The Obama (Non) Doctrine: Is It A Good or Bad Policy?

The radical upheaval in the Middle East is the greatest challenge the Obama administration has faced, both politically and from an international security standpoint. Their responses in each situation have been both criticized and supported in a bipartisan manner, with strange bedfellows on each side. Behind all of that noise, everyone is looking for a "doctrine" that underlies all of his actions. Some have said there is no doctrine, and I agree. This may be a good thing, or not, but here are the pro's and cons:


Pro: Let's face it, every president muddles through international crises blind, regarding long-term consequences. Following a doctrine that can be read in a sound bite is not responsible foreign policy. The O.A. is taking each situation individually, and not using any "doctrine" to determine our involvement. Libya is an example of the US "limiting" our responsibility in a UN/Nato action. Maybe the President is right to balance all the variables, and choose a course that is different than the historic "military intervention?" This way, we don't make an ongoing committment that we can't fulfill, and don't promise similar support for every "uprising" in the region.


Con: There has to be a coherent and principled doctrine that underlies a nation's foreign policy. The Obama administration's lack of any such overarching policy is distressing to say the least. SecDef Clinton dragged him into action in Libya, and he's been trying to pass it off ever since it started. There actually is a pattern, if not a "doctrine:" Spend as much time as you like analyzing a "crisis," from every angle (national security, economic, geopolitical, partisan political, etc...) before doing anything overt. This often ends up as "doing nothing" (see Syria, Iran). It's also a lame excuse to fall back on when dodging questions about "friendly" autocratic leaders (see Saudi Arabia, Bahrain).


What are your pro's and con's of this administration's ME policy? Is there an "Obama Doctrine," or not, and is it a good or bad thing, either way?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Biden Record, and the Democrats Who Supported It, Pt. 4: How Biden Blew Up the Economy With Inflation

   The US economy is in chaos. This is not "spin," or "opinion," but a fact. Some people aren't feeling it as hard as others, because they were well-off before the inflation started. Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, and it will affect those "well-off" people, to a greater degree than it does currently, as the recession sets in. It also will present a crisis for government, as the interest rates for the chronic borrowing that sustains all of their largesse double, triple, or even quadruple. How did we get here, after what was shaping up as a robust recovery from the pandemic response inspired recession?    When Pres. Biden was elected, almost every policy that had been in place was reversed. We've looked at the disatrous results of this on the southern border , but what's happened to our economy has impacted many more Americans. It started out on day one, when Biden killed the KeystoneXL pipeline, followed by freezing new federal leases
Read more

The Biden Debacle Part II

  In my previous post, I wrote about Pres. Biden's disastrous policy at the border, as well as it's impact on the spread of COVID. I also noted his false promise of bipartisanship, and embrace of the far left agenda. This post will deal with some of that agenda, including it's impact on the economy, law enforcement, race relations, education and the military. They're all interconnected in no small way, and Pres. Biden is making a mess of them all. With the left wing ascendant in his own party, he has found it easier to go along with them, rather than work with Republicans, even when they propose policies that a majority of Democrats support. The economy was recovering before Biden assumed office, and yet he continues to push a long wish list of leftist policies in the name of "recovery." The extension of unemployment benefits is a good example of how they can backfire. While he denies that the extra payments were keeping people from returning to work, the sta
Read more

The Bogus Charges Against Pres. Trump, Part IV

      One can say many critical things about former Pres. Trump, many of which may be true. However, there is one thing that also is true, but is not critical: He has been the most unjustly accused president of the modern era. It's a fact: The "Russian collusion" allegations, which were not true. The two "impeachments," that didn't follow the regular House rules so blatantly that they were dismissed by the Senate both times, and now, a Manhattan DA has indicted Trump on the most spurious of grounds.    It's about time that DA Alvin Bragg was thrown out of office. This "prosecutorial overreach" should just be the final straw, because he has enough reasons preceding this. Abusing "discretion" to cover a "blanket" ban on prosecuting any specific offense is an abuse of power. He doesn't get to order his ADA's how to use their discretion, on specific crimes. It's incredibly ironic that he now is trying to upgrade a mi
Read more