Understanding the difference in US security-military policy in the Trump and Biden administrations based on postmodernism

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, International Relations Department, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 MA Student in Political Science Dep., Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.

Abstract

The policies and behavior of different governments of the same country differs from each other in political, security-military, economic, social, cultural, etc. areas. This study intends to answer the question that "Why the US security policy in Trump and Biden’s administrations (and in principle all US administrations) is different? " This study used post-modernism and the concept of “state in process” for review and comprehension of differences between various US administrations, because from the perspective of postmodernism the identity of the state is never complete. The state is always in the process of being constituted, but never quite achieving that final moment of completion. This research is an analytical-descriptive study with a methodology based on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis method. This study attempted to gain an understanding on the differences between the US security-military strategies in Trump and Biden’s administrations through application of post-modernism and the concept of “state in process,” The results showed that "different, unfinished and incomplete identity of different US administrations (here Trump and Biden’s administrations) have caused them to have different discourses in the security-Military sector, Make it up and these different discourses have led to the use of different policies and practices in the security-military field."

Highlights

Introduction

The behavior of different governments of the same country differs from each other in political, security-military, economic, social, cultural, etc. areas. Accordingly, the policies and behavior of different administrations in the US have clear differences with one another. This study attempted to gain an understanding on the differences between the US security-military strategies in Trump (2017 to 2021) and Biden’s (2021 to now) administrations through application of post-modernism and the concept of “state in process,” seeking to reveal the reasons of the two administrations (and in principal, all the US administrations) being so different and even opposite in their security-military policies.

 

Methodology

This study used post-modernism and the concept of “state in process” for review and comprehension of differences between various US administrations. Evidently, the response post-modernism offers for the above-mentioned question differs from the one other theoretical frameworks propose. The application of post-modernism [theories] reveals the reason behind governments’ sharp differences to be in their different identities. It should be mentioned here that the application of other theoretical frameworks, such as constructivism, does not lead to the same conclusion because although constructivism puts emphasis on the identity of governments, it distinguishes between the corporate identity and social identity of governments, on the one hand, and puts its major theoretical focus on normative or ideational structures that form the identity of governments, on the other. As a result, it considers the difference in the normative or ideational structures forming the identity of governments the main cause of differences between the behaviors of governments. Analyzing this approach needs a different methodology and organization compared to the one used in this research, which will be mentioned in the “theoretical framework” section. This research is an analytical-descriptive study with a methodology based on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis method. The data was collected from library and web-based sources (official and credible websites).

 

Findings and Discussion

As the theoretical framework of the current research, post-modernism postulates the “identity” of governments and considers it a discursive and correlative subject. From the viewpoint of post-modernism, the identity of a government never completes, but it is in a constant process of constitution, never reaching that final moment of completion. In other words, a State is never complete, but it is in a constant process of ‘becoming-state.’

Based on the above-mentioned interpretation, one can understand the reason for differences between policies/acts of different governments within the same political system. Through a case study, this research revealed that Trump, following his own identity, articulated his own special security-defense discourse that had a central signifier and a number of moments. Such a discourse formed and directed Trump administration’s security-military practices. Therefore, originated from the same discourse, Trump’s administration pursued certain policies and acts in security-military areas, which were absolutely different from those of his predecessor (Obama) and his successor (Biden).

The same is true about Biden. He, too, followed his own identity in articulating his special discourse in security-defense areas, which has also a central signifier and a number of moments. The same discourse has formed and directed the security-military practices of Biden’s administration. Therefore, originated from the same discourse, Biden’s administration has pursued certain policies and acts in security-military areas, which have been absolutely different from those of his predecessor (Trump).

It should be mentioned that the relationship between theory and practice, i.e. theory-practice nexus, has been introduced as a common principal among all available theories/schools in critical approaches including post-modernism, which means that security theories/discourses will form security practices and proceedings. Therefore, one can conclude that the security-military discourse of Trump or Biden or any other administrations will form the security practices and proceedings and any change in a government’s security-military discourse will lead to change(s) in the security practices and proceedings of that government in the real world.

 

Conclusion

We reached an important interpretation through the analysis of findings in this research: Policies/behaviors of governments in political, security-military, economic, cultural, social, sports, etc. areas differ from each other because governments’ discourses in these areas are different from one another. Different governments, originated from their own different discourses, pursue certain policies and practices in different areas (in discursive terms, they tend to have certain discursive practices), which are completely different from those of their predecessors and successors.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahmed, S., & Bick, A. (2017). Trump’s National Security Strategy: A New Brand of Mercantilism?. Retrieved from The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Website: https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/08/17/trump-s-national-security-strategy-new-brand-of-mercantilism-pub-72816
  2. Appignanesi, R., & Garratt, C. (2013). Introducing Postmodernism. London: Icon Books Ltd.
  3. Bertens, H. (2005). The Idea of the Postmodern: A history. Second Edition. London & New York: Routledge.
  4. Bilgin, P. (2013). Critical Theory. In Paul D. Williams. Security Studies: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. London & New York: Routledge.
  5. Bradley Phillips, A. (2007). Constructivism. In Martin Griffiths. International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An introduction. London & New York: Routledge.
  6. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Callinicos, A. (1990). Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  8. Connolly, W. E. (2002). Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Expanded Edition. London & Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  9. Connor, S. (2004). Introduction. In Steven Connor. The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Cordesman, A. H. (2017). President Trump's New National Security Strategy. Retrieved from The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Website: https://www.csis.org/analysis/president-trumps-new-national-security-strategy
  11. Devetak, R. (2013 a). Critical Theory. In Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit & Jacqui True. Theories of International Relations. Fifth Edition. Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  12. Devetak, R. (2013 b). Post-structuralism. In Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit & Jacqui True. Theories of International Relations. Fifth Edition. Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. Diez, T. (2014). Postmodern approaches. In Siegfried Schieder & Manuela Spindler. Theories of International Relations. London & New York: Routledge.
  14. Fontaine, R., Curtis, L., Dougherty, C., Rasser, M., Kollars, N., Kofman, M., Wasser, B., Grogan, N., Galgano, K., & Matuschak, J. (2021). CNAS Responds: Assessing Biden's Interim National Security Strategy. Retrieved from The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Website: https://www.cnas.org/press/press-note/cnas-responds-assessing-bidens-interim-national-security-strategy
  15. Griffiths, M., & O’Callaghan, T. (2002). International Relations: The key conceptions. London & New York: Routledge.
  16. Hopf, T. (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200.
  17. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Second Edition. London & New York: Verso.
  18. Library of Congress (2022). H.R.3622 - Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Retrieved from Library of Congress Website: https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/3622
  19. Devetak, R., Kaempf, S., & Weber, M. (2013). Conversations in International Relations: Interview with Andrew Linklater. International Relations, 27(4), 481–505.
  20. Mazzucco, L. J. M., & Alexander, K. (2022). Growing Pains: The Promise and Reality of Biden’s Middle East Policy. Retrieved from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Website: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/growing-pains-promise-and-reality-bidens-middle-east-policy
  21. Peoples, C., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. London & New York: Routledge.
  22. Powell, J. (1998). Postmodernism for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, lnc.
  23. Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Constructivism. In Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit & Jacqui True. Theories of International Relations. Fifth Edition. Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  24. Roman, D. (2001). Poststructuralism. In Victor E. Taylor & Charles E. Winquist. Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. London & New York: Routledge.
  25. The White House (2021). Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. Retrieved April 20, 2022 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf
  26. The White House (2017). National Security Strategy of The United States (NSS) 2017. Retrieved April 20, 2022 from https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
  27. Thwaites, T. (2016). Truth. In Niall Lucy. A Dictionary of Postmodernism. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
  28. S. Goverment Publishing Office (2002). Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union. Retrieved from U.S. Goverment Publishing Office(GPO) Website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-2002-book1/pdf/ PPP-2002-book1-doc-pg129-3.pdf
International Studies Journal (ISJ)
Volume 19, Issue 2 - Serial Number 74
September 2022
Pages 31-54

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics