The Obama Doctrine is simple: Proclaim a utopian policy, and then pray that most of the people who hear it are Neanderthals who will ignore it. Having said one thing, doing quite another is not only thereby okay, but also absolutely essential. Keep that paradox in mind, and almost everything the president does makes sense.
Advertisement
In foreign policy, the president demands, in hated George Bush fashion, that Qaddafi leave, soars rhetorically about human rights, seeks an exalted United Nations resolution to protect Libyans, and institutes a no-fly zone — and then hopes that someone goes beyond the U.N. sanction and removes the man President Reagan called the “mad dog of the Middle East” by doing the messy things that we would not. We damn violations of constitutional protections such as renditions, tribunals, Predator assassinations, Guantanamo, and preventive detention — and assume that some rather nasty folk will keep them all going while we look the other way. Iraq is an awful example and we should have gotten out in 2008; but apparently someone did not hear that principled message and stayed on to ensure a successful consensual government — and now a new Iraq is soon to be “our greatest achievement.” Khalid Sheik Mohammed was tried in a civilian court in New York in accordance with the rarefied jurisprudence of Eric Holder, Harold Koh, and Barack Obama — but only virtually so, as he still sits in his cell in Guantanamo, guarded by retrograde military types.
The Obama administration spends billions of dollars subsidizing green solar and wind power, subsidizing mass transit, subsidizing new hybrid cars like the Chevy Volt, pushing through cap-and-trade legislation in the House, and warning that the cost of electricity will skyrocket, that coal-fired energy plants will be bankrupt, that the Brazilians are to be lauded for developing offshore oil that we can now borrow more billions to purchase — and then ends up with gasoline over $4 a gallon in much of America. So the president quietly brags that we are producing more fossil-fuel power than ever before — omitting the disturbing fact that this was despite, rather than because of, his policies, since current leases were approved by his predecessors and are just the sort that Obama would now refuse to sanction. Bottom line: Obama talks up about green power, and hopes instead that those less progressive will develop (or, in the words of Energy Secretary Chu, “cook”) traditional energy over his objections. Yes, we prefer green power, but we also pray that some sinner ignores that gospel and instead produces non-green energy that we would not.
On health care, the president unleashes his community-organizing rhetoric about the huddled masses without care, the greedy insurance companies, the fat-cat Cadillac health plans — and so rams through a federal equality-of-result health-care takeover. He soon learns that millions of Americans believe it is both too costly and unworkable, and so the administration starts granting exemptions from it — now both over 1,000 in number and to many of those very groups and organizations that were the strongest advocates for Obamacare. The message? There shall be both a utopian new health-care plan in theory, and in fact plenty of ways for millions to get around it.
On the budget, Obama has run up in under three years almost $5 trillion in new debt — a figure that even he acknowledges is unsustainable. That’s why he trumpeted a new bipartisan debt commission, whose findings were as sensible as they were ignored. So this year the president still talks in Great Society tropes about a big government that can do ever more for the exploited, even as quietly he assumes that someone less liberal, at some reactionary moment, will have to deal with the consequences of his messy new $1.6 trillion budget deficit — and will either ignore or undo almost everything Obama has borrowed to accomplish since 2009.
The Obama Doctrine is a child of two worlds. Born in the rarefied upper air of utopian idealism and soaring verbiage, it must nevertheless descend to live on the polluted ground below. Obama accepts that tragedy, and so no sooner has he proclaimed a new vision for America and the world than he walks away from it — as rueful that his pure dream cannot come true as he is relieved that less pure others ensure that it cannot.
I've been following Dr. Hanson's column for a few years and that last paragraph has been brewing between the lines of his articles since shortly after Obama was elected. It perfectly explains Obama's disastrous presidency, as well as Barry's epic infinite battle versus legions of straw men.
“In foreign policy, the president demands, in hated George Bush fashion, that Qaddafi leave, soars rhetorically about human rights, seeks an exalted United Nations resolution to protect Libyans, and institutes a no-fly zone — and then hopes that someone goes beyond the U.N. sanction and removes the man President Reagan called the “mad dog of the Middle East” by doing the messy things that we would not”
I dissent to the extent that I don’t think Obama cares whether Qaddafi is removed. During the last two years, the Obama Administration made normalizing of relationships with dictatorships a centerpiece of its foreign policy, while alienating our democratic allies. Just days into his administration, Obama offered Iran “the promise of a new beginning” that was “grounded in mutual respect” and when the Mullahs began putting down the “Green Revolution” in 2010, Obama’s actions indicated that he sided with the regime.
Hoping that someone else removes a dictator isn’t part of the Obama Doctrine, if anything as coherent as a doctrine can describe Obama’s foreign policy. The Libyan revolution continued for weeks, and while Qadaffi murdered his own people, the Obama Administration indicated the US would not act. However, Qaddafi’s crackdown in Libya became increasingly unpopular in the so-called “International Community” and it wasn’t until it became clear that the UN would pass a resolution calling for a “No-Fly Zone” that Obama changed his position and promised US action.
I conclude from this set of facts that the Obama Doctrine is that the US should act when the United Nations authorizes US military action in internationally popular humanitarian causes. Thus the US should not act while Qadaffi was murdering his people and action would have mattered most, but the US should act when Qadaffi was on the precipice of winning because only at this time was acting internationally popular and UN sanctioned. This principle isn’t a doctrine; it’s the geopolitical version of a high school popularity contest. It also insures incoherent US policy because the “international Community” isn’t a community guided by a unified humanitarian vision, its nearly 200 separate countries with different interests and values.
Perhaps worst of all, this “Obama Doctrine” cedes the decision for US action to the “International Community” and the UN. In my opinion, I think this recognition is what bothers Americans so much about Obama not going to Congress even though other Presidents have gone to war without Congressional authorization. It’s one thing for the Commander-in-Chief to have the unilateral authority to go to war; the American people elected him and the Constitution makes him the CiC. It’s quite another for the President to only exercise his CiC power when the UN authorizes it; we never
My next door neighbor (one guess as to his political preferences) is the same way. To him our local coal-burning utility is an icky, polluting, mountain-top removing conspiracy of eeevil. But if I suggest to him that every time he plugs something into those magic slots in the walls of his house he contributes to that declared evil...he looks at me as if I'm spouting gibberish. I can't even get him to hang his clothes to dry.
And Lord does he complain if there's any interruption of those precious magical electrons.
It is a complete disconnect from what makes their existence so comfortable.
IMHO it is a waste of human energy to try to square Obama's words with his actions, because -- simply put -- he can't be honest about this long term objectives, domestically or in the Middle East. His domestic policies are (IMHO deliberately) putting massive strain on the economy, and his Middle East policies seem strangley to always benefit the Islamists. Re: the latter, how much clearer could it be given, for example, that Ayers, Dohrn, Code Pink, etc. were "organizing" in Egypt. Ergo, I doubt Obama will intervene in Syria, given its strong ties with Iran. I'd love to see some major Obama action that was not consistent with harming our economy or helping the Islamists.
Obama is a confused man, whose world view of 40 years doesn't work. Many of us have had bosses like this, and simply had to wait them out. Seems that is what we will have to do here, while hoping there is something left when he is gone.
All true, with one exception. Obama doesn't need to "pray that most of the people who hear it (his proclaimed Utopian policy) are Neanderthals who will ignore it" - he can completely rely on that without need for prayer.
One benefit of all the new media is that these Neanderthals regularly post comments to articles, videos, and social networks. They reveal both their ignorance and their complete disinterest in correcting their condition. What's more, like the crowds who watched the lions tear apart the Christians, they're all too eager to join in the blood sport of denigrating every man (or woman) who publicly carries the weight of telling the truth, producing to ensure prosperity and security, or facing off against dangerous enemies.
I hope "Atlas Shrugged" tickets sell like gangbusters. I also wonder how many of these Neanderthals will recognize themselves in the folks motivating Atlas to shrug? My guess is that they'll think the trains are really cool and begin urging Obama's idea of huge "investments" in high speed trains.
Wafbai has it right, but does not take his analysis far enough. The simplest answer to the many perplexing inconsistencies and questions about Obama's policies is that he is deliberately acting to destroy our economy, our defense capabilities, our standing in the world, because of his deep-seated amicus towards America and American culture. Once one realizes this, everything becomes clear.
Dithering in Libya thus was attractive to Mr O. through the impending Massacre of Benghazi, the occurance of which would have stained his name in the history books forever.
I have long given up trying to catalog Obama's actions into any Doctrine--since they are too disparate, incoherent, contradictory and plain bizarre.
As far as this war, it was both a wag-the-dog adventure to distract us from the disastrous consequences of his actions here at home, and a simple bid to boost his ratings.
Once he figured out he could hide behind the skirts of the Europeans (for his base), and that a relatively low-commitment war could yield so many sentimental talking points (whatever the outcome), he knew he was nicely hedged, and he went for it.
And unlike Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc., Libya is a rather politically-isolated country, and messing with it does not carry the explosive consequences it would with the others. So, why not?
His all-X-chromosomed "war room," headed by the detestable Samantha Power, is already laying out the narrative, fresh and ready for 2012. I will paraphrase another commenter, but the mantra about "Freedom movements created or saved" by this war is what's in store for us.
And with a disgustingly complacent media, you know that enough idiots are going to buy it to get this pathetic man-child reelected.
Obama's doctrine is to be a citizen of the world and all just try to get along. He does not understand human nature, or have a backup plan for dealing with shortages greater than anyone's surplus can be redistributed to compensate for.
People in general, even if willing to share, are not going to be willing to all starve together, so different groups will fight to control necessary resources. People of the Middle East understand this and consider him a fool who can be exploited to better their position.
Perhaps Obama's doctrine is, "Walk softly and do a citizen-of-the-world shtick." Unfortunately, in the real world, we have to be able AND willing to remain in control of our own resources. Obama's doctrine constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America, and he must be defeated in 2012.
The Obama Doctrine is very simple and can be expressed in four words.
Take Credit, Pass Blame.
Whenever President Obama speaks, his objective is not to lay out objectives and plans, but rather to take credit for whatever is going right, pass blame for whatever is going wrong, and to crank out a smokescreen for what the administration is actually doing.
A simple model for a complex individual, but it fits quite well.
One comment about his rhetoric. Am I the only one or is the same tone and cadence, no matter what the topic, starting to get a little old. I like the Star Spangled Banner, it's stirring, but if EVERY song ever sung was done to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner, only changing the words, it would get real old. I think a speech by Obama about cleaning up dog poop when you take your dog for a walk would sound about the same as his Libya speech. Reagan inspired, Obama bores.
Is it a tenant of The Obama Doctrine in foreign policy to kill American unilateralism—America’s insight and instinct to act strategically on its behalf to effect its inalienable right to sovereignty? The President abhors American unilateral foreign policy; yet, he refuses to consult with the Congress—a multilateral exercise. Ignoring his own polity, the President issues a multi-lateral command to war based upon on his unilateral consultation with himself. Today, the apparent inner conflict within the President cannot address the axis of unilateral/multilateral without being hypocritical.
Referencing JRapp’s point: “I conclude from this set of facts that the Obama Doctrine is that the US should act when the United Nations authorizes US military action in internationally popular humanitarian causes.” Unfortunately, The Obama Doctrine as practiced in Libya is THE standard for the President’s foreign policy philosophy of surrendering American initiative, unilateralism and technology to the world’s management. Theory is now practice. Standard and precedent established. Rhetoric threadbare.
The American policy towards Egypt in that country’s initial phase of its political upheaval presents the same map of policy inconsistency as present policy does in Libya. Lassitude and incoherent messaging have beset both engagements. Tactical adaptability in strategy engaging both countries would be understandable, but the structure of searching for the tracks of effective policy has so far been the same—tepid.
However there is one known track, engineered by Samantha Power: "The United States had never in its history intervened to stop genocide and had in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred." Depending on context, the quote’s defense may be weak; nevertheless, it is used to show a thread of thought in the President’s current foreign policy. Not to make light of genocide, the so called “humanitarian” aspects of the Libyan engagement have been couched nicely [sarc] in Power’s “A Problem from Hell.” The President has to be careful in not sullying the vision and work of Raphael Lemkin and Senator William Proxmire with a moral relativity parsed into a political moment of convenience
Within the book, Power describes Raphael Lemkin’s struggles to get the world, especially the UN, to acknowledge what genocide is. That we don’t truly know who the Libyan rebels are, would this besmirch Lemkin’s definition of genocide? Who ARE the rebels of Libya? Are we using Libya to make up for what America left behind for Cambodia in 1975? If we are, it’s too late. We were almost too late in Bosnia. In fact for many souls, we were. Does Libya fit the model of genocide that we ignored in Southeast Asia; recognized and acted upon in Bosnia; knew about but finally had to experience the stench and horror of in the Europe of 1939-1945?
As Hanson writes, “Obama accepts that tragedy, and so no sooner has he proclaimed a new vision for America and the world than he walks away from it — as rueful that his pure dream cannot come true as he is relieved that less pure others ensure that it cannot.” Hanson’s last paragraph begs the question: Is this President now apathetic to the realities of his office? Apathy creates extensive damage in proportion to the power to fuel it. Will he be apathetic towards a real and more extensive genocide?
Another thing that account's for Obama's disconnect between what he says and what he does is that he's never really been in a position (before becoming President) where he was accountable for his words or actions. In other words, he never had a job.
Call me old fashioned, but somehow the phrase "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" just doesn't seem to have the same pizazz when it it being uttered by a Barney Fifelike commander in chief.
Admittedly this sounds ‘out there’ but perhaps the ‘Obama-Doctrine’ is: Israel Must Go (but quietly).
It’s possible the administration along with a blindly supportive MSM believes Israel is the source of most conflict in the world. As a Jewish state, they create conflict with the Muslim world, as a democratic capitalist state they innately arouse tension from the autocratic/socialist spheres, as a nation-state trying to defend itself against a perpetual terrorist war they are an apartheid aggressor ever alienating and provoking the poor abused downtrodden Third World.
Thus the dilemma...how do we rid the world of this ‘plague upon nations’ but not alienate the traditionally Israel supporting American electorate.
The answer...a covertly anti-Israel doctrine:
Examples...
Treat the democratically elected leader of Israel ignobly (MSM will ignore but anti-Israel allies will appreciate).
Verbally support every UN statement against Israel (but vote against so electorate doesn’t pay too much attention yet Israel’s enemies will empathize with our distaste).
Allow Palestinian flags to be raised upon diplomatic institutions.
Passively support anti-Israeli governments. Iran repression = free pass. Syrian abuse = no comment. Hezbollah take over in Libya= remain silent. Egypt/Mubarak (a peace maker with Israel) do everything possible to vocally and visually support downfall. Jordon (another peacemaker and the most benevolent of the Arab monarchs) =no support.
Libya – not a direct Israel player but hmmm, an Al-Qaida influenced state in Libya surely will weaken Israel in the long run...= overt support Qaddafi downfall.
Perhaps re-election allows a transition from covert to overt. This potentiality is truly frightening. In a 2nd term it’s not too difficult to envision Palestinian freedom fighters making a final stand against Israeli oppression necessitating an Israeli no fly zone to ensure Palestinian democracy blossoms without fear of Israeli atrocities.
On a side note about PM Netanyahu’s White House treatment...
Perhaps the worse treatment ever given by the White House was the Dali Lama getting hushed out the back door on garbage day. Probably because China’s 1.3 billion people easily outnumber the world's 300 million Arabs thus China deserves more favor currying and thus the more extravagant 'diss' to a perceived Chinese dissident.
