The Obama Doctrine
Barack Hussein Obama is making fundamental changes to America's defense policies. The president, who kept his word on pulling American troops out of Iraq, is now making preparations to withdraw from Afghanistan as well. According to the most recent updates from the Department of Defense, the U.S. will no longer be fighting in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013. The Pentagon's plan is to withdraw from Afghanistan step-by-step, gradually putting responsibility on the shoulders of Afghanis.
The U.S. is also reluctant to get into any new adventures. For instance, the U.S. was hardly front-and-center in the Libya operations. The U.S. isn't in a hurry to act in Syria, either. Rather than playing the military lead, it is acting in step with other countries.
America Lost
Looking at these events, it's clear that Obama is trying to bring an end to an era. Obama believes that America has been on the losing end of these military interventions abroad. By waging heavily-armed, one-sided campaigns, the U.S. not only lost its friends, but also failed to reach its military targets. Most importantly, the American economy was the real loser in these wars. Despite what many may think, the U.S. is not selling weapons to both sides and making a huge profit. Perhaps weapons traders might be winning — but not America. Any economist in their right mind knows that the primary trigger of the economic crises was the trillions of dollars lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For this reason, Obama wants to reduce the Defense Department's budget by at least $485 million over the next 10 years.
Some say that this new doctrine brings the September 11 era to a close. Though this assessment might be true, Obama is actually doing much more; he is making more fundamental changes to U.S. defense policy than those made in the wake of the Cold War.
Following the Cold War, the U.S. moved from a “struggle with Communism” to “a struggle for humanity” and “supporting democracies.” As a result of this policy, the U.S. has been able to work heavily in humanitarian aid and the prevention of massacres in areas like Iraq, Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans — just to give the most concrete examples. This approach of “interventionism” was used heavily by Republican president Bush as well as the Democratic Clinton.
A New Doctrine
Unlike before, the foundation of the Obama Doctrine is the avoidance of conventional, direct conflict — at least unilaterally. Instead, the emphasis will be on intelligence, undercover operations and international cooperation. Solving issues in problem regions will rely on surgical strikes, as well as local and regional forces. In this context, Obama is using unmanned drones even more than his predecessor, Bush. Although Obama didn't invade Iraq, Libya's Gadhafi and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak were ousted during his tenure. Basher al-Assad, however, is like a bothersome toothache. In all of these examples, the secrets to success were arming local forces, winning the trust of regional powers and sharing the political and material burden of the operations with allies. From now on, the U.S. will use the same strategy and avoid entering large military operations unilaterally.
Certainly, the struggle with al-Qaida and similar organizations will remain within U.S. defense policy. The Obama administration, however, sees the central priority given to this threat in the years following the September 11 attacks as an “exaggeration.” If we're talking about responding to threats from abroad, Obama's foreign policy advisors say that the real threat to America's global leadership is China, and that defense policy should shift from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region.
It's unclear as to whether the U.S. will remain in the Middle East or shift toward China in the coming decade. One thing is for certain, however: It isn't easy to be a world leader with a relatively weak economy. For this reason, the U.S. is more concerned with what's going on internally rather than externally.
The U.S. is also reluctant to get into any new adventures. For instance, the U.S. was hardly front-and-center in the Libya operations. The U.S. isn't in a hurry to act in Syria, either. Rather than playing the military lead, it is acting in step with other countries.
America Lost
Looking at these events, it's clear that Obama is trying to bring an end to an era. Obama believes that America has been on the losing end of these military interventions abroad. By waging heavily-armed, one-sided campaigns, the U.S. not only lost its friends, but also failed to reach its military targets. Most importantly, the American economy was the real loser in these wars. Despite what many may think, the U.S. is not selling weapons to both sides and making a huge profit. Perhaps weapons traders might be winning — but not America. Any economist in their right mind knows that the primary trigger of the economic crises was the trillions of dollars lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For this reason, Obama wants to reduce the Defense Department's budget by at least $485 million over the next 10 years.
Some say that this new doctrine brings the September 11 era to a close. Though this assessment might be true, Obama is actually doing much more; he is making more fundamental changes to U.S. defense policy than those made in the wake of the Cold War.
Following the Cold War, the U.S. moved from a “struggle with Communism” to “a struggle for humanity” and “supporting democracies.” As a result of this policy, the U.S. has been able to work heavily in humanitarian aid and the prevention of massacres in areas like Iraq, Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans — just to give the most concrete examples. This approach of “interventionism” was used heavily by Republican president Bush as well as the Democratic Clinton.
A New Doctrine
Unlike before, the foundation of the Obama Doctrine is the avoidance of conventional, direct conflict — at least unilaterally. Instead, the emphasis will be on intelligence, undercover operations and international cooperation. Solving issues in problem regions will rely on surgical strikes, as well as local and regional forces. In this context, Obama is using unmanned drones even more than his predecessor, Bush. Although Obama didn't invade Iraq, Libya's Gadhafi and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak were ousted during his tenure. Basher al-Assad, however, is like a bothersome toothache. In all of these examples, the secrets to success were arming local forces, winning the trust of regional powers and sharing the political and material burden of the operations with allies. From now on, the U.S. will use the same strategy and avoid entering large military operations unilaterally.
Certainly, the struggle with al-Qaida and similar organizations will remain within U.S. defense policy. The Obama administration, however, sees the central priority given to this threat in the years following the September 11 attacks as an “exaggeration.” If we're talking about responding to threats from abroad, Obama's foreign policy advisors say that the real threat to America's global leadership is China, and that defense policy should shift from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region.
It's unclear as to whether the U.S. will remain in the Middle East or shift toward China in the coming decade. One thing is for certain, however: It isn't easy to be a world leader with a relatively weak economy. For this reason, the U.S. is more concerned with what's going on internally rather than externally.