The Obama Doctrine

In contrast to the thesis -- much promoted by the president himself -- that he is not an ideologue but a pragmatic, Obama has laid out a strong new normative foundation for his foreign policy. He seeks to promote peace and security but leave democratization and liberalization to the people who find their regimes oppressive. This is in direct contrast to the Bush Neocon thesis that forced regime change is essential because only democracies are reliable partners in peace.

Obama officially unveiled his doctrine on his first day in office. One is entitled to read much in the following short lines, as every line in major presidential speeches, above all on inauguration day, are carefully crafted, reviewed, and checked one more time, precisely to ensure that they send the right signal. Obama stated: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Soon thereafter Obama ordered a full blown review of the war he declared as the central front of his administration, the war raging in Afghanistan. He concluded that the US goal in Afghanistan was not nation building; the US was no longer seeking to turn Afghanistan into a shining democracy, to build a civil society, and lay the grounds for a free market economy. The new goal was strictly security related: "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda."

Obama stuck to the same theme in Cario by stating: "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

The Obama doctrine was tested during the uprising in Iran following the June elections. As long as the demonstrations were peaceful, Obama chose to keep a low profile. Only when the regime used violence to suppress the demonstrations did Obama speak up, stating "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."

The new doctrine has been well received by those who recognize that our ability to re-engineer other societies is highly limited, and that our forces and resources are over extended, to put it mildly. That is, the doctrine makes sense on pragmatic grounds.

Still, one should not overlook that it also has a clear and strong normative underpinning. The observation that we value the right to life more than any other is reflected in the finding that in the criminal codes of all free nations, taking a life is punished much more severely than any other violation of rights. Moreover, ranking the value of life over most, if not all, other values reflects on the elementary but profound truth that the respect for all other rights depends on the sanctity of life. People who are shot dead gain little if they have right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and so on. In contrast, those whose lives are well protected can live to fight another day, to struggle to gain their other rights. Hence the profound value of promoting security first.

**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international affairs at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale, 2007). He can be contacted at [e-mail]. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html

Comments

[BillSamuel]

The "Obama Doctrine" represents American militarist imperialist attitudes taken to the extreme. Before, Presidents felt they had to put some moral gloss on their military adventures. Obama eschews any moral objective, and baldly claims that American security rests on the killing of people abroad. The denigration of the value of life is reaching its epitome.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was correct in stating that "America is the leading purveyor of violence in the world today." It is worse now then when King spoke more than 40 years ago.

Obama's unvarnished promotion of America's murderous ways abroad simply on their own "merits" represents the bottom of the slippery slope on which American has been on throughout its history.

Those who believe that if America is to survive and become a good nation it must turn from its imperialist and militarist ways must firmly oppose this Administration's cynical, amoral policies.

[DavidDial]

Obama seems to have learned from the mistakes, many of them understandable, of his predecessors in the post WWII era. We can only hope that his detractors will remove their ideological blinders and give his policies the support they need to work. The behavior and public comments of the neocons have not, so far, been either rational or helpful.

[argyle]

The doctrines of an administration are its actions, not its rhetoric. We didn't force regime change on Iraq in order to promote a reliable partner for peace. We invaded the weakest nation to have the most significant amounts of our most vital natural resource. A resource that is expected to dwindle rapidly in supply over the coming century, and of which no reliable replacement has yet been found. The "doctrines" you refer to are the apologists answer to the intellectual need to appease the common conscience by justifying the necessary.

I cannot fully identify myself as I am yet in the process of discovering who I am.

We never needed to steal Iraq's oil. We just needed them to sell it in dollars.

[DavidDial]

When you finally figure out who you are you will be too depressed by your own cynicism to identify yourself to anyone except your shrink.

[alumtrix]

I'm a pretty staunch republican but happen to agree with Obama's approach to foreign policy. I have absolutely no problem with coming into office and be willing to extend a friendly hand to anyone. However, you can not shake the other hand with your eyes closed and your mind set. I believe Clinton tried this with the Chinese and N. Korea and a decade later, we're suffering the consequences. The same can be said about Bin Laden in the 80's when the Afghans were fighting the USSR.

I believe we have this mind-set that we have to lead the world in every aspect. We're overall an incredibly strong country both economically and militarily. We can afford to step back and let the Germans, the French, the English and others pursue how to handle matters such as N korea and Iran. There will not be any different changes that would take place if we took a secondary role as opposed to leading.

[rjz]

I am skeptical that this doctrine will exist as a cornerstone of American policy. The Obama administration, through its commitment to the use of the military as an integral part of foreign policy, very much has the appearance of our nation interfering with or trying to control decisions of other nations. Just recently, the military budget provided for dramatic funding increases for AFRICOM. The extension of our military presence in yet another continent in the world does not appear as if we are leaving other countries to their own destinies. Our history in South America is replete with examples of us training para military groups. These groups, like in Honduras, have greatly altered the political landscape in those countries. At some point our Country will have to come to grips with the overuse of its military. We all know we would not tolerate bases of other powers in Canada, Mexico, or Cuba. So, why do we think we should have military bases all over the world.

[DavidDial]

Honduras is not in South America. Your description of our foreign policy isn't bad even though it is somewhat superficial but your grasp of geography diminishes your credibility.

[mrskorn]

He seeks to promote peace and security but leave democratization and liberalization to the people who find their regimes oppressive....

Why is he telling Israel what to do then? I don't believe he asked the pal government to accept Israel's right to exist, but he did tell Israel to "reflect" and stop any growth of 'settlements'. Shouldn't he leave them both alone and let them work it out?

[kcmookie]

That is quite a stretch considering the border in Isreal seems to shift regularly, not exactly telling their government how to be, but rather to consider working towards resolution.

[SybillaJo]

Mr. Etzioni - While agree with the point of view of your piece I have to wonder. I grew up as a child of the Reagan era of grand speeches and what I am truly confused by is the rights view that by taking a softer tone, not stance, but tone towards a matter that every President has faced, that Obama is somehow "making the country weaker." How is it that diplomacy has become a relic? When did bombs and stealth missions become the only way to protect us? Why this blind spot from the right? Why can they not admit that using force and going into Iraq was a mistake and W's way of avenging the assassination attempt on his father? Why are they afraid to look at their own failings? Why after only 6 months in office have they attacked Obama at every corner? No President is perfect, Obama will not be and Reagan surely wasn't, but my main question seems to come back to something I learned as a child, if you don't understand where someone is coming from, if you don't understand why they think, feel, see or express their views in a certain way - talk about it. What happened to the posters that I used to see that said "Violence is not the answer?" Have we become a nation of War mongers and profiteers?

[Billy Hell]

Consider this all in the context of recent events in Honduras. It's been extensively reported that the Obama administration was aware of the coup in Honduras days before the event. US interests in Honduras are also well known. Going with these known known's (thanks Rumie) the implication is he was choosing to "leave democratization and liberalization to the people who find their regimes oppressive"? Looks like selective application of "The Obama Doctrine" to me. Not intervening is as effective a social engineering tool in this situation as intervention is in others.

Let's face it, the real issue with the situation in Honduras has got nothing to do with what is in the best interests of the Honduran people and everything to do with limiting the reach of the "new bolivarian revolution" led by Chavez. The ultimate goal of course is the same old same old relentless push at control of resources...oil in particular.

[PunKinPai]

So what would you have Obama do?

[kcmookie]

Exactly. Go left, get criticized, go right, get criticized, do nothing, get criticized.....It is getting so old.

[S1m0n]

The "only democracies are reliable partners in peace" doctrine is totally belied by the facts.

President Bush's best allies in the middle east were the least democratic nations among their peers. At times, as in Palestine, the Bush White House went to the extent of fomenting a coup against the democratically elected government.

Bush supported democracy in name only: His actual interest in regime change had nothing to do with democracy.

[peterg76]

A "direct contrast to the Bush Neocon thesis" isn't necessarily a new ideology. Sometimes it's just reality.

[KofTX]

I agree whole-heartedly with your assesment of what President Obama's intent is in relation to what has taken place thus far. But I find that Obama is accurate to describe his world view as absent of any ideology. I am presuaded that given the current circumstances, we see a president who has made strong, smart diplomacy the cornerstone of advancing the country's interest abroad. However, if circumstances were more effectively managed by the deployment of overwhelming military force, I contend that President Obama, after a clear and coherent process of consideration, would act immediately to address the threat. For Obama, what have been the traditional definitions of conervative and liberal foreign policy do not fit so neatly onto what his presidency is beginning to look like.

[kcmookie]

Are you sure you are from TX?

[EminemsRevenge]

http://eminemsrevenge.xanga.com/707406458/obama-standing-on-the-verge/

From the looks of things...PRESIDENT Obama is about to ROCK the political universe as we know it!!!!

[libsRus]

That's what everyone said before the election, during the election, and after the election....

I wonder when something will actually get done that he takes responsibility for rather than leaving it all to Congress and playing it safe.

http://warmongerblog.com/