Similarities Between George Bush And President Obama

According to Stephen Walt, the theory of realism “emphasizes the enduring propensity for conflict between states” (Walt 30). In classical realist theory, this means that states have an “innate desire to dominate others” (Walt 31). In addition to these definitions, realists tend to embrace moral political principles, question American exceptionalism, and see the national interest as related to U.S. power (class notes). It seems that George Bush and President Obama both fall somewhere in between realist and liberal, with neither being completely ideologically consistent. However, in terms of policy as well as actions, George Bush was not a realist, and President Obama is.
1. Was George Bush a realist?
George Bush was not a realist due to his belief in
democracy promotion around the world, his use of preemptive military force, and his belief that Iraq could not be deterred or contained.
In class we discussed how in general, realists do not emphasize democracy promotion. This seems to be due to the fact that the road to democracy is generally a rocky one, characterized by instability, war, and disdain toward the U.S. after intervention. In Bush’s inaugural address he stated that US policy works "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." His rhetoric toward Iraq was much the same and pushed democratization as one of the reasons for invasion. His desire for democratization around the world goes directly against realist beliefs, and caused multiple instances of unnecessary U.S. intervention. According to the reading by Schmidt and Williams, realists are “cautious about the use of military force” and did not support the use of force against Iraq in 2003 (Schmidt 193).
However, Bush’s use of preemptive force aligns very well with neoconservative ideology, which promotes the use of war as well as preemptive force (Schmidt). This shows that Bush did not think in a realist fashion while promoting the war in Iraq, further distancing himself with the ideology. Also drawing from neoconservative ideology, Bush did not believe that Iraq could be contained or deterred from producing weapons of mass destruction (Walt 201). This forged the path to the Iraq war, which blatantly went against the traditional realist perspective that starting a war with Iraq was not in the interest of the U.S. (Walt 201). For these reasons, it is clear that Bush could not be considered a true realist.
2. Is President Obama a realist?
Barack Obama is a realist due to his pragmatic use of military force and intervention, his use of drones, and his tendency to stray away from intense unilateralism. First of all, Obama has been known to avoid U.S. intervention unless absolutely necessary, such as with Syria and Iraq, which completely aligns with realist ideals. In terms of Syria, Obama has so far refused to send ground troops in, and instead focuses on providing humanitarian aid within the region. In terms of Iraq, Obama has made it clear that military intervention is not making a difference and that the war was unnecessary, and has now brought nearly 150,000 troops home (“speech”), which also aligns with realist views on the issue. Obama’s use of drones also depicts a realist perspective. In his speech about drone policy, Obama discussed how Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants are dead and that there have been no large-scale attacks on the U.S., and attributed these successes to drone strikes. He also discusses the fact that drones have saved American lives and prevented the use of ground troops in these areas. He states that the war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban is “a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense” (“speech”). He also states that “force alone cannot make us safe,” and that force cannot always be used when “radical ideology takes root. (“speech”)” This all aligns with the realist perspective that war is a last resort, and that drones may be justified if they contribute to a reduction in the loss of U.S. lives and resources.
3. Differences in security policy of Bush and Obama administrations The security policies of the Obama administration and the Bush administration are different in several ways. First of all, Bush had a very regimented stance toward foreign policy, or the Bush Doctrine, whereas Obama seems to flip-flop a little more in terms of foreign policy. In addition to this, Obama tends to hold off from intervening militarily in the world’s problems, which can be seen in his stance with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine where he is instilling sanctions instead of sending troops, as well as in Syria where he has refrained from sending troops in. This is in stark contrast to Bush’s interventionist tendencies. A huge difference between their administrations is that Bush got the U.S. into two wars, and Obama has spent a large portion of his time in office attempting to end these wars. Bush’s policy was also much more unilateral than Obama’s, and didn’t involve agreement with the international community to the extent that the Obama administration has.
4. Similarities in security policy of Bush and Obama administrations Although the security policies of the Obama and Bush administrations differ in many ways, they also share some key similarities. First of all, both presidents have used drones during their time in office, but Obama has greatly increased their use for both surveillance and militaristic purposes. Both presidents took firm stances against acts of terrorism and possible terrorists groups, and staunchly opposed Al Qaeda and similar forces and took steps to take down the organization. Lastly, both presidents have pushed for immigration reform and an overhaul of the immigration system here in the U.S.