Presidential Leadership Research Paper

Presidential leadership
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Introduction
The U.S foreign policy in the Middle East has evolved with the changing power relations, and different presidents have chosen those policy initiatives that support their vision of the world. The case for democracy in the region has been one of the most contentious, while there are diverse players in the oil rich region. Recently, U.S intervention in the region has also been met with resistance from opponents who viewed such actions as unnecessary interference in internal affairs of other countries. Foreign policy makers have to balance the quest for democracy while also looking into ways to stem terrorism and fundamentalism. The Israeli- Palestinian conflict remains one of the challenges in U.S foreign policy given the unequivocal support for the Israelis from different American administrations, but with no end in sight of hostility between the Arabs and Israeli.
Thesis statement: President Clinton and Obama have focused on maintaining stability in the Middle East and alliance-building, while Bush favored intervention to project America’s power and encourage democracy.
Bill Clinton
In the Clinton administration realism influenced foreign policy in the Middle East especially the use of containment and deterrence. Bill Clinton focused more on maintaining stability in the Middle East rather than democratizing the region compared to George Bush. For instance, under Clinton, Arafat the then leader of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) visited the U.S. many times, and the administration sought to work with a leader who united the Palestinians rather than risk the uncertainties and instability of forcing a regime change. There was still no progress on the Israel-Palestine dispute despite efforts to appease Arafat based on the belief that he would agree a reasonable settlement with the Israelis.
President Clinton faced the challenge of crafting a coherent foreign policy given that the neoconservatives had wielded so much power during Reagan’s administration and George H Bush’s administration. Clinton embraced a more rationalist approach compared to the previous regime focusing on negotiation while respecting the actions of American alliance partners in the Middle East from Israel to Iraq. However, Clinton’s policies were met with stiff opposition from the new-cons who still favored strong military action when necessary rather than diplomacy to achieve the U.S best interests in the Middle East. Clinton neocon critics also asserted that he had failed to project America’s global leadership or actively influence international geopolitics.
In the 1990’s ,the neoconservatives and American Right forged alliances in opposition to the Clinton administration opposing his domestic and foreign policies. Their aims and objections were articulated to ‘reassert’ America as the sole superpower to demonstrate their perceptions on the role of the U.S in shaping the world. To the neoconservatives the US had the moral authority to police the world to ensure that the international environment was friendly to America’s principles and security. However, Clinton never relented and followed a path of non interference when dealing authoritarian Middle East regimes, rather than inducting values in foreign policy formulations.
George W. Bush
President Bush was faced with a different set of problems following the 9/11 attacks and with the support of neoconservatives there was drive for the president to be more hawkish. As such, support for pre- emptive force in Iraq became one of his early policies that defined his administration . This was a departure from the use of containment and deterrence that was practical during the Cold War. Since the U.S. faced a different enemy and challenges, there was support for pre-emption, pre-eminence and unilateralism in Bush’s bid to maintain the U.S hegemonic position.
David Frum points out that Bush’s interventions in Iraq continues to define his legacy in the Middle East, but the initial negative reactions to Bush actions will most likely wane over time. America’s military presence in the Middle deterred provocations by some of the terrorist groups in the region as they exercised more caution. Even though, terrorism still remained a problem during Bush presidency, the level of terrorist sophistications and effectiveness waned. America’s presence in Iraq may not be the only reason for the decline in terrorist acts during the Bush administration but the situation got better after the military intervention.
During the early 1990’s neoconservatives were vocal calling for unilateralism in American foreign policy, whereby America was to use its military and economic power uninhited in the post Cold War era. The neocons sought to have the U.S increase her military strength and power at the global stage that there would be no other power to challenge the U.S. in her quest to shape the world. Nuclear proliferation and the threat of terrorism were high on the agenda during the Bush administration. The election of George Bush paved way for the integration of unilateralism in foreign policy making with the aim of maintaining the U.S power, while also emphasizing unequivocal support for Israel.
Bush’s followed an aggressive foreign policy with the intent of spreading liberalism in the Middle East while also eliminating illiberal groups in the region. Ideological relationships also played a critical role in shaping foreign policy initiatives. Ideology gained more favor in case of power distribution based on the notion that liberalism would promote U.S interests. However, Bush failed to offer broad support to the liberalizing parties, which tended to be more pro-U.S compared to the ideological groups, while illiberal groups also aligned with the U.S to wield more power. In any case, there was a risk that the ideologically aligned groups in the Arab world would be seen as stooges of a foreign power.
Barack Obama
George Bush’s unilateralism sought to have a ...