Is There An Obama Doctrine?
Based on Obama's speech, in which he explained the logic behind the intervention in Libya last Monday, several analysts were quick to derive an "Obama doctrine" on the use of U.S. military force abroad. This is possible because, unlike those in Afghanistan or Iraq, this war is not inherited.
Obama left little speculation time to columnists and pundits, because on Wednesday he rejected an interview with NBC on the existence of an "Obama doctrine". "I think it's important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of 'Obama doctrine' that we're going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board ... Each country in this region is different."
On this occasion, we must take Obama at his word; it is perfectly consistent with his track record. Unlike his predecessor, if anything characterizes this president it is his pragmatism and his search for specific solutions, beyond ideology, to every concrete problem, which has often provoked the ire of the American left. And foreign policy could not be an exception.
However, a number of principles that can be drawn from his speech can help us try to anticipate what his position on hypothetical military intervention will be in a moment of great fluidity in the region.
For starters, Obama gives great importance to the United Nations role in international crisis management and considers it important to preserve its legitimacy. This position is a recognition of the inability of the United States to "police the world," probably a lesson from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, this does not rule out unilateral acts in cases where national interests are at stake. "I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."
That is, in those scenarios, such as Libya, which do not threaten U.S. security, Obama said that, due to its greater logistical and military power, the U.S. role should be to "mobilize the international community for collective action."
Above all, this leadership responsibility would fall to the U.S. in situations in which they can avoid massacres that have "stained the conscience of the world." "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different," he said Monday.
We've seen by now how, to some extent, Obama is willing to apply these principles in other settings, such as Syria, where there could be a real bloodbath if the intensity of the protests increases. Certainly, the tools must be different in order to adjust to the reality of each country, but there must be a minimum consistency in principles if Obama wants to have credibility.
Obama left little speculation time to columnists and pundits, because on Wednesday he rejected an interview with NBC on the existence of an "Obama doctrine". "I think it's important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of 'Obama doctrine' that we're going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board ... Each country in this region is different."
On this occasion, we must take Obama at his word; it is perfectly consistent with his track record. Unlike his predecessor, if anything characterizes this president it is his pragmatism and his search for specific solutions, beyond ideology, to every concrete problem, which has often provoked the ire of the American left. And foreign policy could not be an exception.
However, a number of principles that can be drawn from his speech can help us try to anticipate what his position on hypothetical military intervention will be in a moment of great fluidity in the region.
For starters, Obama gives great importance to the United Nations role in international crisis management and considers it important to preserve its legitimacy. This position is a recognition of the inability of the United States to "police the world," probably a lesson from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, this does not rule out unilateral acts in cases where national interests are at stake. "I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."
That is, in those scenarios, such as Libya, which do not threaten U.S. security, Obama said that, due to its greater logistical and military power, the U.S. role should be to "mobilize the international community for collective action."
Above all, this leadership responsibility would fall to the U.S. in situations in which they can avoid massacres that have "stained the conscience of the world." "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different," he said Monday.
We've seen by now how, to some extent, Obama is willing to apply these principles in other settings, such as Syria, where there could be a real bloodbath if the intensity of the protests increases. Certainly, the tools must be different in order to adjust to the reality of each country, but there must be a minimum consistency in principles if Obama wants to have credibility.