Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Presidential leadership
Four components of a national security strategy
How has American foreign policy changed over time
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Presidential leadership
In terms of the national security strategies (NSS), one needs to comprehend the foreign policies of the United States. In understanding these foreign policies, one can learn how the U.S. asserts power. In essence, the foreign policies of each administration are integrated throughout the national security strategies. One should start with the presidential NSS of President Bush; then move down to the NSS of President Obama; and finally look at a comparison of the two. The best way for someone to approach this, would be to explain this under the Grand Strategic Objectives (GSO).
First of all, the GSO exists under four distinct national interests, at the core of the United States. These four core interests are established and defined as “physical security, which is generally defined as, the protection against attack on the territory and people of the United States, in order to ensure survival with fundamental values and institutions intact; promotion of values; stable international order and economic prosperity” (Bartholomees). An individual might ask, what is the GSO? In essence, they are translations of the four core interests. These core interests translate into “a promotion of American values, a preservation of American security, and bolstering American economic prosperity” (Bartholomees). While all administrations focus on these objectives, certain factors such as, evaluations of threats, individual beliefs, and predominantly distinctive circumstances cause presidents to institute different strategic ideas of America’s function in the world, resonating a shift from one goal to another. There is a possibility for insurgences to gain access to dangerous weapons. In order to achieve a high level of security, an endorsement of demo...
... middle of paper ...
...
Bartholomees, J. B. (2004). U.S. Army War College guide to national security policy and strategy. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
Bush, P. II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity. The White House. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionII.html
Feaver, P. Obamas National Security Strategy: Change or Bush Lite| Shadow Government. Shadow Government | FOREIGN POLICY. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/27/obama_s_national_security_strategy_real_change_or_just_bush_lite
Obama, P. Foreign Policy | The White House. The White House. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy
Ritter, J. New Strategies for a New War. Salisbury University. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
www.salisbury.com/suflyer/story.asp?sid=603
Hartman, D. (n.d.). George Bush Presidential Library and Museum :: Roles of the President. Retrieved March 20, 2014
Gaddis, J.L. (2005) Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Explain how the concept of whole community is used at the local level of government to mitigate against risk.
In the light of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, which happened on the same exact day as this speech that year, President Barrack Obama connected his speech closely to Martin’s, both in the importance of unification and very similar in language and structure. Our president takes us to the past, telling us that freedom was closer of being taken rather than given. He uses logos to re...
Watson, Robert P., Devine, Michael J. and Wolz, Robert J. eds., The National Security Legacy
George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington, D.C.:The White House, September 2002).
Obama, Barack. "Address to Joint Session of Congress." The White House. Office of the Press Secretary, 24 Feb. 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.
Hawley, C. (2003). U.S. foreign policy. Encyclopedia of American history: Expansion and reform, 1813-1855, 4, Retrieved August 14, 2008, from Facts on File: American History Online database.
“Ready for War.” Intelligence Reports Iss. 131 (Fall 2008). 46-54 SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Feb. 2011.
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Flannagan, Michael. "Foreign Policy Better with Obama than Bush" The Lantern - Ohio State University. College Publisher Network, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .