This study is an offensive realist comparative analysis of the drone policies used by the Bush administration and Obama administration during the Global War on Terror. The emergence of violent non-state actors have led to states having to develop new strategies for countering them. Drones were used by the United States in order to combat al-Qaeda, using new technologies in warfare to achieve this goal. This research addresses a gap by focusing on drone policies rather than the legality and morality of drone attacks or the effectiveness of drone strikes. This paper uses three offensive realist concepts; power maximisation, security maximisation and preventive warfare. The method used is a comparative analysis of the Bush administration, with the operationalisation of each concept. The findings of this research show that the drone policies used by each administration can be explained by the three offensive realist concepts. The Obama and Bush administrations prioritised power and security maximisation, while the Obama administration employed preventive drone strikes to a higher degree than the Bush administration. These findings are significant as offensive realism was able to explain the drone policies made by the United States during an asymmetric conflict.

冷戰結束，使得美國全球安全環境發生了歷史性的巨變，在中共快速崛起，區域軍力與經濟力的發展愈形失調之際；從北韓核武威脅、台海主權爭議，到區域民族主義、分離主義與恐怖組織的推波助瀾，將原已嚴峻的亞太情勢推向更為複雜的形勢。基於全般世局的變因與發展，誘發吾人從事國際關係研究的動機，除期望取得一般性國際關係理論與實際知識之外，更期望就小布希政府主政前後美國全球、亞太戰略的主要政策內容，去嘗試發現東亞戰略之理論依據與其關聯性，俾利於我國防政策與戰略發展之研究參考。 經研究發現，促成美國戰略轉變的根源係在不同時空的敵情威脅、全球政經安全情勢與美國內部的政治等因素上；故如何審時度勢，厚植實力，睥睨時局，也就成為美國主導戰略發展的關鍵。 研究也發現，美國東亞安全戰略是其全球、亞太戰略與整體外交、安全戰略設計的一環。冷戰結束後，歐洲呈現安全穩定發展，亞洲則因中共國力竄升與北韓核武危機等新的威脅，既影響東亞區域的平衡穩定，且衝擊到美國的國家利益，迫使美國必須對其東亞安全戰略作出因應的調整，以持續維持美國在世界的領導地位。 「九一一事件」後，促使美國戰略做了重大的改變，對其東亞安全戰略的建構，也針對不同的威脅來源與挑戰，做出國家安全戰略與區域安全戰略的調整和強化；而兩岸三邊關係也出現了若干的調整，從歷史之觀點分析，美國之台海政策基本係依戰略環境之需求而變遷，故台灣如何因應美國戰略之轉變，調整戰略思維，落實「有效嚇阻、防衛固守」戰略構想，達到「預防戰爭」、「維持台海穩定」、「保衛國土安全」之國防目的，實為當務之急。 / Due to the end of cold war, the role of the US in global security environment occurred historic changes. The issues of the North Korea nuclear weapon’s threat, the Taiwan’s sovereignty dispute, regional nationalism, separatism and terrorist groups surged the severe situation of Asia Pacific region more complicate. Owing to the overall variants and developments of the world, I am motivated to study international relation. I expect not only to consume general international relation theory and genuine knowledge but also to explore the theory’s basis and connections of East Asia strategy from those primary policies of the US global and Asia Pacific strategies before and after President George W. Bush assumed his office. This study may useful to the research and reference in our national defense policy and strategy development. Through the study, we discover the fountainheads of promoting the changes of the US strategy are the causes of enemy’s threat, global political & economic security situation and the US domestic politics. So, how to evaluate the world trend, build up immense capability and overwhelm the present posture of affairs become the key factors for the US to lead the strategic development. According to my study, we also discover the US’s East Asia security strategy is a part of its global, Asia Pacific strategies and strategic designs of overall diplomacy and security strategy. After cold war, the Europe develops safely and steadily. But in Asia, the unprecedented threats from the arisen PRC national power and North Korea nuclear weapon’s crisis affect the balance and steady of the East Asia, also pose great influence to the US interests. Thus, the US is forced to make certain adjustments on the East Asia security strategy for dealing with those aforementioned issues in order to maintain its leading status in the world. Post “September 11, terrorist attack”, the US made significant changes on its strategies. The US adjusted and strengthened its national and regional security strategies on East Asia security strategy construction and different threat resources and challenge. Also the US is induced to adjust trilateral relations with Taiwan and China. The US basic policy toward Taiwan Straits, analyzed from historical viewpoints, is changed by the strategic environment need. The ultimate work of Taiwan now, is to response the changes of the US strategy, adjust strategic thinking, fulfill the strategic concepts of “effective deterrence, solid defense” to achieve the national defense goals of “prevention of war”, “maintaining stabilization in Taiwan Straits” and “defending homeland”.

Från Reagan till Trump: Populistiska uttryck inom det republikanska partiet 1980–2017 är en kandidatuppsats av Angelica Carlsson. Syftet med studien är att förklara förekomsten av populistiska uttryck inom det republikanska partiet i USA under tidsperioden 1980–2017. Populistiska uttryck i politiska tal av presidenterna Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush och Donald Trump undersöks och graderas utifrån Kirk A. Hawkins sex kriterier över populism. Talen analyseras också utifrån de teoretiska begreppen tunn respektive tjock populism. För att förklara de populistiska uttrycken beaktar studien den historiska kontexten och utvecklingslinjer inom det republikanska partiet. Utifrån studiens resultat kan konstateras att de populistiska uttrycken är högst i Reagans och Trumps tal, medan Bushs tal har en lägre grad av populism. I studien förklaras detta utifrån den historiska kontexten, där 1980 och 2016 präglades av mer politisk instabilitet än 2000. Studien belyser hur populism inte uppstår ur tomma intet utan ska förstås i relation till kontexten i vilken den uttrycks. / From Reagan to Trump: Populist expressions within the Republican Party 1980–2017 is a bachelor thesis by Angelica Carlsson. The aim of the thesis is to explain populist expressions within the Republican Party in the United States during the period 1980–2017. Populist expressions in political speeches by the presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump are investigated and graded based on Kirk A. Hawkin's criteria of populism. The thesis is also taking the theoretical terms thin and thick populism into consideration. In order to explain the populist expressions the historical context and the historical development of the Republican Party is taken into account. The main findings of the thesis is that Reagan's and Trump's speeches has the highest degree of populist expressions, while Bush's speeches has a lower degree of populist expressions. The study explains this from the historical context, where 1980 and 2016 were characterized by more political instability than 2000. The study illustrates how populism does not arise from nothing and should be understood in relation to the historical context.

This thesis investigates the discourse patterns of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush during the Republican primary campaign from August 2015 through January 2016. The goal of this study is to identify differences among the candidates’ discourse patterns, particularly those distinct to the discourse style of Donald Trump, on the basis of a newly compiled corpus from their respective debates and speeches. This corpus analysis reveals differences in terms of readability and lexical choice that distinguish the speech style of Donald Trump from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and identifies metaphors utilized by Donald Trump. Drawing heavily from the research of Charles Fillmore and George Lakoff, this study also illustrates the importance of metaphors and frames within political discourse, and the corpus analysis of Republican candidates during the 2016 election provides clear evidence that candidates use frames and metaphors to create a unique profile. / Includes bibliography. / Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2016. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont provoqué une onde de choc aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier. Pour y faire face, le gouvernement a adopté des mesures exceptionnelles. Notre étude se penche sur la doctrine américaine. John Yoo, Professeur à l’Université de Berkeley, a joué un rôle de premier plan au sein de l’Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) au moment des attentats. Depuis cette période, il ne cesse de revenir sur la manière dont le gouvernement des États-Unis a réagi à la suite des évènements. Partant d’une perspective utilitariste, Éric Posner et Adrian Vermeule proposent quant à eux une théorie de l’exception qui renverse la plupart des opinions traditionnellement admises et défendues. La problématique essentielle qui scande l’ensemble de notre travail est de saisir, de l’intérieur, à partir d’une lecture des ouvrages des trois auteurs, les tensions fondamentales de l’approche retenue par le gouvernement des États-Unis, au regard de la tradition constitutionnelle du pays. / The attacks of September 11, 2001 caused a shock wave both in the United States and the wholeworld. In the aftermath, the government adopted extraordinary measures to address the threat. Our study focuses on contemporary American legal scholars. John Yoo, Professor at Berkeley University, played a significant role within the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time of the attacks. Since then, he has never stopped addressing how the United States government reacted in the wake of these events. Using a utilitarian perspective, Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule, for their part, bring forward a state of exception theory which dismisses certain views that are commonly accepted and embraced. The main issue that guides the whole of our work is to try and comprehend – from within and through reading of the three authors’ writings – the fundamental tensions of the approach adopted by the United States government in view of the country’s constitutional tradition.

<p>Essay in Political Science, Advanced Course, by Christoffer Hagström</p><p>“The Bush Administration´s view on international cooperation and international</p><p>law and political-theoretical traditions influence on the administration´s foreign</p><p>policy”</p><p>Supervisor: Jan Olsson</p><p>The purpose of this paper is to analyze the American foreign policy, particularly with regard to</p><p>international cooperation and international law. The two following research-questions are used in</p><p>order to fulfil the purpose: (1) what is the Bush-administrations´s view of of the place for</p><p>international cooperation and international law in American foreign policy?, and (2) how does the</p><p>administration´s foreign policy correspond to dominant political-theoretical thought-traditions? The</p><p>traditions used are: liberalism, realism and neoconservatism. The sources of the study mostly</p><p>include literature and policy-documents. The author conducts qualitative and quantitative content</p><p>analysis of the Bush-administration´s policy document National Security Strategy of the United</p><p>States from March 2006. First the document is summarized based on different criteria followed by</p><p>categorizations of ideas connected with realism, liberalism and neoconservatism in the document. In</p><p>the quantative analysis value-words that are appropriate for the various traditions is chosen. The</p><p>frequency of those words can be seen as indications of the influence of the traditions in the thoughts</p><p>of the Bush-administration, but is mostly seen as a complement to the qualtative analysis. The main</p><p>conclusions of the paper are that the Bush-administration most often wish to act according to</p><p>international law and to cooperate with other actors internationally in the long run, it may even be</p><p>necessary. In the short run however, it may act outside the parameters of international organizations</p><p>and international law in order to accomplish foreign policy-goals. Matters related to the security of</p><p>the American state and people is considered much more important than international cooperation</p><p>and law. Liberalism seems to be the tradition that has most affected the Bush-administration´s</p><p>foreign policy. It is followed shortly thereafter by realism and neoconservatism seems to have had</p><p>the least influence on the the thought-traditions. All of the them has been active in the making of the</p><p>foreign policy.</p>

Not available / text

Thesis (master's)--Universität, Mainz. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 195-205).

I denne studien analyseres sikkerhetspolitiske utviklingstrekk i USA fra Bush til Obama. Fokuset rettes mot betydningsfulle kontinuiteter og endringer i overordnede syn på maktmidler, interesser og samarbeidstilnærminger. Empirisk materiale utgjøres hovedsakelig av ulike utgaver av amerikansk “National Security Strategy”. Slike strategier inneholder brede budskap, og som hjelp til å identifisere spesielt viktige momenter utarbeides først en teoretisk analyseramme basert på perspektiver til de samtidsaktuelle forskerne John J. Mearsheimer og Joseph S. Nye. Studiens resultater viser at militærmakten har en stabil posisjon som det høyest prioriterte maktmiddel i USA, men ny regjering satser mer på myke maktmidler og mindre på militærmakt ved fremming av egne verdier. Vedrørende interesser finner vi kontinuitet i at forsvar av nasjonen og håndtering av militære trusler er styrende for sikkerhetspolitikken, og USA har intensjoner om å opprettholde militær overlegenhet. Videre er også spredning av demokrati, respekt for menneskerettigheter og åpen markedsøkonomi konstante interesser, men en endring er at nasjonens økonomi er oppjustert på den sikkerhetspolitiske agenda. I et samarbeids-perspektiv synes unilateral militær agering mindre aktuelt for ny regjering, og internasjonale institusjoner er mer vektlagt. USA har imidlertid et videreført siktemål om å inneha en tydelig lederrolle og få stort gjennomslag for egeninteresser i internasjonalt samarbeid. Totalt sett indikerer de to regjeringenes sikkerhetsstrategier at styrende interesser er uendret, men den nye regjeringen har intensjoner om en mer balansert anvendelse av maktmidler og kommuniserer en mindre unilateral samarbeidsprofil. Forekomsten av vektige stabile trekk har imidlertid en dempende effekt på endringene, og bidrar til å gi inntrykk av at USA for tiden ikke staker ut en ny kurs, men justerer eksisterende kurs. / This study analyzes the development of the United States security policy from the administrations of Bush to Obama. Its focus is directed towards significant continuities and changes in the context of political means, interests and approaches to international cooperation. The empirical data mainly consists of U.S. National Security Strategies issued in 2002, 2006 and 2010. Such strategies contain broad messages and, therefore, to help identify issues of special significance, a theoretical framework based on the perspectives of the international relations scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Joseph S. Nye is first developed.  The findings of the study show that the position of military power as the most prioritized political instrument in the U.S. remains stable. However, in an effort to promote the nation’s values, the new administration intends to make more use of soft power and less use of military power. Regarding its interests, defending the nation and handling military threats are still top priorities, and an important aspect is that the U.S. intends to maintain its global military superiority. Spreading democracy, respect for human rights and free trade in an open international economic system are also constant interests, but one notable development is that the national economy figures more prominently on the security agenda. Looking at the approaches for cooperation, it seems that unilateral military action is an option which is less likely to be used by the new administration. Furthermore, this administration places greater emphasis on the value of international institutions than the previous administration. Still, an important continuity is the intention of maintaining a clear leadership role and strongly advancing U.S. interests when cooperating internationally. To summarize, the two administrations security strategies indicate that governing interests are unchanged, but the new administration is aiming for a better balance of the tools of American power, and is communicating a less unilateral profile. Still, the presence of significant stable aspects reduces the level of change, and contributes to the impression that the U.S. is not developing a new course, but rather adjusting the current one.

The administration of President George H. W. Bush from 1989 to 1992 saw several firsts in both American foreign policy towards the Middle East, and in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. At the beginning of the Bush Presidency, the intifada was raging in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and by the time it was over negotiations were already in progress for the most comprehensive agreement brokered in the history of the conflict to that point, the Oslo Accords. This paper will serve two purposes. First, it will delineate the relationships between the players in the Middle East and President Bush during the first year of his presidency. It will also explore his foreign policy towards the Middle East, and argue that it was the efforts of George H. W. Bush, and his diplomatic team that enabled the signing of the historic agreement at Oslo.