From the Mead's Four Schools of US Foreign Policy, which school can explain Obama's foreign policy and the Obama's approach to the egypt issue? The Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, or the Jacksonian school?
If possible, please give examples to better understand your response.
As in any school of thought, there is no such thing as pure foreign policy approach, but rather an integration or a diffusion of several visions, as it attempts to explain and justify foreign policy issues. Mead himself wrote, "American foreign policy is complex at its core. At any given moment it is more likely to be the product of a wide and diffuse coalition rather than of a single unitary vision." Applying this to the US foreign policy relative to the recent event in Egypt, we cannot strictly select which of the four schools of thought by Mead explains Obama's foreign policy approach. We can only identify the "dominant view" as practically, all the four views in some way, have been reflected in the way the Obama administration deals with the recent Egyptian crisis.
At the onset, it is very important to remember that what happened in Egypt was an internal or local revolution of the citizens to end the 30 years of "Constitutional Dictatorship" of their President Hosin Mubarak. In the context of the Principle of Sovereignty, no nation has the right to interfere or dictate these people, as long as they do not do anything that would be considered as violation of International Law. Hence, nations around the world were "on alert" status, until the revolution ended with Mubarak's announcement to step down, and for the designated Vice President and the transition government to facilitate the establishment of a true and ...
The solution provides advise on the 4 schools of US foreign policy to analyse the situation in relation to Obama's foreign policy and approach on the recent uprising in Egypt (2011) which brought down the Mubarak regime.