The Obama Doctrine is used to describe one or several principles of the foreign policy of the Obama administration. In 2015, during an interview with The New York Times, President Barack Obama said: "You asked about an Obama doctrine, the doctrine is we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities".
Unlike precisely defined policies such as the Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Kennedy Doctrine, Nixon Doctrine, Carter Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine, or Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is not a specific foreign policy introduced by the executive. This has led journalists and political commentators to analyze what the exact tenets of an Obama Doctrine might look like. Generally speaking, it is widely accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would emphasize negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs. This policy was praised by some as a welcome change from the interventionist Bush Doctrine.
Critics of Obama's unilateral policies (such as targeted killings of suspected enemies of the U.S.) including former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, have described it as overly idealistic and naïve, promoting appeasement of adversaries. Others have drawn attention to its radical departure in tone from not only the policies of the Bush administration but many former presidents as well. Some trace the origin of the Obama Doctrine to a speech he delivered at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York in May 2014, where he asserted that the "United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it," but for indirect threats or humanitarian crises, "we must mobilize partners to take collective action." This doctrine of "moral multilateralism," some argue, reflects Obama's interest in philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr, who supported an interventionist U.S. foreign policy but warned against hubris and moral misjudgment.
Contents
Pre-presidency
The term "Obama Doctrine" was used before the start of Obama's presidency, while he was still only a candidate in the Democratic primaries. In an article in The Providence Journal from August 28, 2007, James Kirchick used the term in a derogatory sense, and argued that the Obama Doctrine could be summarized as: "The United States will remain impassive in the face of genocide." This critique was based on an interview Obama had given to the Associated Press on July 21, where he said that "the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems" and that "preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." Hilary Bok, guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic's The Daily Dish, refuted Kirchick's representation of Obama's foreign policy views as a distortion. Bok pointed to Obama's use of anti-genocide activist Samantha Power as a political advisor, and to several interviews the candidate had given expressing concern for the situation in Darfur and elsewhere. Later, in a presidential debate with Senator John McCain, Obama stated that the U.S. occasionally would have to "consider it as part of our interests" to carry out humanitarian interventions.
Later in the campaign, when asked the question about himself at one of the Democratic presidential debates in March, Obama answered that his doctrine was "not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush doctrine, because the world is complicated." He added that the U.S. would have to "view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries." Later, this doctrine was elaborated on as "a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering 'democracy promotion' agenda in favor of 'dignity promotion,'" that would target the conditions that promoted anti-Americanism and prevented democracy. This policy was quickly criticized by Dean Barnett of The Weekly Standard as naïve. Barnett argued that it was not a "climate of fear" that lay behind Islamic extremism, but "something more malicious".
Then-President George W. Bush, in a May 2008 speech at the Knesset, likened direct negotiations with Iran, or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, to attempts at "appeasement" of Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. The comments were interpreted by some in the media and by Obama himself as a direct criticism of Obama. Obama called the comments "a false political attack", and added that "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists," while Senator Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, said that Bush's comments were "demeaning to the presidency of the United States of America". Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, pressed for a clarification, stated that Bush's comments were "not specifically pointed to one individual," and that "all of you who cover these issues ... have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations".
As president
Not long after Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009, commentators began to speculate on the emergence of a distinct Obama Doctrine in action. A proposal to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, the rejection of the phrase "Global War on Terror", and the reconciliation with Russia through the abandonment of the anti-ballistic missile program in Poland and the Czech Republic, were taken as clear signs of a reversal of the principles of the Bush administration. Critics, such as Pat Buchanan, quickly derided these policies and criticized them for weakening the United States' foreign relations. In an op-ed, Buchanan argued that Obama was "ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it."
In early April 2009, American journalist Marc Ambinder predicted that the president, with time, would have to take a more pragmatic stance on the legal status of detainees. Meanwhile, professor of international politics Daniel W. Drezner suggested the Obama Doctrine was influenced by French philosopher Montesquieu, whose thinking, in Drezner's words, could be crudely summarised, "useless conflicts weaken necessary conflicts." In Drezner's interpretation, the Obama Doctrine was to abandon foreign policies that had proven fruitless and unpopular to focus on more important and pressing issues. On April 16, E. J. Dionne wrote a column for The Washington Post expressing a highly positive view of what he saw as the Obama Doctrine. The column came in the direct aftermath of the successful rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates. He defined the doctrine as "a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness." Dionne also pointed to the influence Reinhold Niebuhr has on Obama, and quoted Niebuhr's warning that some of "the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest" and that a "nation with an inordinate degree of political power is doubly tempted to exceed the bounds of historical possibilities."
Later that month, at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Obama was again asked the question he was asked during the campaign, of defining the Obama Doctrine. The president replied that "the United States remains the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth, but we're only one nation, and that the problems that we confront, whether it's drug cartels, climate change, terrorism, you name it, can't be solved just by one country." In addition, Obama expressed a desire for the U.S. to seek friendship with all, harkening back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy. "I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations," he said. "There is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values." Political policy analysts such as Ray Walser lamented this stance, arguing that portraying America as "equal" among the nations of the world would reduce its global stature.
National Security Strategy
In May 2010, the Obama administration issued a report outlining its National Security Strategy.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called democracy and human rights central to the strategy, adding that "We cannot sustain this level of deficit financing and debt without losing our influence, without being constrained about the tough decisions we have to make."
In his March 28, 2011, speech on justifying airstrikes against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, Obama stated the United States can use military force "decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests." He also stated that where U.S. interests are not directly threatened. Still, its ideals and values are threatened, or when there is a regional security crisis, the United States is willing to take a leadership role in intervention, provided that an international coalition shares the burden.
Economic and other sanctions were developed into a valuable and focused tool by the Department of the Treasury over the second Obama administration. They are the subject of a book by Juan Zarate, a former White House staffer. The aim is to shut off the market access of enemy banks, companies, and state bodies. The denial of access to bond markets can hurt the enemy. This was developed in the early years of the 21st century by practice against North Korea and later Iran. The relevant paragraph in the NSS reads as follows:
That is precisely the reason we should strengthen enforcement of international law and our commitment to engage and modernize international institutions and frameworks. Those nations that refuse to meet their responsibilities will forsake the opportunities that come with international cooperation. Credible and effective alternatives to military action—from sanctions to isolation—must be strong enough to change behavior, just as we must reinforce our alliances and our military capabilities. And if nations challenge or undermine an international order that is based upon rights and responsibilities, they must find themselves isolated.
Washington began isolating Vladimir Putin's Russia, slowly shutting off market access for Russian banks, companies, and state bodies with $714 billion of dollar debt. French, German, and British banks, amongst others, may feel some pain because they are involved in the Russian economy. Financial sanctions were the West's first response to Russia's annexation of Crimea and continued bellicosity toward the rest of Ukraine, a Treasury Department official bragged that the Treasury is "at the center of our national security," but sanctions have their detractors, such as Drezner. "Fifteen years ago, the idea that the Treasury Department would be at the center of our national security would have been inconceivable," Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing Daniel Glaser said in a 2014 interview. "But we have developed a whole new set of tools to put at the president's disposal." An in-depth Bloomberg report on Russian prospects and European tax-havens indicated that Putin associates might be in financial difficulty.
Deficit reduction plan and the "Defense Strategic Guidance" document
As part of his deficit reduction plan, Obama announced that security spending growth would be reduced by four percent from previously planned increases, holding the spending increases below the inflation rate. A great deal of this cost containment (in money and the loss of American service members) came from replacing massive land invasions with selective drone strikes or special operations missions that have resulted in the deaths of top terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden.
These limited resources will be focused and managed to "Ensure U.S. forces can defeat more than one enemy at once", while the previous Bush administration had only planned to "decisively" win in only one of two "near-simultaneous conflicts".
In a rare appearance at the Pentagon on January 5, 2012, Obama unveiled a far-reaching defense review under which thousands of troops were expected to be cut. The new strategy would end "long-term nation-building with large military footprints" and would instead pursue a national security strategy based on "smaller conventional ground forces". Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta emphasized the military would retain its ability to confront more than one threat at a time, and would be more flexible and adaptable than in the past. Obama had been closely involved with shaping the blueprint, and met with high-ranking defense officials six times over a quarter. The strategy shifted the Pentagon away from its long-standing doctrine of being able to wage two wars simultaneously. "Even when U.S. forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region, they will be capable of denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – an opportunistic aggressor in a second region. U.S. forces will plan to operate whenever possible with allied and coalition forces."