Foreign policy of presidential administrations often differs wildly from campaign promises. In fact, foreign policy has remained mostly the same for decades regardless of who is president. The public likes to hear different things about foreign policy at different times.
For example, in 2000, George W. Bush ran against the internationalism of Bill Clinton, arguing against interventionism and nation-building. The government responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by intervening more aggressively around the world but did not fundamentally change its foreign policy.
Two wars and seven years later, Americans were tired of interventionism again. President Barack Obama based his presidential campaign partly on fundamentally changing the policies of the Bush administration by ending the war in Iraq, changing counterterrorism practices and increasing international cooperation.
A few weeks ago, the Obama administration proudly announced how it had fulfilled a campaign promise and all American troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. However, a closer look shows the administration tried to keep troops in Iraq into 2012, but was denied by the Iraqi government, which cited an agreement with the Bush administration to have all troops out by Dec. 31, 2011. This will help Obama in the eyes of his supporters, but in reality, it is another example of how foreign policy hasn’t really changed.
Obama also promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and alter the Patriot Act. Both have gone unchanged since Bush was president. Obama also sidestepped Congress and ordered military intervention in Libya, a mission he said would last “days, not weeks.”
Eight months later, our role in Libya finally seems to finally be ending. Interestingly, the Bush administration theorized Iraq would set off a “democratic domino effect” throughout the Middle East, and the Obama administration’s policy seems to be to give those dominos an extra push.
So, why is there a discrepancy between politics and policy? Politically appealing positions don’t line up with the practical implementation of foreign policy and abruptly changing policy is difficult.
Take Iran for example: It has been known for a long time that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and many people thought Bush wanted to attack Iran in the mid-2000s. In 2009, protests erupted across Iran against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government. Unfortunately for Israel and the United States, the protests never reached a critical point where it seemed the government would fall.
Also, Iran is a much larger country than any the U.S. is involved in now, so military action was less feasible. Not to mention, the American public was more focused on the economy than problems in the Middle East, and had no appetite for more conflicts. Now that a report suggests Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb, it will be interesting to see what the U.N., U.S. and Israel do in the future regarding Iran.
The government should not entirely ignore or entirely comply with public opinion in terms of foreign policy. It’s the government’s responsibility to make decisions that make sense and are in the nation’s best interest whether or not the public immediately agrees. But ultimately, it is up to the public to decide what makes sense through elections. It’s arguable whether or not U.S. foreign policy fulfills this responsibility, but it seems the U.S. has maintained a relatively consistent foreign policy, regardless of who’s president.