The Obama Doctrine Defined

By Ted Belman

Marc Zell, the former law partner of Douglas J. Feith brought Feith’s article The Obama Doctrine Defined to my attention with this comment,

    The article deftly avoids mentioning Israel, but captures the true essence of Obama’s foreign policy, like no article before has done.

Of course, it was co-authored by Seth Cropsey and published by Commentary.

    [..]
    The criticism has some validity, but it misses an important point: the administration’s approach has logic and coherence in the service of strategic considerations that extend far beyond Libya.

    Since his campaign in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama has declared that he wants to transform America’s role in world affairs. And now,in the third year of his term, we can see how he is bringing about that transformation. The United States under Barack Obama is less assertive, less dominant, less power-minded, less focused on the American people’s particular interests, and less concerned about preserving U.S. freedom of action. It is true that he did not simply pull the plug on the war in Iraq, as he promised he would do, and that he increased the commitment of troops in Afghanistan. But those compromises reflect the president’s pragmatic judgment about the art of the possible, not his conviction about what kind of country America should ultimately become.[..]

    Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that critics complain about incoherence. But the administration’s Libya policy makes sense in light of Obama’s intention to alter America’s place and function in the world. His ambition is novel and grand, though often couched in language that implies support for longstanding policies. It can be seen as a new doctrine—the Obama Doctrine.

I should point out that Asia Times just published What’s really at Stake in Libya? in which they assert its not an humanitarian intervention but a plot to plunder Libya for France and Britain and to keep China out. Feith, I believe has a superficial view of Obama’s policy regarding Libya.

The Doctrine of self Containment

    And as the American approach to countering the Soviet menace came to be known as the “doctrine of containment,” the Obama Doctrine may come to be known as the “doctrine of self-containment.” Or, perhaps more fitting, given the echo of the foreign-policy approach that governed the Cold War, the “doctrine of constrainment.”

_____________

There is also a change of view

    The Obama doctrine emerges from the conviction that in the new post-Cold War, post-9/11, post–George W. Bush world, the United States cannot and should not exercise the kind of boldness and independence characteristic of its foreign policy in the decades after World War II. That view runs roughly as follows: traditional ideas of American leadership serving American interests abroad are not a proper guide for future conduct. They have spawned crimes and blunders—in Iran in the early 1950s, then in Vietnam, and recently in Iraq, for example. To prevent further calamities, the United States should drop its obsession with its own national interests and concentrate on working for the world’s general good on an equal footing with other countries, recognizing that it is multinational bodies that grant legitimacy on the world stage.

The part that I have highlighted will be the focus of great debate in the upcoming presidential elections. Palin has already stressed that the US should only go to war to serve its own interest. She also differs with Obama on American sovereignty. She wants to strengthen it. He wants to diminish it by making it subservient to multinational bodies.

I am sure you will want to read the rest of this very long but thoughtful article.

July 4, 2011 | 9 Comments »

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. Catarin says:
    July 6, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    If it’s so bad, why don’t you Americans immigrate? There must be some place in the world that loves crackpots.

    To paraphrase Gomez Addams, “Cat, that’s shrill!”

  2. If it’s so bad, why don’t you Americans immigrate? There must be some place in the world that loves crackpots.

  3. This article is a popular explanation of radical policy toward America (and Israel) developed by protagonist’s of New World Order and given to the great contemporary intellectual Obama for execution. It is apart of globalization doctrine : destroy America, forget about Trumann, Kennedy and Constitution, give power for governing America to UN, then rest of the World will follow and finita la comedia -New World is done. Any way to speak of Obama as of great thinker or policy maker would be making him a big compliment.

  4. Catarin says:
    July 6, 2011 at 3:16 am

    It’s not worth it to me to have a discussion with Tea Partiers.

    Snob! Snot!

  5. The Obama doctrine, Iran, and Jewish Israel:

    Iran: Obama loves muslims. He feels that they are great people and are misunderstood. He looked at Iran and saw great muslims who were unappreciated by America. He feels that the Iranian complaint that America favors the evil Israeli Jews over the poor defenseless palestinian muslims is real and justified. He is quietly in favor of Iran building nukes. An Iran with nukes forces the Saudis to seek American protection. If Iran and Jewish Israel go at it, Obama wins no matter what. If Iran annihilates Jewish Israel, that is no loss to Obama. If Jewish Israel annihilates Iran, then Obama will prosecute the Jews as international war criminals. Obama prefers the insane ayatollas building nukes to the rational and reasonable middle class Iranian people seeking freedom from muslim tyranny.

    Jewish Israel: Obama equates Israeli Jews with nazis, south african apartheiders, and jim crow southerners. He feels the palestinian muslims are righteous defenseless victims of Jewish oppression. As a minimum, Obama wants to cut Jewish Israel down to size with indefensible 1949 borders. As a maximum, he wants to see Jewish Israel destroyed, but is not strong enough at this time to do it directly.

    That said, Obama is not the disease, he is just a symptom of the disease. The disease is liberalism, with its fanatic hatred of white heterosexual male christian conservative nationalists, and which uses Jewish Israel as a proxy and an easier target. If there were no Obama, there is still no end of liberals indistinguishable from him who would take his place. And liberalism is the inescapable future of America, with the Republicans now on the verge of their last hurrah.

    (I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but (real, Torah-true) Jews can still escape to Israel, and Republicans can build cabins in Montana.)

  6. I read that Obama’s stance is based on the realization that the U.S. is no longer the powerhouse it once was.

  7. Even those people that like what Obama is trying to do are missing one large item…….the Constitution of the United States of America. The U.S.A. Constitution first limits the power of the President, and Obama constantly oversteps these limits. Secondly, the Constitution gives individual citizens liberties and rights that are being voided by the Obama world view and specific illegal activities of parts of his administration. The Attorney General is responsible for the Dept. of Justice which is over Homeland Security, the FBI and the ATBFE. These so-called law enforcement agencies are taking away freedoms from the American people against their constitutional rights through policy and regulations that are unconstitutional. Also, the limit of powers granted the President does not include a free reign over foreign policy, Congress has powers that limit this, and the Senate has total say in ratifying, or not, any Treaty made by the President. The President has no power to make laws, and by using his power as administrative head of all government agencies to implement treaties that are not ratified by the Senate is illegal in all cases and Treason in some cases! Giving away our sovereignty is treason!

    If we are a nation of law and order, we must adhere to our laws, like them or not. If we do not like them, there are legal was to change them, including to amend our constitution. If we are not a nation of law, then we are a rogue nation and no one can justly be accused of violating law when there is none! The President, and each of his cabinet members, have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.A., and simply, they are not doing it. Thus, we are no longer a civilized nation of law, but puppets of a tyranous leader and his cohorts! Usually, when this happens in a nation, rebellion looms near!