George W. Bush in his second term sort of changed up how he approached the use of force, as is well documented. He refuted calls to bomb Syria's nuclear facilities in 2007, and made sure that Israel went in on that alone. He also did not bomb Iran in 2008 and stopped Israel's Labour leadership from doing so as well. He did not interfere in Sudan, nor did he lift a finger to the Russian invasion of Georgia.
A lot of this has been attributed to his change up in advisors, with Condi Rice and the realists having more influence than in his first term, where the focus was more with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the influence of the neoconservative school of thought.
Its unclear what this meant long term. Some thought that Bush did this as a way to try to make more progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which he did spend a lot more time on. That however was a case of too little too late. Others figured that Bush reverted back to the ideas he campaigned on in 2000, which were skeptical of interventionism and the use of force, or that he felt betrayed by those who had given him counsel in his first term.
Regardless of the reason, however, how do you change this? Is there any way that there isn't a turnover in counsel and advice that leads to this change?