DOCSLIB.ORG

National Security in the Obama Administration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Security in the Obama Administration National Security in the Obama Administration “The Bush Doctrine is more condemned than understood, let alone defended. Stanley Renshon not only defends the Doctrine but makes it clear that most of the critics have failed to come to grips with the real and pressing problems that will confront the Obama administration. With strong arguments and a penetrating view of the world, this is a stimulating and important book.” Robert Jervis, Columbia University “National Security in the Obama Administration is a serious, fascinating, and timely account of the Bush Doctrine, its legacy, and its implications for the Obama administration's unfolding foreign policy.” Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “Stanley Renshon’s book transcends the bitterly polarized and all too often unedi- fying foreign policy debates that characterized much of the presidency of George W. Bush. In this important new work, he not only provides a welcome reassess- ment of the Bush Doctrine, but explains how external threats and pressing foreign policy challenges shape the choices of the Obama administration. While major alterations of style and method are evident in Obama’s foreign policy, changes in substance and doctrine appear to be far less pronounced. Renshon’s important new book illuminates the reasons why.” Robert J. Lieber, Georgetown University Many observers claim the Bush Doctrine is dead. At least that’s what critics hope. But while new U.S. national security challenges emerge, many post-9/11 threats still persist and the policies of George W. Bush offer one set of strategic answers for how President Obama can confront those dangers. Neither a polemic nor a white- wash, this book provides a careful analysis of the Bush Doctrine—its development, application, and rationale—and assesses its legacy: How will Obama respond to the many foreign policy challenges that await him? Through an examination of psychology as much as policy, Renshon, in the first comparative analysis of the Bush Doctrine and the developing Obama Doctrine, analyzes the range of national security issues Obama will face and the political divisions that permeate U.S. national security debates. It is essential reading for anyone looking to understand how presidents assess security risks generally and how Obama specifically is likely to adapt the Bush Doctrine to his own worldview. Stanley A. Renshon is a Professor of Political Science at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He is the author of over ninety articles and fourteen books and is a certified psychoanalyst. National Security in the Obama Administration Reassessing the Bush Doctrine Stanley A. Renshon First published 2010 by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2010 Stanley A. Renshon All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Renshon, Stanley Allen. National security in the Obama administration : reassessing the Bush doctrine / Stanley A. Renshon. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. 1. National security–United States. 2. United States–Military policy. 3. United States–Foreign relations–2009- I. Title. UA23.R443 2009 3550.033073–dc22 2009011811 ISBN 0-203-87451-X Master e-book ISBN ISBN 10: 0-415-80406-X (hbk) ISBN 10: 0-415-80405-1 (pbk) ISBN 10: 0-203-87451-X (ebk) ISBN 13: 978-0-415-80406-6 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-415-80405-9 (pbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-203-87451-6 (ebk) For Alexander L. George [1920–2006] Mentor, Political Psychology Colleague and, above all, Friend Contents Preface ix Acknowledgments xiii 1 The Obama Presidency and the World he Inherits 1 PART I The Bush Doctrine Reconsidered 25 2 The Evolution of a Post-9/11 National Secutity Perspective 27 3 The Real Bush Doctrine 38 4 The Bush Doctrine: Myths and Criticisms 57 PART II The Strategic World after 9/11 81 5 The New Calculus of Risk 83 6 Deterrence, Containment and Adversarial Bargaining Post-9/11: North Korea and Iran 104 7 Dangerous Threats and the Use of Force 124 8 Strategic Options and the Future of the Bush Doctrine 146 PART III The Politics of Post-9/11 National Security 165 9 The Politics of Risk Assessment 167 viii Contents 10 The Politics of Post-9/11 National Security: A Profound Worldview Divide 183 11 Obama’s National Security Tasks: Worldview, Leadership and Judgment 199 Notes 224 Bibliography 266 Index 283 Preface The focus of this book lies at the intersection of post-9/11 national security dilemmas that face the United States and its allies, the development and application of the strategic doctrines and policies that respond to those circum- stances, and the presidential leadership and judgment that are brought to bear, for better or worse, on these issues. This book is an analysis of two presidencies and the doctrine that both connects and separates them. The Bush Doctrine grew out of the 9/11 attacks and represented President Bush’s response to what he and his advisors saw as the key issues and lessons to emerge from those attacks. Those attacks reframed the Bush Administration’s view of the most serious problems it faced and what to do about them. The potential for the linkage between catastrophic terrorism and the leakage of knowledge or weapons of mass destruction material, either inad- vertent or deliberate, raised the national security stakes enormously for the United States. Or at least so the Bush Administration thought, and acted accordingly. For a brief moment after 9/11 the country and many in the world were united in their rhetorical support of this country and many allies, even those who had not been America’s friend, offered various kinds of help, whether out of fear or solidarity, to bring the perpetrators to justice. But Mr. Bush had more serious concerns than revenge. A sophisticated, ruthless, and deadly enemy had pulled off a stunning and severely damaging attack on American soil against major national icons. Either the White House or Congress barely escaped the devastation because of the heroic acts of Americans who gave their lives so that one hijacked plane could not complete its mission. The next time America might not escape catastrophic and irreversible harm. The Bush Administration put into place a large set of policies designed to prevent another, more deadly attack. These policies were controversial both domestically and abroad. And it is partially on the basis of those disagreements that Barack Obama ran for and was elected to the presidency. A first question that arises then is: what will he do with the national security architecture that he has inherited from the Bush Administration? This has understandably been a focus of attention as the new president takes office and begins to address his responsibilities and exercise his judgment on the many national security matters he will face. x Preface However, those instances—and no president can fully escape from them regardless of the preferred focus of his attention—raise an equally important question for the new Obama Administration: how will he respond to the many other foreign policy challenges that await him? The answers to that second critical question are also to be found in a series of overlapping layers, each level of which becomes progressively closer to the president’s basic operational worldview and set of strategic assumptions. At the first level are those questions of concrete policy. Here the new president will face many national security questions for which the Bush Doctrine cannot and was not developed to give answers. What does one do about a resurgent Russia? What should the president do about the loose alliance of dictatorships that is gathering momentum linking South America, parts of Eastern Europe, East Asia, and South East Asia? What policies are best suited to handle “revisionist” powers? Should the United States intervene in actual or potentially genocidal wars like Darfur, and if so, in what circumstances? Underlying these and similarly concrete issues is a second level of inference and analysis that raises some very basic questions for the president. What is the proper role of American power and leadership in the post-9/11 world? How does one relate to our competitors and enemies? How much can he expect from our allies and what do they have a right to expect from us? And of course, the most basic national security question of all: under what circum- stances should the United States consider and then use military force? The Bush Doctrine provides answers to some of these questions, but Pre- sident Obama will have to see his way clear to his own views. Beneath the Bush Doctrine and whatever doctrine Obama may decide to develop and implement lie a series of strategic assumptions, resting on the foundation of the president’s worldview and those of his advisors. That is the third and most basic operational level at which the president and his advisors’ thinking operate.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Call for Papers "Geopolitics & Values: What Is the Real Power of the EU
    Call for Papers "Geopolitics & Values: what is the real power of the EU?" Progressive realism as a model for Europe’s new foreign policy Author: Stefan Drexler Brussels, December 2020 Geopolitics & Values: what is the real power of the EU? Progressive realism as a model for Europe’s new foreign policy © Institute of European Democrats, 2020 Rue Montoyer, 25 1000 Brussels Belgium Web: www.iedonline.eu This Research Paper was elaborated on the basis of independent research. The opinions expressed here are those of the Contractor and do not represent the point of view of the Institute of European Democrats. With the financial support of the European Parliament 2 Geopolitics & Values: what is the real power of the EU? Progressive realism as a model for Europe’s new foreign policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Does Europe need more hammers to hit dangerously protruding nails into the ground or should it just be more cautious and better avoid sharp objects at all? Not wanting to spend too much time dealing with things that might hurt someone is never wrong, but to spend some money in materials that make it possible to construct some tools being useful in times of a crisis is neither. This is why this paper argues that Europe needs to adapt its foreign policy concept to the not necessarily peaceful 21. century by adding some aspects of hard power and realistic thinking to its current soft power approach, ending up as smart power. The article will therefore follow a concept called Progressive realism and examine the possibilities of future cooperation with the rest of the world by identifying so called success values, meaning aspects of shared interest between Europe and the respective partner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenging Future of Strategic Planning in Foreign Policy
    01-0306-8 ch1.qxd 3/26/09 2:44 PM Page 3 daniel w. drezner 1 The Challenging Future of Strategic Planning in Foreign Policy “Avoid trivia.” —Secretary of State George Marshall’s advice to George Kennan, the first director of policy planning Strategic planning for American foreign policy is dead, dying, or moribund. This, at least, has been the assessment of several commentators and policy- makers in recent years.1 Michèle Flournoy and Shawn Brimley observed in 2006, “For a country that continues to enjoy an unrivaled global position, it is both remarkable and disturbing that the United States has no truly effective strategic planning process for national security.”2 At an academic conference in 2007, a former director of the State Department’s policy planning staff complained that, “six years after 9/11, we still don’t have a grand strategy.” Aaron Friedberg, who was director of policy planning for Vice President Richard Cheney, writes in this volume, “The U.S. government has lost the capacity to conduct serious, sustained national strategic planning.” Admiral William Fallon, the CENTCOM commander until the spring of 2008, told the New York Times that the United States would need to focus more on policy planning: “We need to have a well-thought-out game plan for engagement in the world that we adjust regularly and that has some system of checks and bal- ances built into it.”3 In this volume, Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass argues that the United States has “squandered” its post–cold war opportunity, concluding, “Historians will not judge the United States well for how it has used these twenty years.” These sorts of laments have become common in the past decade, in no small part because of the foreign policy planning of the administrations of Bill 3 01-0306-8 ch1.qxd 3/26/09 2:44 PM Page 4 4 The Challenging Future of Strategic Planning Clinton and George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Generations in World Politics : Cycles in Us
    GENERATIONS IN WORLD POLITICS : CYCLES IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE “WEST,” AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS CHANGE 1900-2008 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Tim Luecke, A.B. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Wendt, Advisor Richard Herrmann Randall Schweller © Copyright by Tim Luecke 2013 ABSTRACT In this dissertation, I examine the explanatory value of the concept of “generations” and the role of political generations in foreign policy and international politics. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the economic recession of 2008, the “Arab Spring,” and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, debates over the emergence and possible effects of new generations have increased dramatically. Yet, despite the fact that several scholars in the field of International Relations have either pointed towards the potential importance of generational processes or even used the notion of generations in their own research the concept has not been conceptualized in a systematic manner. The dissertation fills this gap in the literature in two steps. First, I resolve the definitional problems surrounding the concept of generations by arguing that a generation in its most abstract form constitutes a temporal unit of analysis that locates individuals or groups in the process of time. This temporal location is constituted by the nexus of individual life stage (i.e. age) and collective history and it fundamentally shapes the political worldviews of those who occupy it. Based on the concept of generations, I ii develop a theory of political generations, which I define as cohorts in the age of youth that develop a generational consciousness and distinct political worldview in response to a set of formative experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Mediterranean Geopolitical Review
    Volume 2 • Fall 2016 EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN GEOPOLITICAL REVIEW Shifting Un-balances in the Middle East EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN GEOPOLITICAL REVIEW Volume 2 • Fall 2016 Shifting Un-balances in the Middle East CONTENTS ESSAYS The Role of the United States in the Eastern Mediterranean 1 Ambassador Kathleen Doherty The Position of the Russian Federation on the Volatile Middle Eastern Situation 7 Ambassador Stanislav Osadchiy ARTICLES Hegemony and Balance of Power in the Middle East 11 Michalis Kontos The Bear Learns to Swim: Russia’s Re-emergence in the Mediterranean 29 Vassilis Kappis Cyprus at the Center: Global Grand Strategy and the Conflict in Syria 50 Anthony D. Lott The Law on the Use of Force and Non-State Actors: The Case of Da’esh 71 Nicholas A. Ioannides ISSN print: ISSN 2421-8057 ISSN online: ISSN 2421-8065 URL: http://www.emgr.unic.ac.cy/ The Eastern Mediterranean Geopolitical Review is an annual peer-reviewed journal published by the Center for European and International Affairs of the University of Nicosia, that seeks to encourage scholarship on contemporary issues which affect and influence the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East as well as European and global affairs. It intends to facilitate the publication of high-quality, original research contributions that analyse perspectives and questions which pertain to a wide range of disciplines such as geopolitics, economics, political science, history, diplomacy, international law, security, defence, intelligence, political geography, and other related fields. Copyright: © 2016 Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs, University of Nicosia. Article Copyright: © 2016 the Authors. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Obama's Foreign Policy: Between Pragmatic Realism and Smart
    Obama’s Foreign Policy: Between Pragmatic Realism and Smart Diplomacy? Anna Dimitrova, PhD Professor in International relations, ESCE (Ecole supérieure du commerce extérieur), Paris “I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural -- picking the right tool or combination of tools for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy .” (Hillary Clinton’s Confirmation Hearing, January 13, 2009) Since the arrival of the new US President Barack Obama at the White House, the debate on the US foreign policy strategy and its instruments of power and influence has become particularly relevant. Moreover, some recent events such as the US involvement in the war in Libya in March 2011 and the US special-forces operation in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, have put the question of US foreign policy strategy on the top of the national and international agendas. Defining the “Obama doctrine” Two recent speeches held by the US President have become a privileged focus of study for the political analysts who keep trying to define an Obama doctrine in terms of foreign policy and national security. The first one, the Obama’s Address to the Nation on Libya 1 pronounced on March 28, 2011, that aimed at explaining to the American people the reasons and the nature of US participation in the international coalition that started air strikes in the sky above Libya to protect the civilian population from the Qaddafi’s forces, was defined by the American press as a key political discourse providing the “ clearest explanation so far of Obama’s foreign policy doctrine 2”.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Future of Strategic Planning
    The Challenging Future of Strategic Planning DANIEL W. DREZNER "Avoid trivia." -Secretary of State George Marshall's advice to George Kennan, the first Director of Policy Planning INTRODUCTION Strategic planning for American foreign policy is either dead or dying. Or, at least, this is the assessment of mainstream commentators and policymakers in recent years.' Michle Flournoy and Shawn Brimley observe, "For a country that continues to enjoy an unrivaled global position, it is both remarkable and disturbing that the United States has no truly effective strategic planning process for national security. "2At an academic conference, a recent former director of the U.S. State Department's policy planning staff complained that, "six years after 9/11, we still don't have a grand strategy." Aaron Friedberg, who was director of policy planning for former Vice President Richard Cheney, writes that, "The U.S. government has lost the capacity to conduct serious, sustained national strategic planning. 3 Admiral William Fallon, the Central Command (CENTCOM) commander until the spring of 2008, told the New York Times that the next administration must focus more on policy planning: "We need to have a well-thought-out game plan for engagement in the world that we adjust regularly and that has some system of checks and balances built into it."4 Daniel W Drezner is Professor of InternationalPolitics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This essay is adaptedfrom the introduction to Daniel W Drezner,ed, Avoiding Trivia: The Role of Strategic Planning in American Foreign Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution Press,forthcoming 2009). VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Power Is Commonly Associated in IR with Realism: It Is About Power Politics, Force, and Violence
    The London School of Economics and Political Science Power and Its Forms: Hard, Soft, Smart Matteo Pallaver A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Master of Philosophy. London, October 2011 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for the examination for the MPhil degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work except where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others, in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly be me and any other persons is clearly identified. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgment is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the right of any third party. 2 Abstract What is smart power? What kind of power is it? Is it really a new form of power? How many forms, features, and shapes does it take? How can we recognize and manage it? How do scholars describe it? This MPhil thesis aims to answer these and other questions regarding the dimension of power with a specific focus on smart power. This is a first attempt to study smart power in the broader context of power analysis and therefore I will follow two approaches. First of all, I will contextualize smart power, touching on the debate of power as an academic and political concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Okładka 12-2009 Sasnal.Cdr
    POLSKI INSTYTUT SPRAW MIĘDZYNARODOWYCH materiały studialne PISM research papers PATRYCJA SASNAL Polityka Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec aktorów w konflikcie arabsko-izraelskim. Między Bushem a Obamą U.S. Policy towards Actors in the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Between Bush and Obama NR 12, SIERPIEŃ 2009/AUGUST 2009 WARSZAWA Tłumaczenie: Zbigniew Szymański Redakcja: Sławomir Dębski, Agnieszka Kondek (redaktor prowadzący), Łukasz Kulesa (redaktor naczelny) Redaktor tekstu: Ewa Stahnke Redaktor techniczny: Dorota Dołęgowska © Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych 2009 ISSN 1731-4976 Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych ul. Warecka 1a, 00-950 Warszawa tel. (+48) 22 556 80 00, faks (+48) 22 556 80 99 [email protected], www.pism.pl SPIS TREŚCI / CONTENTS Polityka Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec aktorów w konflikcie arabsko-izraelskim. Między Bushem a Obamą /5–32/ Wprowadzenie . 7 Znaczenie Bliskiego Wschodu a doktryna polityki zagranicznej USA Znaczenie szerokiego Bliskiego Wschodu w polityce zagranicznej Stanów Zjednoczonych Szczególne znaczenie konfliktu arabsko-izraelskiego . 9 Doktryna Busha a doktryna Obamy . 10 Zaangażowanie USA w konflikt izraelsko-palestyński i bilateralne stosunki z Izraelem oraz Palestyńczykami. 11 Rola Stanów Zjednoczonych – mediator czy strona? . 11 Specjalne stosunki amerykańsko-izraelskie. 14 Stosunki amerykańsko-palestyńskie . 17 Stosunki USA z Syrią, Libanem, Egiptem i Jordanią . 18 Stosunki amerykańsko-syryjskie. 19 Stosunki amerykańsko-libańskie . 21 Stosunki amerykańsko-egipskie . 23 Stosunki amerykańsko-jordańskie . 24 Inne czynniki warunkujące politykę administracji Baracka Obamy na Bliskim Wschodzie . 25 Uwarunkowania wewnętrzne . 25 Uwarunkowania zewnętrzne. 28 Podsumowanie . 30 U.S. Policy towards Actors in the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Between Bush and Obama /33–58/ Introduction . 35 The Importance of the Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrine . 36 Greater Middle East in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • La Gran Estrategia De Estados Unidos: En Busca De Las Fuentes Doctrinales De Las Políticas De Seguridad Internacional De Los Gobiernos Estadounidenses
    La Gran Estrategia de Estados Unidos: en busca de las fuentes doctrinales de las políticas de seguridad internacional de los gobiernos estadounidenses Federmán Rodríguez Morales Universidad del Rosario (Colombia) DOI: dx.doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint83.2015.07 RECIBIDO: 13 de marzo de 2014 APROBADO: 22 de julio de 2014 MODIFICADO: 1º de septiembre de 2014 RESUMEN: El propósito del artículo consiste en explicar la historia, las fuentes y las variaciones de la gran estrategia estadounidense en materia de seguridad internacional. En particular, se sostiene que existe una estrategia orientada a definir los intereses y valores que los gobiernos estadounidenses deben defender, independientemente de sus posiciones ideológicas, la cual puede ser entendida, principalmente, de acuerdo con las creencias del realismo defensivo y del realismo ofensivo, así como del liberalismo ejemplarista y del liberalismo de cruzada. Más que ser concebidas como posturas teóricas o analíticas, estas variaciones del realismo y del liberalismo estadounidenses se entienden como doctrinas que han venido construyéndose históricamente desde la Independencia. Teniendo en cuenta que esta gran estrategia constituye un marco institucional difícil de evadir, se explica, a manera de ejemplos, el modo en el que los gobiernos de George W. Bush Jr. y Barack H. Obama se apropiaron de dicha estrategia. PALABRAS CLAVE: Estados Unidos • Gran Estrategia • liberalismo ejemplarista • liberalismo de cruzada • realismo defensivo • realismo ofensivo H Este artículo es un resultado de investigación del proyecto “Continuidad o ruptura de la American Grand Strategy: comprendiendo las políticas de seguridad internacional de los gobiernos de George W. Bush y Barack H. Obama”, adscrito al Centro de Estudios Políticos e Internacionales (CEPI) de las Facultades de Ciencia Política y Gobierno y de Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad del Rosario (Colombia), y financiado por el CEPI.
    [Show full text]