Presidential overreach or a go for it push that fits the times?

Two RCP articles today discussed President Obama's recent actions and their legitimacy. The first one (here) looks at the unilateral actions taken by the White House as possibly the only realistic ones, while acknowledging that these sorts of decisions are far less successful during implementation than thorough legislation passed through Congress. The second (here) discusses the constitutional legitimacy of Obamas's executive action regarding immigration, or rather, the lack of legitimacy.

Obama's course of action seems to be a refusal to accept some of the difficulties of being a second term president. His actions, while largely unpopular and lacking support, may in fact have been the only way for him to implement any sort of change. With this in mind, what would be the most successful way to address the adversity of being a second term president without overstepping perceived jurisdiction? Is there potential for domestic reform, or is the president too often forced to focus on foreign policy issues if he wants to do anything of significant value?

The Presidency, Foreign Policy, and the Future

Seventy-three years ago today:

 

The Reagan Doctrine and The Reagan recordings

Black Hawk Down

Clinton on the Rwandan Genocide

The Bush Doctrine(s)

• Unilateralism
• With Us or Against Us
• Anticipatory Self-Defense:  preemptive war v. preventive war
• Spreading Democracy through the World

Future standing of Bush?

Things Presidents Have to Know

• CIA Briefings of Candidates
• Daily Briefing

The Next Robert McNamara?

Good profile from Politico on Obama's recent nomination for Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter. He already has broad bipartisan support, which is telling considering the recent shift in power in the Senate. It will be interesting to see how his style of leadership contrasts with that of his predecessors. His technical proficiencies are almost reminiscent of Robert McNamara:

"A nuclear physicist who has also studied medieval history – and a Motown fan, Obama said — Carter is considered an expert in weapons programs, budgets and the operations of the sprawling Defense Department."

Harry

Lame-duck SecDef

Upon confirmation, Ash Carter will bring significant experience to the position of United States Secretary of Defense. He served as an assistant secretary of defense for three years, an undersecretary for defense for two year, and as deputy secretary of defense under both Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel. Carter has also become rather popular within the military and among congressional leadership.

Regardless of his experience and popularity, it will remain to be seen whether or not Carter is able to significantly influence White House policy during the last years of the Obama administration.

Unless the president and the rest of the executive branch have taken Gates's, Panetta's, and Hagel's well-documented frustrations to heart, it is highly unlikely that Carter will have much more leeway than his predecessors. Obama's presidency is coming to an end in 2017 and Carter's proficiency in nuclear weapons and arms control is unlikely to transfer towards the threat of ISIL. Due to those limiting factors, Carter will most likely manage Obama's policies until the conclusion of his presidency, rather than developing unique strategies before the next administration takes over. The same limiting factors could also have had an impact on Michele Flournoy's decision to remove herself from contention.

The State of the Union Will Go On

The speaker is eager to have President Obama deliver the State of the Union, but the welcome mat is not what is seems:

Vision, Strategy, Project, and Tactics

Reagan tapes

" [W]ar is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." -- Clausewitz, On War

From Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States:

World War II:

• It is not true that the mainland US escaped harm from World War II.
• Europe First
• Island-hopping in the Pacific

The Cold War

• Kennan and the X Article
• Deterrence
• Vietnam

Will Israel Attack a Nuclear Iran?

This is something that came up last class. It's unlikely that Israel will bomb a nuclear Iran, but such an attack is not unprecedented. An interesting (but slightly lengthy) documentary explaining why: