I certainly agree, to some degree, that both administrations are quite similar in some respects to the characterization that is being put forth. However, it would suffice to say that they are not absolutely continuations of Bush 43’s policies but rather amplification in some matters and a complete change in others. On the use of drones, NYT’s Peter M. Singer (“Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”) makes the comprehensive argument that the use of drones goes against the how wars are meant to be fought—human participation. It can be counter argued that these automatons are better in terms of expendability; personnel are not easily replaced while drones are easily replaceable. The Bush 43 strategy relied more on men, and it did yielded adverse results politically. The switch to drones presented dynamic political benefits, for which Singer argued allowed for circumvention of aggravated/emotive discourse among members of the American populace, academics and mass media. It is imperative to remember that the cost of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq—increases in casualties—was detrimental to the American credibility and brought about victory to Obama in 2008 elections. The Obama Administration did maintain the policy of Bush 43 of using massive troops, such as the Afghan surge in 2009 but steadily reverted to the draconian measure of using drones. The arrivals of Hagel and Brennan, in agreement with VP Biden’s view, earlier this year made a better case for this change from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism (NYT’s “In Step on ‘Light Footprints’, Nominees Reflect A Shift”). This is where there is a departure from Bush 43. This is not to assert that the use of the aforementioned are unquestionably productive since they tend to produce ... ... middle of paper ... ...to draw conclusions that the policies of one administration are simple continued by the other. The problem is that the allegation is a generalization and the varying policies must be studied separately on their own merits as to whether they are related or not. NB: I would like to state a couple of points on the CIA’s drone operations. The CIA is not limited by war zones and is sanctioned to conduct covert operations in any area that is considered significant. Moreover, the executive branch does not blatantly sanction CIA operations without pondering over the information presented to it. Also, there is a congressional oversight committee that sets parameters in which the organization can operate within; these are usually agreed behind closed doors or during classified sessions. This does not mean that all participants concerned do not make bad judgment calls seldom.
...ous statements it can be inferred that in some ways the Obama administration was like the Bush Administration in terms of foreign national policies. Obama also made poor choices by expanding on Bush policies that were already a dangerous jaunt from constitutional practices. Another thing Obama did was increase our expenditures by the billions, which can cause harm in his domestic reform agendas, and might lead to divisive and expensive foreign wars.
...he end, the analysis conducted above makes it clear that neither Neustadt’s nor Skowronek’s theories are unified theories of the Presidency which are capable of explaining the full range of variation as it pertains to Presidential records and histories. Rather, each theory is best conceptualized of as representing a single sphere of the Presidency, and each thus serves to potently explain Presidentially-related phenomena which fall within their scope conditions and reach. With this in mind, it is difficult to conceive of a single theory being capable of explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency. Rather, and as elaborated upon above, each is most successful in the context of its scope conditions, and theoretical hybridization likely represents the best pathway towards explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency.
Both President Bush and President Obama had very different ways of running the country during their presidencies. Overall, President Bush used less persuasion on major domestic and foreign policies than President Obama. With these differences among the presidents, they both passed and approved laws that would try to better the nation and it’s citizens.
Have you ever watched the Presidential Inaugural Address? Well, you should because you can learn what the new president wants to do with the country you are living in. I analyzed Barack Obama and George Washington’s Inaugural Addresses. There were many differences and similarities between Barack Obama and George Washington’s that I will further explain in this essay. One difference was that Obama’s speech was about trust while Washington’s was about the citizens rights for the new nation. One similarity is that both speeches talked about what each person wanted to do as president. Barack Obama and George Washington's Inaugural Addresses made a big impact on the country.
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
...xpressed from person to person when it involves memories and experiences. My father is also a proud Democrat describing two Republican Presidents, I know that if I had interviewed another person who was a Republican they might have described it very differently but with the same over all details.
Throughout their time as Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison attempted to stay true to Democratic-Republican fundamentals of strict constructionism, limited central power, and states’ rights that were put into place following the success of the Revolution. However, they eventually strayed from the original characterizations of their parties. In fact, during Jefferson and Madison’s presidencies, they often adopted or acted upon principles that were more aligned with Federalist ideals of broad constructionism, when the needs of the country demanded this, while remaining convinced that Republican values of limited central government were essential.
...ented by decision-makers in crises. First, every group meeting should have a designated devil's advocate, who will point out potential risks. Second, special care should be taken so that no one agency or coalition of experts can monopolize the flow of incoming information. Janet Reno, by allowing the FBI to monopolize the information coming to her, made it almost inevitable that she would eventually do what the FBI wanted. Finally, the virtues which make the military such an effective international killing force--such as uniformity, obedience, and group cohesion--make it especially susceptible to groupthink. For this reason, the military should have no participation in law enforcement; quasi-military units such as the FBI's HRT and the BATF SRT should be thoroughly demilitarized, and should play, at most, a very subordinate role in law-enforcement decision-making.
What determines a person’s race? The color of one's skin? Many people debate whether or not Obama or Clinton fills the role of the first black president. How can this debate possibly exist? Race cannot solely exist on the basis of skin color; characteristics play a major role as well. Due to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's similarities in backgrounds, their accomplishments while in office resemble greatly, yet also differ greatly. Nonetheless, although Clinton's pale skin screams Caucasian, he exhibits far more black characteristics than Obama.
4. The Power of the Modern Presidency, Erwin C. Hargrove. Alfred A. Knopf, INC 1974, pg. 304.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have many similarities. Both of their first terms as President were shockingly alike such as, job approval rating difference being only point five percent and the interest in reforming available healthcare to people of lower class. Both President Clinton and President Obama were referred to as black presidents, only because they didn’t uphold the same backgrounds as did the former presidents. Neither Obama nor Clinton had a personal relationship with his father, which meant both grew up in a single parent working household – a reality rare in the time period. Both young Obama and young Clinton grew up aspiring to be great lawyers; they married lawyers Michelle and Hillary, respectively. Clinton, as well as Obama, belong to the Democratic Party. However, despite the many similarities between the two, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could not be any more different. Former President Bill Clinton proves superior to the current President Barack Obama because of the beneficial strategies he used to improve the United States of America.
One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones; which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for less casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve. The use of drones as weapons of war and delivery and surveillance systems should not be dismissed because many people do not realize the real capabilities of drones and how they can be used to better the world through efficient air strikes, faster delivery times, and useful surveillance.
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)
Living in the digital age where we enjoy the various fruits of latest technological tools and advancements, then at the same time we cannot escape from their hidden or apparent harms. Also, it is a fact that some gadgets supported by these technological advancements are much capable to bring destruction and disaster then construction and convenience. The same goes for the Drone Technology which since past 200 years is being used to create turbulence at the global level. It has proved to be a powerful investigator and bomber at the same time. Drones are specifically associated with military actions and the countries having used them for surveillance purposes include UK, USA, Italy, Japan, Austria, Australia etc. The list of victim counties or nations is much bigger in contrast. Some prominent victims of Drone Air Strikes include Congo, Venice, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. However, it is also an undeniable fact that the massive production and usage of Drones got multiplied in the 21st century.
Should countries be allowed to use drones in modern countries? Since the installment of drones in warfare, the unmanned aerial combat vehicle has proven to be quite an effective tool. Nowadays, the efficiency of drones has overpowered the opposing arguments since it has more pros than cons. By defining the importance to keep military personnel safe, by providing coherent data on civilian lives, and by refuting the significance of drones to keep terrorism at bay, one will be enlightened to see that drones are the way of the future.