Since World War II, the world has experienced many crisis and transitions in power structures. That has led to a significant variability in the way American Presidents have executed their powers and influence abroad. Scholars like Stephen Sestanovich, Barry Posen, and Walter Mead have tried to address such diversity in American Presidential policies since the last world war. Each author has a different yet sometimes similar understanding of the policies and the motives behind them. America has experienced maximalist and retrenchment presidents that also to subscribe or fit into Mead’s fours schools or thought; they have also tried to apply retrain policies, however without much success.
Sestanovich believes that the past provides a path …show more content…
Scholar Walter Mead, argues these strategies are successful because they are embedded into American principles and interest that value trade and commerce as much as military security (Mead, 2009). He attributes this success to four schools of thought, coined after four American statesmen: The Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian (Mead, 2009). The Hamiltonians protect commerce, Jeffersonian support the maintenance of a democratic system, Jacksonian favor populist values, and military strength, while Wilsonian relies on morals and principles (Mead, 2009). As mentioned previously, Bush did subscribe to Wilsonian principles. He pushed American values and principles abroad when he tried to create order in the Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, the Trump Presidency has exhibited the rise of Jacksonianism as he used a populist agenda to attract American voters. He exemplifies the view that Jacksonians will use force on occasion but they are more concentrated on meeting the needs of your citizens domestically. Such use of force was displayed through air strikes into Assad stronghold areas in Syria due to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. One can argue that his priority for domestic issues are still prevalent as it was naval attack and he has not pushed for further American troops on the ground. However, it is important to acknowledge Sestanovich view that retrenchment presidents …show more content…
Presidents. He believes a country’s power must be analyzed and he defines security as a large component of the power and includes territorial integrity, sovereignty, safety, and power position (Posen, 2015). The power position should also be attached to the country’s military, economic, and alliances capabilities. Also, there are mean to ends connections which dictate how you can proceed taking into account the leverage a country might have due to attaining chemical weapons for deterrents to any possible attack (Posen, 2015). Posen’s approach is also to scale back, and only get involved in conflicts that suit your interest. His realist argument also encourages U.S. allies to contribute more on their defense. He argues that if NATO members were so concerned about their safety, they would start to look for ways to defend themselves and their inability to do so or to spend more on defense speaks to the view that there is no threat and that they do trust in U.S protection. Although, still early to tell Trump, could be a restraint President as well, as he has pushed for further military spending and advised its NATO allies to spend more on their
Sestanovich believes that the past provides a path …show more content…
Scholar Walter Mead, argues these strategies are successful because they are embedded into American principles and interest that value trade and commerce as much as military security (Mead, 2009). He attributes this success to four schools of thought, coined after four American statesmen: The Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian (Mead, 2009). The Hamiltonians protect commerce, Jeffersonian support the maintenance of a democratic system, Jacksonian favor populist values, and military strength, while Wilsonian relies on morals and principles (Mead, 2009). As mentioned previously, Bush did subscribe to Wilsonian principles. He pushed American values and principles abroad when he tried to create order in the Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, the Trump Presidency has exhibited the rise of Jacksonianism as he used a populist agenda to attract American voters. He exemplifies the view that Jacksonians will use force on occasion but they are more concentrated on meeting the needs of your citizens domestically. Such use of force was displayed through air strikes into Assad stronghold areas in Syria due to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. One can argue that his priority for domestic issues are still prevalent as it was naval attack and he has not pushed for further American troops on the ground. However, it is important to acknowledge Sestanovich view that retrenchment presidents …show more content…
Presidents. He believes a country’s power must be analyzed and he defines security as a large component of the power and includes territorial integrity, sovereignty, safety, and power position (Posen, 2015). The power position should also be attached to the country’s military, economic, and alliances capabilities. Also, there are mean to ends connections which dictate how you can proceed taking into account the leverage a country might have due to attaining chemical weapons for deterrents to any possible attack (Posen, 2015). Posen’s approach is also to scale back, and only get involved in conflicts that suit your interest. His realist argument also encourages U.S. allies to contribute more on their defense. He argues that if NATO members were so concerned about their safety, they would start to look for ways to defend themselves and their inability to do so or to spend more on defense speaks to the view that there is no threat and that they do trust in U.S protection. Although, still early to tell Trump, could be a restraint President as well, as he has pushed for further military spending and advised its NATO allies to spend more on their