05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
05-04-2018 02:59:17 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

The Obama Doctrine: Is he an Imperialist With a Little Foot, or Just an Old-Fashioned Appeaser?

Here comes Ross Douthat, trying to sort out Obama's foreign policy.  He's got the right idea: watch the actions, add them up, toss with just enough realism-speak, and voila!  An Obama Doctrine.

Douthat rightly, I think, starts by saying that the Hagel and Brennan nominations to head the Pentagon and the CIA are good starting points for analysis, because they represent what he intends to do.  And he's got the major themes right, too:

Like the once-hawkish Hagel, Obama has largely rejected Bush’s strategic vision of America as the agent of a sweeping transformation of the Middle East, and retreated from the military commitments that this revolutionary vision required. And with this retreat has come a willingness to make substantial cuts in the Pentagon’s budget — cuts that Hagel will be expected to oversee.

But the Brennan nomination crystallizes the ways in which Obama has also cemented and expanded the Bush approach to counterterrorism. Yes, waterboarding is no longer with us, but in its place we have a far-flung drone campaign -- overseen and defended by Brennan -- that deals death, even to American citizens, on the say-so of the president and a secret administration “nominations” process...

To the extent that it’s possible to define an “Obama Doctrine,” then, it’s basically the Hagel-Brennan two-step. Fewer boots on the ground, but lots of drones in the air. Assassination, yes; nation-building, no. An imperial presidency with a less-imperial global footprint.

I don't think this rises to the level of a strategy, let alone a doctrine. It's all about tactics.  It lacks a mission statement.  What is Obama trying to accomplish?  When and how will we know we've won or lost?  And what is "imperial" about it?  Are assassins "imperialists"?

Douthat seems to recognize this when he talks about Obama's retreat from Bush's "revolutionary vision."  A president in full retreat from those challenging America, and killing Americans and our friends and allies wherever they can, is hardly an imperialist, whatever his shoe size.  Indeed, the president's increasingly embarrassing insistence on cutting some sort of deal with the biggest and most aggressive American enemy -- the Iranian regime that arms, trains, and supports most all of the killers -- suggests that "appeasement" is a better description.

And yet, as Douthat (and Obama) would hasten to object, we're killing a lot of al-Qaeda Arabs, aren't we?  And we certainly didn't appease Osama bin Laden, did we?  And Camp Gitmo is still producing obese terrorists, isn't it?

True.  These are the Bush tactics, carried forward by Obama.  And the lack of strategic vision is also a carryover from the Bush years.  The Bush Doctrine was enunciated early after 9/11:  to wage war against the terrorist organizations that were targeting us, and against the states that supported them.  That was the original rationale for going after Saddam, and the foundation for the campaign against the "Axis of Evil," explicitly including Iran, Iraq and North Korea.  But the Bush Doctrine was only fulfilled twice.  It began and ended with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Long before Obama, the United States was seeking deals with Iran and North Korea, and embracing Syria as a friendly.

So Douthat's claim that Obama has abandoned the "revolutionary" Bush policy is overstated;  Obama is carrying on both the Bush tactics (from drones to vigorous interrogations to military tribunals) and the failed, post-revolutionary Bush strategery, as crafted by Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, Condi Rice, and Richard Armitage.

To be sure, there is one big difference:  where Bush seemed inclined to keep a meaningful number of fighting men and women on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama sounded the retreat.  That's a big difference, and its consequences are much more significant than a smaller footprint in the region.  Just ask our friends and allies in the Middle East.  As Tony Badran writes, all our non-Israeli allies are Sunnis, and they see an Obama policy that seems consistently anti-Sunni.  Take the Saudis, for example.  They keep asking why the United States doesn't support the Syrian opposition (contrary to what you read in the popular press, we have done next to nothing to help Assad's enemies).  And they ask why Obama is so acquiescent to Iraq's top dog, Maliki, who supports Assad and enables Iranian assistance to the besieged tyrant in Damascus.