1 pages), 23 sources, MLA, $ 109.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper looks at the origins of the President's foreign policy powers as enumerated under the Constitution and examines the foreign policy acts of Thomas Jefferson. The paper then focuses on the Monroe Doctrine, reviews the salient features of U.S. foreign policy throughout the nineteenth century, considers the foreign policy doctrines of both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, as well as Woodrow Wilson and ends by looking at the modern-day, post-world war II presidencies of Truman, Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. The paper argues that the foreign policy doctrines of U.S. presidents - whether in the nineteenth century or the twenty-first - have fundamentally revolved around the projection, expansion and consolidation of American power beyond its borders.
From the Paper
"In the words of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the oldest doctrine and/or tradition in American foreign policy was - and is - the doctrine of unilateralism. Specifically, American leaders have always been reluctant to engage in foreign policy alignments - an attitude neatly encapsulated in the inaugural addresses of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (Schlesinger 3-4). According to the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., even the Monroe Doctrine, perhaps the first "great" presidential doctrine vis-a-vis foreign affairs, was prompted by a desire to not only seal off South America from European control, but to remind Europeans that America had no desire to involve itself in European matters and would not do so as long as "hemispheric affairs" in the Americas were not meddled in by the European powers (5). In effect, the Monroe Doctrine was really about keeping the diplomatic intrigues and political machinations of Europe firmly located in Europe and/or in remote parts of the world of no (direct) interest to America."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Discusses reasons behind America's shift in foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea.
1,514 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
U.S. foreign policy is continuously evolving with each new president. However, for the most part, U.S. foreign policy has been based on the idea of containment. This idea of containment was quickly altered after the horrific attacks of 9/11. It appears the U.S. position on foreign policy was forced to change due to the revived ?hot spots? in the Middle East and Korea. This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea; however, the main focus of this paper examines why U.S. foreign policy has shifted to preemption from containment. The paper includes quotes by President Bush and Colin Powell.
From the Paper
"Even with all these tensions, the U.S. continues to hold out that diplomacy will resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula. The U.S wants open dialogue to be multilateral, involving South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and the Chinese. However, North Korea wants the talks to be unilateral between Pyongyang and Washington. The Chinese believe they are being rebuffed, and also believe that the peninsula ought to be nuclear weapons free. Chinese officials stated, ?This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and world we?re not going to be threatened? (Bush, 4)."
| |
|
Presidential Foreign Policy, 2006.
An exploration of foreign policy towards the U.S.S.R. and then Russia under U.S. presidents.
1,190 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares, contrasts and critiques U.S. foreign policy toward the U.S.S.R. (and today Russia) under U.S. presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. The paper studies each man's philosophies about foreign policy in general. Next, the paper looks to how the president shaped and implemented his policies in to achieve specific goals within the U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship. The paper also more generally explores each president's ideals and agendas for the U.S., and attempts to understand how his foreign policy toward Russia played into the achievement of those ideals.
From the Paper
"Each president faced different conditions in the country and the world when they took office. Nixon took over the Vietnam War from Johnson, and this colored how he dealt with superpower the USSR during his administration. Since the Communists were funding the North Vietnamese, one of Nixon's policies was to cut off relations with the USSR until they withheld weapons from North Vietnam. Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, dubbed this policy "linkage." Author Ambrose notes, "The United States would withhold favors from the Russians until they behaved in Southeast Asia by cutting off the arms flow to Hanoi. Peace would follow" (Ambrose 313). Of course, that was not the case, and most of Nixon's policies revolved around ending the war in Indochina while developing all-encompassing agreements with the USSR to help ensure lasting peace around the world. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), meant to limit weapons on both sides, were some of the most important foreign policy decisions Nixon made regarding the USSR during his administration. In addition, during the Nixon administration Congress passed the War Powers Act, which severely limited the president's power in foreign aggression. All of these occurrences were important in foreign policy, especially with the Soviets."
| |
|
The Bush Administration's Ideology, 2006.
This paper analyzes various aspects of President Bush's administration in order to assess and determine whether or not it can be fully encompassed as belonging to the conservative ideology.
733 words (approx. 2.9 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper details the basic characteristics and ideologies of conservatism, according to views and opinions of theoreticians. From an economical perspective, conservatism pledges for a minimal implication of the state in national economic process or towards income equality. The writer of this paper contends and explains why President Bush's administration basically follows a conservative ideology. One example would be the military privatization policies, that are aimed at increasing the strength of the military arsenal through private investments, while at the same time increasing the power of certain lobby groups and major supporters of the administration. On the flip-side, this paper discusses various policies of the Bush administration that are viewed as liberal and non-conservative, such as: The Medicare Modernization Act, Social Security Reform and the No Child Left Behind Program, which do not have the individualistic characteristics one would expect from a neoconservative government. This paper also delves into the impact of the Patriot Act, which seems to be endangering some of the fundamental liberties of the American individual.
From the Paper
"It seems thoroughly strange to note, however, that many of the Bush policies could rather be classified as liberal or, at least, as not belonging to the conservative ideology. For once, the large federal spending, especially during the first term, is a classic measure that liberal governments use to stimulate growth and production. As a measure of governmental spending, it is by all cases an implication of the state in the economic processes, something which, as we have seen, is certainly not conservative. In turn, large governmental spending levels increase budgetary deficit, as was the case during Bush's first term. On the other hand, some social policies, including here the Medicare Modernization Act and the Social Security Reform, but also the No Child Left Behind program, certainly do not have the individualistic characteristics we would expect from a neoconservative government."
| |
|
U.S Foreign Policy, 2001.
A history of modern foreign policy.
2,750 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 14 sources, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the different policies of the Bush Jr and Clinton administrations in the use of U.S armed forces overseas. Clinton?s World Police humanitarianism are compared to Bush?s ?power relations and great-power politics.? The paper continues with a discussion on the void created by the downfall of communism and its current lack of purpose, the history of international affairs and the CIA, Bin Laden and Afghanistan and the U.S?s role in funding their arms. A similar story is told for Iraq, including U.S violations of the UN charter. Contains segments of policy inconsistencies and future foreign policy.
From the paper:
?Still, even as the Administration puts forth a realist view, they also spout idealist propaganda. This is, in part, to appease the American public in the ideal that the U.S. stands for individual rights, capitalism and the pursuit of happiness. However, the ideal is just that: a concept of perfection in the most general sense. The ideals of democracy and prosperity already exist for Americans; they are not so concerned with the rest of the world.[i] This has not always been the case: the purpose of the 40-some year Cold War was to check the expansion of communism, a purpose that Americans agreed was a necessity. Now that we are the sole remaining super power, Americans are not sure where to go with its privilege. After all, ?lacking purpose, power does not exist.??
| |
|
The George Bush Administration, 2005.
A paper on the current Bush administration and how his leadership lacks morality and ethical behavior.
3,090 words (approx. 12.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 90.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed examination of the morality of the George Bush administration. The writer looks at classic texts to garner a sense of what political morality should be about and then holds the administration of Bush against the measurement to illustrate the lack of morality and the fact that it failed to promote the happiness of the United States people. In addition, the author explores the negative impact that was felt by other nations under the watchful lack of morality by the Bush administration.
From the Paper
"Bush showed himself to be lacking ethics and morals in many of the decisions he made and that lack of ethics or morals created an atmosphere of unhappiness in the American public that elected him to office. "For an evangelical Christian, George W. Bush does not seem to have a well-developed sense of sin--at least as far as the nation is concerned. In his speech, President Bush expressed a far-reaching commitment to "liberty" and "the force of human freedom" in the world--values that most Americans, religions or not, would readily affirm. The president has often rightly acknowledged that "freedom" is a gift from God, not the possession of any nation. But his remarkable speech announced that the role of deciding if, when, and where freedom will be defended belongs to the United States of America; America is on a religious mission to protect freedom, and George Bush is freedom's vicar.""
| |
|
Truman?s Foreign Policy, 2002.
An examination of the contribution made by President Truman to the United States and its foreign policy and how other presidents have continued his legacy.
3,700 words (approx. 14.8 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 102.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a review of the main development in U.S. history under President Harry S. Truman from 1945-1951. It explores his foreign policy during the post WW II era and shows the many precedents he set. The writer then examines several of the Presidents who took office after Truman and how his foreign policy and legacy influenced their decision making policies. Presidents examined are Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
From the Paper
"President Harry S. Truman is considered by many to be one of the greater Presidents of the United States. Truman was Vice President for a few weeks before he became President on April 12, 1945. During his term as Vice President, he saw little of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was not briefed on the development of the atomic bomb or of the United States? problems with Soviet Russia. When he became President, these problems became life. Truman later told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me." (Cochran, 1973)"
| |
|
Is the Bush Administration Isolationist?, 2001.
An examination of the Bush administration that argues the point of whether the foreign policy is isolationist or not.
2,200 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An analysis of the first year of the Bush administration in terms of the U.S. role in world affairs. Critics have termed Bush an isolationist president, and this paper examines the issues. The paper concludes that Bush cannot be termed isolationist.
From the Paper
"George W. Bush rightly insists he is not an isolationist. However, his ongoing failure to ratify international treaties is not well received in the International community. At the current rate, Bush will end his four-year presidential term with more than 40 international treaties destroyed or significantly weakened. The Bush administration has rejected the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the ban on biological weapons, and has further attempted to distance itself from International Criminal Court and withdraw the nuclear ban from Senate consideration. (Daalder)"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004.
An examination of how assisting developing nations in the world is a U.S. foreign policy priority.
2,154 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the manner in which the United States, under the leadership of George W. Bush, has made the assistance of developing nations of the world one of the top priorities on the foreign policy agenda. The paper looks at the costs of this policy, both financial and social, and discusses the pros and cons of such a practice.
From the Paper
"In realizing this pursuit and implementing the foreign policy, he proposed a new initiative of development that would increase its accountability for both rich and poor nations and encourage the same commitment from, and link up with, other developed nations towards developing ones. In demonstrating this high level of commitment, President Bush raised the US core development assistance fund by 50% or 5 billion over 2002 level and deposited into a New Millennium Challenge Account for the benefit of developing nations? economies and standards of living (Inter-American Development Bank). The US has been the world?s largest provider of humanitarian assistance and food aid at $3 billion in 2000; spends a billion dollars every month in the war against terrorism; contributed $978 million in 2001 along to international peacekeeping (Inter-American Development); imports the most from developing countries - $450 billion in 2000 alone or eight times more than all Official Development Assistance (ODA) country donors; and is the top source of private capital to developing nations at an average of $36 billion a year between 1997 and 2000 and of charitable donations to these nations, $ 4 billion in 2000 alone.
In 2000 alone, the US gave out $10 billion worth of ODA and even substantially increased afterwards in priority sectors, such as HIV/AIDS (54%), basic education (50%), trade and investment (38%), and agriculture (38%) (Inter-American Development Bank). Its core development assistance package rose significantly in Africa at 30%, Asia and the Near East at 39% and Latin America and the Caribbean at 29%."
| |
|
The Organizing Construct of U.S Foreign Policy, 2007.
This paper argues that the Bush War on Terror has replaced the Truman Cold War as the organizing construct of U.S foreign policy.
785 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that both the Cold War and the present-day War on Terror doctrines are excellent examples of a "good-versus-evil" paradigm that paints U.S. international affairs in unsophisticated shades of black and white. The author points out that the Bush doctrine is wholly committed to pre-empting terror and not merely interested in containing it as in the Truman Cold War doctrine. The paper concludes that both approaches call for a vigilant and aggressive America that seeks to advance its own security wherever it is deemed necessary.
From the Paper
"In many respects, it may be said that the Truman Doctrine began the "policy of containment" whereby the United States would aggressively confront any expansion of communism outside of the USSR and Eastern Europe. By comparison, the Bush Doctrine - while it would certainly seem amenable to offering military and financial support to foreign countries that are genuinely eager to engage the terrorist threat - is much more about pre-emption than about containment."
|
|
|
