The Essay Plan:

INTRODUCTION
1. A short briefing about George W. Bush administration.
2. Some facts about Barack Obama administration.
3. Comparative analysis of Bush and Obama administrations on american foreign policy.
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION
The President of the United States sits at the epicenter of the U.S. foreign policy
establishment. Widely regarded at home and abroad as the most powerful individual in the
world, the preeminence of the president in the realm of foreign affairs often goes unquestioned.
For the president, foreign policy power derives from Article II of the U.S. Constitution,
which assigns the general executive power and the roles of commander-in-chief, chief of state,
chief executive, chief negotiator, and chief diplomat to the president. Constitutional factors, as
well as the unparalleled level of visibility and influence of the president, shape his role in foreign
policy by empowering him to lead, but they also create challenges to that leadership.
As Edwin Corwin noted, the Constitution does not provide the final word on how the
president will interact with other institutions, individuals, and groups in making foreign policy. It
is merely the starting point, an invitation to struggle. The president is certainly not an
autonomous decision maker on foreign policy issues. 1
The presidents personal foreign policy preferences and goals often take a backseat to
these domestic and systemic influences. Under the right conditions, however, if existing
political constraints and opportunities are well understood by the individual in office, and if these
factors are in a position to be manipulated, the president is capable of exercising control beyond
that of any other individual in the world.

1. A short briefing about George W. Bush administration.

Im the decider, and I decide what is best. George W. Bush
In 2001 George W. Bush became the 43rd president of the United States. His
administration was deeply involved in the Middle East, but its efforts did not advance U.S.
national security. In the realms of counterterrorism, democracy promotion, and nonconventional
proliferation, the Bush administration failed to achieve its objectives. 2
1 United States of America decision-making: the attributions of the President and
the US Congress - http://diam.uab.ro/istorie.uab.ro/publicatii/colectia_bcss/bcss_1718/09_oana_elena_branda.pdf (visited 29.11.2014).
2 J. Pressman. Power without Influence: The Bush administrations foreign policy
failure in the Middle East. 2009, page 149. - http://pomeps.org/2011/04/26/powerwithout-influence-the-bush-administrations-foreign-policy-failure-in-the-middle-east
(visited 29.11.2014).
3

Although the United States did not suffer a second direct attack after September 11,
2001, the terrorism situation worsened as many other countries came under attack and a new
generation of terrorists trained in Iraq. Large regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia did
not become more democratic, with no new leaders subject to popular mandate. The model used
in Iraq of democratization by military force is risky, costly, and not replicable. Bush's policy
exacerbated the problem of nuclear proliferation, expending tremendous resources on a
nonexistent program in Iraq while bolstering Iran's geopolitical position. 3
The administration failed because it relied too heavily on military force and too little on
diplomacy, disregarded empiricism, and did not address long-standing policy contradictions. The
case of the Bush administration makes clear that material power does not automatically translate
into international influence.

2. Some facts about Barack Obama administration.

I reject the notion that the American moment has passed... I still believe that America is
the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. Barack Obama
Barack Obama became United States president in January 2009, and in 2013 he was
elected for the second term. As president, Obama has taken on a number of major foreign-policy
initiatives, including a renewed troop surge in Afghanistan, the negotiation of the New START
nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, the NATO intervention in Libya, the withdrawal from
Iraq, ongoing trade negotiations with China, and of course, the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama
bin Laden.4
Obama is a much different candidate today from the senator who distinguished himself by
his opposition to the "dumb war" on his way to the presidency in 2008. Obama has turned out, in
many ways, to have pursued a fairly conventional, at times, hawkish foreign policy. He has had
some notable successes, such as the bin Laden raid and this year's withdrawal from Iraq -- albeit
on a timetable negotiated by his predecessor -- and the successful overthrow of Muammar alQaddafi. All the same, "apology tours" and "leading from behind" -- referring to an unfortunate
description of Obama's diplomatic strategy by a White House staffer -- have already become
3 C. Caryl. Article What George W. Bush did right?, 2013 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/14/what_george_w_bush_did_right
(visited 29.11.2014).
4 R. Kagan. Article State of the world: Obamas biggest foreign policy challenges,
2013 - http://www.brookings.edu/research/interviews/2013/02/11-obama-foreignpolicy-kagan (visited 29.11.2014).
4

buzzwords for Republican candidates. He has also faced heavy criticism on the left for a
sometimes inconsistent approach to international law in counterterrorism operations.5
But with a significant economic recovery appearing unlikely and fewer domestic
achievements to point to than he might have expected, coupled with the international
inexperience of his opponents, Obama may make his foreign-policy wins the centerpiece of his
reelection strategy.
Although he once described himself as a George H.W. Bush-school realist, in the past year
Obama has learned to embrace humanitarian intervention, both in Libya and in central Africa,
where military advisors have been sent to aid in the fight against the long-running insurgency by
the Lord's Resistance Army. There's speculation that Nigeria may be next. It's a measure of how
much things have changed in the last four years that Republicans are now attacking the
Democratic president for trying to spread democracy and human rights at the barrel of a gun.6
As the European economic crisis has worsened, Obama has been speaking out more in
support of strong measures to protect the common currency. "Ultimately what they are going to
need is a firewall that sends a clear signal we stand behind the European project and we stand
behind the euro," he said during his recent trip to Australia.

3. Comparative analysis of Bush and Obama administrations on american

foreign policy.
How I related previously, both the Bush and the Obama administrations are characterized
by a strategic by achieving not anly success but and failure. Of course, these two administrations
are very different. However, both presidents share one common conviction: that other countries
long for US leadership. Bush believed that friends and allies would eventually rally to the side of
the United States, even if they bristled at its actions, because they shared America's goals and
had faith in its motives. Obama believed that a United States that listened more to others,
stressed common interests and favored multinational action would command followers. In
practice, however, both visions of American global leadership faltered. Bush discovered that
many countries rejected his style of leadership as well as his strategies. Obama discovered that in

5 Daniel M. Kliman. Article East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama
administration, 2012 - http://www.gmfus.org/topic/east-asian-foreign-policy-of-thebarack-obama-administration (visited 29.11.2014).
6 B. Pavgi. Article Barack Omabas foreign policy, 2011 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/barack_obama/profile (visited 29.11.2014).
5

a globalized world, where power has been more widely dispersed, many countries are not
looking to Washington for direction.7
The main aim of the Bush administration, especially after the 11 september attack, was
fight agains terrorism. He was a new actor on the presidential arena playing on a unknown stage.
President Bush approached foreign affairs with his characteristic conservatism and pragmatism.
He did not rush into new actions or policy changes but gave himself time to consider the
administration's policies. When he acted, he did so with firm conviction and determination.
One example of Bush's conservative and pragmatic approach to foreign affairs occurred
in June 1989, the Chinese military suppressed a pro-democracy movement demonstrating in
Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Using tanks and armored cars, the military crushed the
demonstrations and fired into the crowd, killing hundreds of protestors. Although Bush abhorred
the Chinese government's violent crackdown in Tiananmen Square, he did not want to jettison
improved U.S.-Sino relations by overreacting to events.8
At the same time, the Barack Obama administrations is called like being smart. By
implementing a smart power foreign policy strategy, the goal of Obama administration is not
only to strike a new balance between defence and diplomacy (two of the key priorities of todays
US foreign and security policy) but also to integrate development as a third pillar to the three
Ds of Obamas foreign policy doctrine - defence, diplomacy and development. Obamas will to
strengthen the development pillar has most recently become evident in the announcement of an
economic plan in his 2011 May Speech on the Middle East and North Africa aimed at stabilizing
economically and politically the region. Obamas smart foreign policy strategy has obviously
been put into action, so we are now waiting for the results.9
If to speak about policy areas of continuity, I can mention that Obamas greatest successes
in foreign policy is explained by the fact that he dropped the Global War on Terror label, but
7 James M. Lindsay. Article George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US
Global Leadeship, 2011 - http://www.cfr.org/world/george-w-bush-barack-obamafuture-us-global-leadership/p25425 (visited 29.11.2014).
8 American President: a reference resource http://millercenter.org/president/bush/essays/biography/5 (visited 29.11.2014).
9 A. Dimitrova. Article Obamas foreign policy: between pragmatic realism and
smart diplomacy, 2009 http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participantpapers/academy/Anna-Dimitrova-Obama%27s-Foreign-Policy-Between-PragmaticRealism-and-Smart-Diplomacy.pdf (visited 29.11.2014).
6

proceeded on the same trail blazed by Bush when it came to the legal reasoning underpinning it,
to unilateral drone strikes wherever terrorists are found, or to the use of Special Forces raids to
target high-value individuals. The achievements the Obama Administration is rightly most proud
of the elimination of a solid number of high-level al-Qaeda officials, including of course Bin
Laden are a direct result of continuing the War on Terror along this aggressive path.
The same pattern of continuity yielding positive outcomes holds for other important
policy areas. On Afghanistan, Obamas adoption of a surge in the number troops to allow for a
better resourced counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban was the same option
recommended by the Bush-era strategy reviews of 2008. In Asia-Pacific, the geopolitical
balancing against China by increasing US naval presence in the area and strengthening relations
with regional power such as India, also represents a continuation of Bushs regional strategy in
that part of the world.10
Lastly, on international trade issues, rather then follow his protectionist campaign
promise to renegotiate NAFTA, the Obama administration not only left NAFTA intact, but
successfully completed the two Free Trade Agreements (with South Korea and Colombia)
negotiated during Bushs tenure.
Another great success touted by the President, ending the war in Iraq, also represents a
continuation of the phased withdrawal strategy negotiated by the Bush Administration in the
2008 Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. However, as is the case on some other important
issues, here some smaller dimensions of change might eclipse in importance the larger
dimensions of continuity. Obama abandoned the longer-range plan for Iraq that guided the 2008
agreement: namely negotiating a follow-on Status of Forces Agreement that would allow for a
small but significant stay-behind force to help secure a stable peace well past the 2011 deadline.
Whether Obamas change will lead to greater success remains to be seen.11
The two areas of continuity where the results have been less than positive for the Obama
administration have been the humanitarian crisis in Sudan and the Six-Party framework approach
to North Koreas nuclear program. On these policies, the relatively ineffective policies of the
10I. Popescu. Article Is Obamas foreign policy different from George W. Bushs?,
2012 - http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/03/is-obamas-foreign-policy-different-to-bushs
(visited 29.11.2014).
11 The Bush Doctrine, 2002 - http://socialistworker.org/20022/424/424_08_BushDoctrine.shtml (visited 29.11.2014).
7

Bush administration were continued, with the same poor results. Whether a different approach
would work better hard to say given the difficulty of addressing these problems, but what is clear
is that Obama did not deviate significantly from the Bush administration on either of them.12

CONCLUSION
First, examining Bushs successful attempt at grand strategy implementation provides an ideal
case study of the conditions that make it possible for a president to put a grand strategy - though
not a good one - in place. At the individual level, his success can be traced to his operational
code and management style. He is unique among the case studies presented in that he did not
enter office with a grand strategy. Prior to the September 11 attacks, he possessed a worldview
and a set of beliefs about the international system, but his grand strategy itself was a direct
product of the attacks.
His grand strategy was based on the principles of American primacy and preemptive war. It
was clear, easily implemented, and stemmed directly from global realities, all factors that made it
relatively easy for him to put in place. Also at the individual level, his attempt at grand strategy
implementation was facilitated by his closed management style, by which he privileged those
advisors whose policy preferences aligned closely with his grand strategy over tho se whose
preferences did not. In fact, the only domestic factor that had the potential to work against him
the divide among his foreign policy advisors was mitigated by his management style.
Bushs performance at the systemic level was equally strong. His presidency was defined
by action, not reaction. In the aftermath of the attacks, he passed sweeping counterterrorism
legislation and led the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, all part of his global War on
Terror, influenced directly by his operational code and grand strategy.
However, just because Bush was capable of implementing a grand strategy does not mean
that it was necessarily good for the United States standing in the world. This is partly because
the domestic factors that allow for or constrain implementation often have little to do with U.S.
national interests and a lot to do with domestic power alignments.
Generally, Obama provides an example of a president who faced a mixed array of
opportunities and constraints, rather than primarily hurtful or helpful factors. At the individual
level, his success at putting a moderated version of his grand strategy in place can be traced to
his operational code, leadership, and communication skills.
12 Stanley A. Renshon. National security in the Obama Administration: Reassessing
the Bush Doctrine. Publisher: Routledge, 2009, page 192-193.
8

His original grand strategy, directly inspired by his operational code, was very clearly
articulated, but not easily implemented in light of domestic and international realities. Thus, he
put a modified grand strategy in place that was more attuned to real - world challenges. Also at
the individual level, his attempt at grand strategy implementation was facilitated by his
aspirational communication and management styles, which allowed him to effectively articulate
his grand strategy vision and oversee his team of advisors.
At the domestic level, Obama faced tensions among his foreign policy advisors, a stalled
Congress, a relatively strong presidency, rapidly deteriorating public support, and a struggling
economy. He was faced with significant international challenges including the inherited legacy
of the war in Afghanistan, Chinas rise, and uprisings in Egypt and Libya.
Another common thread that runs through these events is that Obama was not afraid to
make unconventional, unexpected decisions that went against the recommendations of his
foreign policy advisors but aligned closely with his grand strategy. As a result, he undertook a
30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan with the eventual goal of winding down he war,
implemented the pivot to Asia with the objective of offsetting Chinas rise, and oversaw
leadership from behind in the U.S. response in uprisings in Egypt and Libya.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Stanley A. Renshon. National security in the Obama Administration: Reassessing the
Bush Doctrine. Publisher: Routledge, 2009, 432 p.
2. United States of America decision-making: the attributions of the President and the US
Congress

http://diam.uab.ro/istorie.uab.ro/publicatii/colectia_bcss/bcss_17-

18/09_oana_elena_branda.pdf (visited 29.11.2014).

3. J. Pressman. Power without Influence: The Bush administrations foreign policy failure in
the Middle East. 2009, 149 p. - http://pomeps.org/2011/04/26/power-without-influencethe-bush-administrations-foreign-policy-failure-in-the-middle-east (visited 29.11.2014).
4. C.

Caryl.

Article

What

George

W.

Bush

did

right?,

2013

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/14/what_george_w_bush_did_right
(visited 29.11.2014).
9

5. R. Kagan. Article State of the world: Obamas biggest foreign policy challenges, 2013 http://www.brookings.edu/research/interviews/2013/02/11-obama-foreign-policy-kagan
(visited 29.11.2014).
6. Daniel M. Kliman. Article East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama
administration, 2012 - http://www.gmfus.org/topic/east-asian-foreign-policy-of-thebarack-obama-administration (visited 29.11.2014).
7. B.

Pavgi.

Article

Barack

Omabas

foreign

policy,

2011

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/barack_obama/profile (visited 29.11.2014).

8. James M. Lindsay. Article George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US Global
Leadeship, 2011 - http://www.cfr.org/world/george-w-bush-barack-obama-future-usglobal-leadership/p25425 (visited 29.11.2014).
9. American

President:

reference

resource

http://millercenter.org/president/bush/essays/biography/5 (visited 29.11.2014).

10. A. Dimitrova. Article Obamas foreign policy: between pragmatic realism and smart
diplomacy, 2009 - http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participantpapers/academy/Anna-Dimitrova-Obama%27s-Foreign-Policy-Between-PragmaticRealism-and-Smart-Diplomacy.pdf (visited 29.11.2014).
11. I. Popescu. Article Is Obamas foreign policy different from George W. Bushs?, 2012
-

http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/03/is-obamas-foreign-policy-different-to-bushs (visited

29.11.2014).
12. Article

The Bush Doctrine: successful or not?, 2002 - http://socialistworker.org/2002-

2/424/424_08_BushDoctrine.shtml (visited 29.11.2014).

10