Kant was no exception to the paradigmatic priorities (i.e. objectivity as knowledge) of the era, and brief reference to the episteme is serves accuracy in discursive analysis of this heritage within American politics and policy thought. For instance, Kant's Critique of Judgment is enormously influential in establishing a connection between judgment and political and moral precepts to conduct in communities. Intellectual lineage to Kant's model of Enlightenment 'reason" combines British Empiricism with Continental Rationalism; and partly explains why his philosophical proposition that the existence of persistent war against non-liberal states is a requirement to perpetual peace is reiterated in scholarly expiation since the Enlightenment period, making Perpetual Theory of War as lasting as seminal reference (Behnke, 2009, Caranti, 2006 and Murray, 2003). Discourse Analysis toward the study's cause-and-effect analysis is derived from speeches and interviews taken from the Bush administration in Table 1. Table 1

President Bush -- Speeches and Interviews

1. September 20, 2001 Address to the nation Washington, DC

2. January 29, 2002 State of the Union Washington, DC

3. September 11, 2002, September 11 Anniversary Address, New York

4. September 12, 2002, Remarks to the U. Of New York

5. October 7, 2002, the Iraqi Threat, Cincinnati, OH

6. November 25, 2002, Homeland Security Act, Washington, DC

7. January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address, Washington, DC

Cheney - Speeches and Interviews

1. Transcript of Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press,

September 8, 2002.Interview with Dick Cheney: Part I: "discusses the effects of Sept.

11 on America, the threat of al-Qaida, and the status of the war on terrorism"

2. Part II: "discusses the threat posed by Iraq and the possibility of military action against Saddam Hussein. He also adds his personal reflections on the events of Sept.

11," PBS Online NewsHour, September 9, 2002.

Followed by commentary on speeches and interviews by Rumsfield, Powell and White.

Table 1. Bush Administration Speeches and Interviews.

Comparative articulation is found in public statements made by the Obama Administration in Table 2.

Table 2

President Obama -- Speeches and Interviews

1. 26 January 2009 Al-Arabiya Television Interview

2. 27 February 2009 Ending the Iraq War at Camp Lejeune Speech

3. 02 April 2009 G20 London Economic Summit Press Conference

4. 03 April 2009 Speech at Strasbourg Town Hall

5. 05 April 2009 Speech at Hradcany Square in Prague

6. 06 April 2009 Speech to the Turkish Parliament

7. 21 May 2009 National Security Speech at the National Archives

8. 04 June 2009 "New Beginning" Speech at Cairo University

9. 23 June 2009 on the Dignity & Courage of the Iranian Peoples

10. 23 June 2009 Third Prime Time Press Conference (Iran & Heath Care)

11. 11 September 2009 9/11 Pentagon Memorial Speech

12. 23 September 2009 United Nations General Assembly Speech

13. 01 December 2009 Afghanistan Troop Surge at West Point Speech

14. 10 December 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace Speech and Lecture

15. 18 December 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Speech

16. 28 December 2009 on NW Flight 253 Terrorist Threat and Iran Violence

17. 05 January 2010 National Security Review Press Conference

18. 27 January 2010 First Presidential State of the Union Speech

19. 29 March 2010 Speech to U.S. Military in Afghanistan

20. 09 June 2010 - Speech on UN Security Council Sanctions Against Iran

21. 15 June 2010 Speech to Military Personnel in Pensacola

22. 23 June 2010 Speech on the Removal of Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan

23. 02 August 2010 Disabled Veterans Conference Speech on Ending Iraq OPS

24. 13 August 2010 Iftar Dinner Speech on Religious Tolerance

25. 31 August 2010 Speech to the Nation on Ending Operation Iraqi Freedom

26. 23 September 2010 United Nations General Assembly Speech

27. 08 November 2010 Indian Parliament Joint Session Speech

Followed by commentary on speeches and interviews by Biden, Clinton and Petraeus.

Table 2. Obama Administration Speeches and Interviews

President Dwight Eisenhower's famous public statement against privatization of the U.S. Defense Department's interests was the first iteration of the military-industrial complex (MIC) as a policy framework. The MIC has circulated as a determinant to economic decision making, and a critical springboard for public debate related to the controversies of defense contracting. In the context of globalization, it is interesting to reflect on stodgy ideas such as the 'five pillars' of the Military Industrial Complex, illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3

1. Military

2. Arms

3. Political

4. Policy

5. Propaganda

Table 3. Military Industrial Complex (MIC) (Pavelec, 2010).

Contribution of this concept to studies of the military establishment furthers the study's engagement in the trends in war economy within international relations and looks at the periodic factors giving rise to NATO consolidation where global alliances are now in constant flux (Murray, 2003, and Webber, 2009).
Where economic theory supersedes the theory of perpetual war, the relevancy of the discussion to the wider debate on American foreign policy where tensions may be assuaged by concurrency in foreign relations, and this is respective in particular in regard to China, and the general trend since the Bush administration to steer confrontation toward economic and diplomatic initiatives with potential for mutual benefit (American Diplomacy, 2010 and Christensen, 2009). Still pragmatic differences exist between the two presidents, as seen in the shift in alignment between the White House and the Vatican during Obama's first two years in office, is somewhat retracted from more extensive Bush administration's diplomatic relationship with the theocratic state, which was of course consistent to the leadership's neoconservative values (Franco, 2010).

U.S. presidential foreign policy doctrine still serves as bulwark counter to diplomacy with theocratic states. The primacy of this assertion is seen in the continuity of "liberalism" expressed by Bush and Obama in response to the treachery of radical politics, where democratic institutions face threat of tyranny. The persistence of liberalism in multilateral positioning is further articulated and solidified through the discourses and policies of British Prime Minister, Blair and other allies to the United States (Del Monte, 2009 and Moses, 2010). Still there is some distance between the approaches to individual nations within enactment of policy (and finance), and that is quite clearly articulated in legislative allocations to nations that have not succumbed to the dangers of a tyrannical theocratic state (Sadat and Jones, 2009, and Traub, 2010). The war powers of the president the final measure (Hendrickson, 2010, and Murray, 2003).

METHODOLOGY & RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The chosen methodology for the proposed research is a comparative analysis, which will be conducted through examination of the history, discourse and political-economic impacts to foreign policy during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama during their first two years in office. The purpose of the research is to study the continuity in presidential foreign doctrine throughout the 21st century, examine trends in the international leadership of the U.S. presidency, as well as the evolution of U.S. policy.

In seeking to answer the question of how the change of U.S. president may impact U.S. foreign policy decisions and approach, and whether or not a change in style over substance reverse the decline of U.S. power and influence, the overall goal of the investigation is to: 1) describe and evaluate the factual circumstances leading to major U.S. foreign policy doctrines, with lesser-included policy in support of the broader doctrine; and 2) assess the consequences of the doctrine, and the enforcement of its policies.

The proposed study is a comparative cause-and-effect analysis of U.S. foreign policy doctrine during the first two years of the presidential administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and draws discourse analysis from presidential speeches and interviews as compared with periodical articles and scholarly literature from the disciplines of international relations and political science.

Although mostly focused on the 'scientific' methodology of comparative assessment of Foreign Policy Decisions in the first two years of both presidents, the project also explores the impact on international public consensus through global participatory media, as qualitative methodology to construction of an index of open ended opinions about the enforcement of U.S. foreign policy abroad, based upon an overriding theory of Perpetual War.

Methodological consideration on the project is based on a three-part research design, and will be conducted in three phases. Phase I: Case Studies; Phase II: Public Media (Secondary sources and publications); and Phase III: Data Analysis. The purpose of the study is to describe and evaluate the broad U.S. foreign policy doctrines of both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, with a lesser-included policy supporting the broader doctrine, and to describe and assess the consequence of that policy and doctrine.

PHASE I: CASE STUDY

The research undertaken for this project pertained specifically at the foreign policy doctrines of the two most recent U.S. presidents during their first two (2) years in office, and as such the subjects of the case study will be the George W. Bush, Administration from 2001 to 2003, and the administration of Barack H. Obama, from 2009 to 2011.

Comparative Analysis is the method to be used not only for evaluating the circumstances assessed in the research, but also to test a…