Global Security Interests of Bush and Clinton

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
References

Introduction

We live in a world full of turmoil where violence and the threat of terrorism forever looms on the peaceful inhabitants of a place called earth. Most times we are just pawns in a shrewd game of politics but subject to the evils that may follow owing from decisions made by democratically elected leaders. In this regard our future and that of our children become pegged to the decisions made by our government through the leadership of the president. The president of the United States becomes an important symbol since he is charged with protecting the citizens of America and by extension to ensure stability in other regions of the globe. In pursuant to his duty a president is expected to have strong foreign and domestic policies which act as a pillar for fundamental decisions that define the nature of national security policies and implementation. However, there will always be a difference in the way individual presidents choose to make decisions owing to a difference in ideologies and political advisors.

Main body

One of the most influential and to some extent controversial president was Bill Clinton. He was a Democratic Party nominee and one of the few to actually unseat a sitting president, a pointer to the amazing political skill that the man possessed. He was described as one of the most charismatic leaders to ever occupy the white house which is probably how he was able to get away with so much mischievous and unnecessary foreign military interventions. The Clinton administration was successful in many sectors but it was not without critics. In sectors like finance it was credited with expansion and balance budgets that resulted to a surplus.

This was probably one of the several factors that led to the formation of the Clinton’s administration policy of enlargement and engagement (Neuchterlein, 2000).

The policy sought to expand America’s involvement in expanding its military operations to establish peace and stability in more than one areas of conflict across the world. Along the same line it sought to expand the doctrine of free market across several nations based on the American understanding that free market gave rise to more democracy and prosperity. Clinton wanted to use the countries intelligence service to aid the country’s multinational by protecting them from international espionage. There was great criticism to some of Clinton’s military interventions in various corners of the world with some legislators questioning the prudence of subjecting American soldiers to harm when such wars did nothing for America. Some pointed out that in some situations like the Somalia intervention or in Haiti, internal conflicts and poverty respectively never ended questing whether America should continue to pursue the policy of enlargement and engagement.

President Bush came to power in January 2001 and was faced with the common problems that strike all new US presidents. He continued to a large extent to pursue the policies laid down by Clinton with a normal emphasis on national security. However on September 2001 terrorists perpetrated the largest act of Terror on American soil taking the life of thousands of American people. This act brought to light the dynamic changes that were happening in the terrorist underworld and led the Bush administration to consider revising all national security strategies in order to fight terrorism effectively.

The Bush administration in the first term decided to change approach towards national security from containment towards a more ambitious pre emptive strike option. This new approach set to give America the power to attack other nations that are a threat towards the security of the United States. Furthermore Bush decided that America must pursue terrorists and terminate them wherever they may be. This strategy sought to increase military and security funding by exploiting the anger of the people towards those they felt were enemies. President Bush therefore committed numerous funds to the pursuit of known terrorists like Osama though like his many operations it has borne no fruits. This also saw the president identify Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of all evil. Following this revelation the president mislead the country that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and ordered a preemptive strike to topple Saddam and confiscate the weapons in a bid to prevent their use against America. However his policies became unpopular due to the fact that no mass weapons were found, thousands of American soldiers’ lives had been lost and the country was having budgetary deficits due to the expensive Iraq war (Hook & Spanier, 2007).

In Bush’s second term he has continued with most of his national security plans against terrorism. However there was a significant change when the president expressed that he might actually reduce the number of troops in Iraq. This is undoubtedly good news to the American public who has for long been demanding that America must withdraw from this war. Bush further decided that democracy is a right of people and saw it as an obligation to enforce it where it was lacking whether those people asked for it or not. On another front Bush received a major boost when Congress agreed to increase findings for covert operations against Iran in the hope that they will be in a position to track possible terrorists within Iran. This might signify a change in the radical response to terrorism and threat to America and a shift from preemptive strikes to a moderate system of tracking terrorist covertly and stop them before they carry out attacks. This there fore saw Bush refrain from sending American forces to intervene in foreign problems as was the case in his first term. Changes did the Bush administration make in U.S. national security strategy in its first term. Consequently, his administration has resulted to either giving economic incentives or imposing sanctions to force co-operation like is the case in Iran and North Korea.

References

Steven. H and John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since WW II, New York CQ Press, 17th Edition, (2007): 241-267
Neuchterlein, Donald E. America Recommitted. New York CQ press (2000): 199-280

Click Here To Order Now!

Global Security Interests of Bush and Clinton

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)