The Obama 'doctrine'
Image via Wikipedia...The time limited part is going to get him in trouble unless he is very lucky. Is Obama really willing to just walk away from what is happening in Libya in a couple of months regardless of the consequences? That seems to be what he is saying, but can he really be that irresponsible? Can the same guy who was willing to walk away from Iraq even if it resulted in genocide do the same thing now in Libya even though he supposedly intervened to stop genocide?
... After ten days of confusion about America’s role in Libya – and in the world – Obama finally was prepared to articulate his “doctrine.”
But those who were hoping for a rejoinder to “bring it on” will be disappointed: The Obama doctrine he presented Wednesday night was frustratingly nondoctrinal. Where Bush was all bright lines and absolute morality, Obama dwelled in the gray area, outlining a foreign policy that is ad hoc and situational.
“In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,” he argued, in a 28-minute speech marked by occasional trouble with the teleprompter. “We had a unique ability to stop that violence.... We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.”
The policy Obama outlined was a cost-benefit analysis between the burdens of war and the need to defend American values across the globe. In the Obama doctrine, there is a tension between bear-any-burden aspirations and the constraints of an overstretched superpower.
“I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests,” he said. But, he added: “There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. . . . In such cases, we should not be afraid to act — but the burden of action should not be America’s alone.”
This is what Republicans such as Mitt Romney deride as Obama’s “nuanced” foreign policy. And it’s true that after the good vs. evil, binary logic of the Bush years — you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists — Obama’s answer is vague and unsatisfying.
...
Obama, by contrast, has been so subtle in his doctrine that he’s baffling Americans. By waiting to make his case to the nation for the action in Libya, he created a vacuum and invited confusion. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that while a plurality supports the attack in Libya, 17 percent of Americans have no opinion on the question. Meanwhile, 50 percent don’t think the United States and its allies have a clear goal.
At NDU on Monday night, Obama gave the assembled brass some Bush-like rhetoric, calling Gaddafi a “tyrant” who murdered opponents, terrorized innocents and killed Americans. But Obama tempered that with reminders that the military action against Gaddafi was “limited,” and “narrowly focused on saving lives,” and that responsibility had been transferred to reduce “the risk and cost.”
...
The incoherence of his exit "strategy" could be a real problem for the US. It also could result in chaos exploited by al Qaeda to take control of Libya.
Comments
Post a Comment