Searching for the Elusive Obama Doctrine
The unspoken assumption is that with the base and the center behind him, Obama will have built the winning international majority with sufficient moral gravity to deal with the party of anti-America. And by deal, I do not mean act in terms of “crude” power and force, but multilaterally — to use the united international sentiment to persuade the party of evil of the incorrectness of their ways.
That’s why sacrifices have to be made. Hence the snubbing of Honduras and Colombia for the sake of the rest of the Americas, Poland and the Czech Republic for Russia, Israel for the amorphous “Middle East,” and Iraq for the sake of an even more amorphous “international community.” Having thus appeased the long-standing wishes and desires of the international center, Obama is now expecting a pay-off. As he told the United Nations: “We have sought, in word and deed, a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
That’s the theory, at least. But the problem for Obama is that what might work for some presidents at home might not, indeed probably will not, work in practice abroad. There are several reasons for that, most basically because domestic politics is not like international politics and states are not like voters. But beyond the obvious, Obama is working under three dangerous assumptions about how other states and transnational organizations behave:
1. The American concessions will create a feeling of good will — as opposed to a perception of weakness or lack of direction — and will lead to reciprocal actions from others. In reality, the others arguably feel that the United States “owes” them the concessions in question and therefore feel that no thanks, much less any significant changes in policy, are required.
2. The rest of the world shares America’s assessment of dangers and challenges — for example, that a nuclear Iran or an overly assertive Russia are a threat. Iran doesn’t think so and Russia doesn’t think so, either about themselves or about each other. Neither does China and many other states, who might believe instead that whatever keeps the United States off-balance and preoccupied is actually a good thing rather than a danger to international peace and stability. As Nile Gardiner commented in London’s Daily Telegraph the other day: “The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak.”
3. Even if some countries agree with America as to the ideal state of international affairs, it is highly questionable whether such general agreement, relying on its own moral force and the power or suasion and diplomacy but not backed by the willingness to use force as the last resort, will actually convince the rouge and misbehaving states to desist and toe the respectable line.
History suggests that Obama will be disappointed in his quest to give America an international makeover as merely primus inter pares, the first among equals. If disappointment is the worst the rest of us feel by 2012, we shall consider ourselves very lucky indeed.
Obama’s strategy concerning multi-lateralism is smart, but not surprising. With two wars in a region chock full of hatred of the US his administration is trying to undo the damages of the past while taking on Iran “with international support”. Bush took the advice of folks like the heritage foundation and other whacko organizations that basically said once America shows up over there and prays…those folks will see the errors of their ways and love us forever, they will build wal marts and mcdonalds and live happily ever after. They were wrong. Obama is changing course and wants to engage with other countries for a. their cooperation and b. influence the thinking enemy into eventual peaceful negotiations instead of a “hundred years war” which is also, very expensive. Its a risky strategy, more of necessity, rather than “einstein theory”. Will it work?..well, if it dont this president will at least be guaranteed a great job in the private sector. If it works………oh my….
This article is based on the assumption that Obama is merely naive, instead as some are increasingly begining to fear, malicious, towards the country he now leads.
Mr. Chrenkoffs theme is intriguing and his analysis, in my opinion, cannot be faulted; his perception of three flawed and dangerous assumptions is compelling. My only disappointment was that he does not offer, at his conclusion, his capsule definition of The Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine.
My version wold be: Appeasement and Accommodation. For the three reasons given, and because I believe that other major nations, despite their accusations of American arrogance, WANT the U.S.A. to remain assertive and maintain the role of prodigal patron as an essential of its doctrine.
It is ironic that this inconsequential mediocrity, unqualified for statesmanship to an appalling degree, is such an egomaniac that he perceives himself in the role of a global leader. That he would adopt such a “doctrine” in the light of that vain ambition is a measure of his inadequacy and self-delusion.
Perhaps Charlie Gibson can explain the Obama Doctrine to us.
Another excellent piece by this insightful writer. I can’t wait for another article by him! Arthur Chrenkoff needs to writing for you on a daily basis!
I don’t know how the historians will describe the Obama Doctrine, the MSM won’t get it right and neither will I (not my area of expertise).
He does seem to be providing comfort to our enemies by apologizing for America, cutting our military strength, having friendly relations with dictators and snubbing our historical allies. His solution to everything is to talk, so convinced is he that others will see his superiority.
Of all the approaches described in the article, Reagan’s makes the most sense to me. A strong military, economic strength, the ability to distinguish between friend and foe–the combination of these would allow a “just words doctrine” to be more effective.
Perhaps off topic, the two speeches given at the UN this week that made an impact on me were Sarkozy’s and Netanyahu’s. Thought-provoking. Realistic. From positions of strength. Clear.
This is a misdiagnosis, and too clever by half.
Obama simply believes that the West is responsible for most of the problems of this world, either directly or indirectly. America, as the most powerful nation of the West, wealthy and capitalist, is therefore most responsible for the problems of this world, either directly or indirectly. To a true American Leftist such as Obama, it is an unshakable article of faith. Details aren’t important. Obama simply KNOWS that in regards to any issue anywhere, America (the West) is at fault, some how, some way — one need only troll ivy league universities for a theory to support this proposition. (Heck, one could order up any customized theory you desire from the university, ready for distribution in just a few months.)
Obama’s goal is to minimize America’s influence. He believes that the world will then align itself in a more proper and ‘just’ arrangment, free of the nefarious distortions caused by capitalist and Euro-centric (aka, ‘white’) exploitative machinations.
Obama has not and will not do anything to strengthen America. That is not the goal. The goal is to weaken her, thereby strengthening Leftist governments everywhere and bringing us one step closer to a collectivist utopia (run by elites such as himself).
To him a weakened America is a form of reparations, a way for colored peoples everywhere to get even with ‘white’ America and Europe.
Once one comes to understand that Obama doesn’t like America very much, or the vast majority of its people, the next question becomes: Why would someone who doesn’t even like his country or his countrymen want to lead it? What are the goals of such an individual?
It sure isn’t to strengthen the country he dislikes. Obama will spend his entire tenure weakening the country militarily and supporting Leftist governments everywhere. And while he doesn’t explicitly want the economy ruined, he simply doesn’t care if any of his redistributive policies destroy the economy. In his view an America with a weak economy is a good thing because he considers American wealth ‘unfair’ and wrongly earned.
It’s all about the reparations. ‘Foreign policy’ is just a subset of the reparations superset.
As with everything Obama has done to date, details are always sketchy. But platitudes are plentiful. He thinks he is a master of smoke and mirrors. Just your average, basic incompetence.
I’m a cynical enough fellow to understand the concept of snubbing nation X to get a desired action from nation Y, but to snub X with no payoff from Y is just insane.
Leftists operate on Wishes and Hopes.
A POTUS who voted present most all his political career has got to send a thrill up the legs and centrifuges of tyrants and dictators everywhere.
Unlike the buffoons in msm they know a pushover in a heartbeat. They’ve been waiting for an Obama to materialize for ages, he’s the one they’ve been waiting for and going by the euphoria expressed for Obama at the U.N it looked like they hit the jackpot – they were besides themselves. They’re going to play him like a fiddle, and waltz him anyway they like because they know Obama’s doctrine very well is to grab his ankles, shove his head up his own @** and listen to the echo of his own brilliance. That is, while they pursue every nefarious goal to bring about another holocaust and WW3, they could care less how much Obama wants the world to adore him.
He’s sick obsession with wanting to be loved by everyone and everything is playing right into their hands. Despots are smelling Obama hope alright and it’s making them giddy with delight.
In what respect, Arthur?
Aureliano knocked it out of the park.
The Obama Doctrine is Anti Americanism combined more broadly with Anti Westernism.
I agree with the other commenters here who reject the assumption that Obama is simply pursuing the interests of the U.S. in a different way. He barely even discusses American interests, except when he wants to pivot, with a “but,” into his real concerns–a new world, beyond differences, or embracing differences, or whatever. He is a transnationalist progressive, and he represents the interests of transnational progressivism through his office as President. This political identity is completely unproblematic for Obama–it is surely the only one he has ever had, he is no convert, is completely comfortable in the role, and even seems unaware that there are other ways of thinking about the world that rational people could take seriously. So, his foreign policy involves weakening American sovereignty and stengthening “international law” (as interpreted and implemented by the transnational progressive activists and monitored by the global media)–the best way to do this is to disrupt alliances that bind free, Western, countries against the rest of world (which, according to the transnationalist creed, justly resents us for our wealth gained through exploitation) and promote anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic countries and forces throughout the world. Is there any part of Obama’s actions so far that doesn’t fit this frame?
Obama will have his hand out for the quid pro quo he expects as repayment for the concessions and retreats from foreign policy that he has initiated.
If he is simply naive then the likely outcome will be:
1. Nothing at all.
or
2. He’ll get his hand cut off.
If however there is a hidden agenda here, which I do believe is possible, then the outcome will be far worse.
Every action and every policy that his czars, supporters, supporting organizations (e.g. ACORN), and liberal left congressman as well as what he has allowed us to see of his foreign policies are either:
1. intended to isolate us from the rest of the world and change America into a socialist, fascist, or communistic country (Which I do not know).
or
2. Intended to throw America and possibly the rest of the world back to the stone age.
The likely outcome of these policies I believe are likely to push the world into upheaval and possibly a new World War.
The American people need to stand up for America. It is clear that President Obama will not.
7. Aureliano:
“To him a weakened America is a form of reparation”
Yet another insight straight out of Limbaugh’s pooter.
This should help clear things up:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/09/26/watch-colbert-blackwashing-obamas-critics/
Yea, there’s an Obama doctrine. It’s called the three M’s. Multilateralism–which means nothing happens and nothing ever gets done, because everyone can’t agree on a single course of action. Multiculturalism–which means always having to say you’re sorry to other cultures for forcefully improving their life styles (and a value loaded Western biased “progress” term anyway). And then there is the last M, the Me–which means that all of the above prior M’s is never really about Obama and just unexceptionable talk by a President representing a mundane, banal American culture over which he flies like butterfly and stings like a wasp in the eternal struggle of good racism against bad racism. Fortunately when your foreign relations are defined by such a doctrine, it does make unilateral domestic “improvements” in health care difficult to achieve among the unwashed ignorant natives.
Yes, it would be nice for our president to articulate a doctrine, a referencial document that would define the thrust of his efforts. Doctrines cannot receive universal approval, but a leader who consistently adheres to a clearly stated doctrine earns the respect of his people, and sometimes even other people in the best cases.
Right now, we are left to guess, infer and speculate as to whatever the Obama’s doctrine might be if he has one, which for whatever reason he has not declared, yet. Listening to his UN speech, I was hearing a teenager explaining the world. I almost wished I was a teenager, because then I would at least have been able to relate.
The left fringe shares a fundamental yearning with teenagers: The impulse to kill some dragons. Among the favorite dragons are capitalism, “the military-industrial complex”, “the greed-driven corporations”, “America, the poison that makes the world sick”, “the selfish planet soilers”, etc… They even include vaguely defined “peace spoilers”, of which they are a highly combustible part.
So, we should not be too surprised if our president’s initiatives are domestically destructive, and if he invites our enemies to participate in the demolition derby. We need a president of the United States of America, not a president of the liberal fringe and a president of the world rolled into one. A true leader should be able to offer something more substancial than an implicit Harry Potter doctrine.
It is often said that the tea party protests lack cohesion, but in fact they are more cohesive than the impulses of our titular leader. The protestors have a doctrine: Individual liberty, freedom of speech, The US constitution.
Like a teenager at war with his parents, our president is at war with his electorate! Mr. President, you are most welcomed to join us and adopt our doctrine. If you have an alternate proposal, state it. Don’t just vote “present”, because we understand what it means. it means AWOL.
Barry Hussein Obama mmm,mmm,mmm
There is no Obama doctrine…Gibson could probably help him with that.
If Obama’s policy was to be “transparency”, why did the Dems vote to NOT let the public see the healthreform b.s., bill they want to pass?
Kerry was in good form saying the public just wouldn’t understand the arcane language, barf! This is a man that would be “no where” with out the wife’s money to prop him up, yet he dictates to us!!
So much for policy or doctrine.
Obama has a doctrine. It has been shaped by the likes of Ayers, and that racist preacher in Chicago: namely the dead white men are wrong.
Well, it is sufficient for enough people to say, “I
am not _____”. However they don’t see because they
don’t want to see the harm they are doing to themselves.
obama and his new era of “me”
socialism isn’t new.
why does russia or china not worry about Iran …
…one. Iran is not threatening them.
…two. they would crush Iran if it did something against them.
this leaves the USA as capitulating to Iran and to think there can be a meaningfull dialog with Iran or any of the other despotic nations is laughable. it is like trying to have a meaningfull dialog with a troll. you just get talking points and gibberish.
regards
I would like to add to my previous post…..
..russia or china would not ask the UN if Iran did something against their interests. they would retaliate swiftly and descisively.
Obama only does that against americans
the obama doctrine ?? isn’t that the Saul Alinsky guide.
obama really is predictable …he is following the guide book.
obama passing his book off as an autobiography is just another lie. well written Bill Ayers, getting royalties or some back-room goodies??
Obama’s doctrine is called marxism.
The goal of the marxists is to cause the fall of what we call FREE economy and they call “command of the capital”.
They don’t see history as the unfolding of human creativity but as a simple war.
What we call THUGS, the marxists call allies (exactly in the same way and for the same reasons they foment and cultivate crime and disorder).
America has never fought the cultural war to defeat marxism and is now in serious danger, invaded from inside, and literally disarmed (culturally).
The analysis here above at #7 is correct, but the “reparations” ideology is only a cover for the hidden marxist agenda.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
aureliano, don, adam and prof. Guvinoff.. and others clearly recognize that Obama is anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic.
Obama doesn’t have a doctrine, himself. He is too intellectually ignorant and lazy to have an ‘intellectual rationale’ for his actions. Certainly, the radical left who ‘run’ him have a clear agenda – of destroying America’s freedoms, democracy, capitalism. But Obama’s own agenda is personal; he wants to control you and ensure your adoration of Him.
This is clear in all his speeches, which always focus on how He has Changed the World; how Before Obama, all was lost and terrible..and now, Since Obama’s Coming, the world is changing….He’s demented.
There’s not much difference, except in years, between him and Gaddafi. And they both talk endlessly…
Obama’s actions are driven by his psychological need for dominance and control of others, which means, the weakening of everyone around him, inluding Congress, the Supreme Court, the Military, and the People. This also means that he reduces the elected power of the people, and puts in his sycophant czars whom he controls.
Multilateralism, as don points out, is empty; holding hands in a circle won’t get anything done. Indeed, multilateralism specifically prevents action. And that’s why Obama encourages it..everyone holding hands means that no single nation can be strong. He, Obama, keeps them constrained and weak, arguing among each other, jostling each other.
Obama’s deliberate insults to western leaders, his kowtowing to dictators, his indifference to the Iranian people’s desire for democracy, his support for Zelaya’s agenda of dictatorship…Obama is anti-democracy and anti-American.
His multiculturalism or relativism, where he equates a dictatorship with a democracy is incomprehensible until you realize that this is part of his psychological need to reduce the power of Others around him.
His pathological narcissism means that he must weaken all others, all peoples around him.
Obama is enabling three imperialist and totalitarian agendas to strengthen; that of Russia over Eastern Europe; that of Iran in the Middle East, and that of Venezuala in C. America.
The Obama Doctrine so far is talk, talk, talk to our enemies and alienate our allies(Poland, Israel, Czech). This is par for the course from the hard-lefties. I think it would have been no different had Mondale been elected in ’84. Amazing how low this country has fallen to elect this clown.
The President is playing fast and loose with the safety of the United States. He has not given any serious thought to international matters and their effect on the United States other than casual assumptions that if he is nice to the adversary nations they will be nice to him. Experience dictates otherwise. The President is naive to say the least, but we will suffer seriously for his careless assumptions. Theodore Roosevelt expressed it succinctly: “Speak softly but carry a big stick!” Bret Sephens, former editor of the Jerusalem Post and now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal recently cited a Roman adage: “Si vis pacem, para bellum!” (If you wish peace, prepare for war).
The lowest form of stupidity is weakness. Barack Obama is defined by this stupidity.
That is not to say that he is a weak person in all ways. He has proven devastatingly effective against the well being and future of his country. He will bankrupt us at home so that we cannot afford to be the peacekeeper or peacemaker in a world of aspiring tough guys.
This is a man who cares more about his ideas about your prosperity safety or future. Remember that phrase and never stop using it until this vermin is removed in 2012:The lowest form of stupidity is weakness.
President Obama’s doctrine is to weaken the West, specifically, the United States of America by appeasement & supplication to dictators, compromise our national security with moral equivalence by treating terrorists as common criminals & politicizing National Security as a whole (see the McChrystal Report), trying to turn our Republic into a Dictatorship via his many power grabs in the private sector for “emergency reasons” such as Health Care, Card Check, Cap & Trade, Treasury trying to control price wages, etc al. Obama’s true goal is absolute control of everything. The irony is the man cannot control anything. He needs a diaper for his pants & a teleprompter for his mouth. He’s an empty suit of epic proportions. Obama loves to vote “Present” when given the chance, but as POTUS cannot vote “present.” This has already damaged him beyond repair. He’s a lame duck.
Maybe Obama could go on the Sunday TV talk shows and explain his doctrine or lack of doctrine. Has he tried that? Maybe the Letterman show too.
Surely Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and N. Korea (to name but a few) will succumb to Obama’s charms sooner or later. How could they not? He wears a suit well, has cocktail Wednesday’s at the White House and has elementary aged children everywhere singing tomes to his very presence (“Mmmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmm, Barack Hussein Obama…”). If Israel gets obliterated off the map and Iran aims nukes at North America, well, that’s just a price America must be willing to pay for having such a cool, hip President.
I had hoped our trolls would have suggested a doctrine that might make sense at least in their eyes; but it appears they have nothing to say.
The closest thing we have so far is:
“11. Now and Then: In what respect, Arthur?”
The answer this question is of course: FOREIGN POLICY, WHAT THEY HECK IS OBAMA TRYING TO DO?
An overall astute analysis, but I disagree with onw point. Obama sees multilateralism not as an end, but as a stepping stone towards a unilateral world government, which will have the power to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor until everyone is equally poor except the elite rulers, of course, after all, some pigs are more equal than other pigs). It makes absolutely no difference what Obama says, it is what he and the left wing Democrats in power actually do that we need to watch and block by any necessary means. There are arguably 4 critical areas which must be under government control for the state to gain ultimate power: Education, Health, Communications and Defense. The left through their unions already runs education for the state at some levels and the overwhelming majority of academics “teaching” at the university level are leftists. The proposal for national health control (believe me, those proposing it do not “care” about anything except their own power) is well underway; but even if it fails, there will be more and more proposals worded differently with the same ill intentions. In the area of Communications there are proposals for Obama to get an Internet ‘kill switch” (which will give him an arbitrary control); there are proposals for government content filtering (meaning that the user will get what the government dictates, and the user will have no say). The left would prefer to legislate these things as making laws provides a cover of legitimacy. If they are successful in these three areas, and can get foreign antagonists to hold off by the nebulous foreign policy that Arthur cites, they will control Defense as a result (provided they have enough followers to infiltrate the armed forces and make it subservient to those in power. There are many countries on the verge of Statism, and if those countries follow suit, the result will be a push towards an International Ruling body. This administration has out-spoken advocates of such control. If enough people fall for Statism, those who dissent will have to be forced to comply. Then it becomes merely the means which are used to exert the force. Getting back to foreign policy, Obama is using the Muslims, poor and illegals as ploys. In his vision of a perfect world there can be no poor or anyone else that does not contribute to the state, and since this world is not perfect, taking care of them will be a burden to the state. Obama has said these things in so many ways so many times that only those who only remain enthralled by the sound of his voice still fail to hear what he is saying, and do not want to know when he is lying, changing his position. If what he is trying to do would not end in disaster, his “presidency” would be merely a historical joke.
I like the suggestion that he go on the Letterman show and tell us what his foreign policy is. He ran on the platform of change and that impressed the trolls. Unfortunately, the dictator thugs were not as impressed.
My guess is: Foreign leaders that do not follow Obamma will get nasty letters.
The Usurper is barely qualified to manage a McDonalds. A bunch of fools put him in charge of the worlds largest bureaucracy. What do you expect? His greatest management experience was a pick-up basketball game and now he is in charge of about 5 million employees. What flavor was that kool-aid?
His doctrine is easy to define:
Kiss our enemies and f*** our friends.
Obama Doctrine: Me. I am not naive, I am not a liar. The Americans love me, the world loves me, they really love me.
I sense that the pro Obama forces who worked so hard to get Obama elected nine months ago, (and this includes the slow witted Acorn people who, like common street thieves, worked so hard to steal votes), have been taking a special delight in seeing conservative/Republicans squirm and sweat everytime Obama pulls another page out of his signed Saul Alinsky play book.
Hee. Hee. Hee. We won. You conservatives lost. Hee. Hee. Hee.
Well, as they say, be careful what you libtards wish for, (and chortle at) because you just may get what you want. And then some.
Probably first and foremost, in Obama you got a liar.
“I’m a uniter” Obama said. No, Mister Obama, you’re a liar.
“I’ll have a transparent Presidency”, put bills on the internet 72 hours before voting on them. No, Mister Obama, you’re a liar.
“I’ll have no earmarks.” Next lie.
“I’ll chase Bin Ladin to the gates of hell.”
Mister Obama, you’re denying your general on the ground in Afghanistan the troops in needs to win the war and minimize American casualties.
“I’ll be a post-racial President” Another lie.
First, agreeing in your first Presidential week that white American men constitute a nation of racist-leaning cowards.
Second, sticking a racist on the Supremes. Sotomayor who constantly repeats that asinine dame claim “any Hispanic female is intellectually superior to a white American male”.
And third, calling one of our best and brightest white police officers a “stupid acting (implied) racist” for arresting a Harvard Barack buddy who clearly was resisting arrest while throwing out racial slurs like the jerk was raised in a New York City sewer.
Of course, the President that ordered the fecal left teachers union to have school kids hum praises of Obama like nappy headed indoctrinated Marxist zombies is much more dangerous than having a simple pathological “liar” would be. (joe wilson, Sept 9, NY Post).
He’s an extremist left of the worst kind.
Spending the U.S. to death.
Totally shelving all action to end our dangerous dependence foreign oil.
Trying to shove Socialized Medicine down our throats, and fining anybody who doesn’t buy into the Saul Alinsky driven socialist plan to the tune of $3,000 per year. A three grand fine. That’s what you get if you choose not to be uninsured. What happened to pro choice, Mister President?
Moreover, Mister Obama’s convinced the Russians he won’t follow the Kennedy Doctrine of a full retaliatory response if Israel is attacked.
Worse, he’s convinced most Russian hardliners that if Russia decided to take out, say, Las Vagas, in a test bomb run, briar Rabbit ears would run into his bomb shelter like a feckless coward, knocking women and children out of the way in the style of George Costanza. Remember the “yell fire” Seinfeld episode?
And as if all that isn’t bad enough, Obama’s ordered the position paper be written for dismantling our entire missile defense system (I’m not even going to comment on Obama’s decision to leave Poland and the Czech Republic defenseless. Scrapping missile defense is something only someone certifiably insane would do. It’s unconscienable.
So libtards, once again I ask, “where does this leave us”?
With you guys still laughing your butts off when Black Panthers beat an air tight case of voter intimidation. All thanks to a corrupt beyond corrupt attorney general, Eric Paxil-boy Holder, the same one who helped Marc Rich, poster boy for corruption get a pardon from poster boy for vulgar Presidents.
Where oh where does (emphasis on “does”)that leave us?
With you libtards primped and prinked up, totally titivated when you hear the brown eyed handsome man lie like an assault rifle through his sparkling white teeth about state meted out medicine.
This one was a dilly:
“Finding costly corruption and increasing efficiencies will pay for “Universal Healthcare”. (To be included in the upcoming best seller, “Biggest lies ever told”.
Honestly, you’d have to be the dumbest of the dumber libtards to believe that whopper.
Well, parders’, what you wished for you gots. An imminent nuclear showdown.
If that’s not news to you, then get your heads out of your newspaper.
Another nice feature about the show. You libtards don’t need a ringside seat because you’re in the middle of the ring. You’s the bull with the ring in its nose.
And I (and 300 mill Americans) are right there beside you. You see, unlike Presidents who make fine, nuanced distinctions, weapons of mass destruction don’t.
Does I have to spell out the scenario?
Israel attacks Iran.
Russia nukes Israel.
Obama has a hissy fit. Gives a speech the NY Times lavishes with praise. But does nothing.
And now the bad news.
The “Obama Doctrine” is to obtain marching orders from George Soros on a daily basis and have David Axelrod spin it into a commercial with Obama playing the part of a world leader.
Mr. Cherenkoff (isn’t it right spelling?), your highly logical rationale for Obama politics has mortal flaw. Obama does not have any policy or doctrine, rational or otherwise. Obama has ideology, and all his decisions are dictated by this ideology plus narcissi sentiments, real consequences will be damned.
Not all historical political figures operated on the premise to empower their country, or even increase their personal power. Some quite selebrated political figures were just jesters, who projected their egomaniac fantasies into real politics. Luis XIV is the prime example.