The Obama Doctrine-- Discussion Question

[Indhika Jayaratnam]

The Obama Doctrine: June 6th International Affairs event

How do you view President Obama’s “pragmatic” approach to the Arab
Spring, and how the Administration has based its policy on the
specific circumstances of each Arab Revolution? You can offer your own
opinions, and/or refer to comments made by the speakers – Richard
“Ozzie” Nelson from CSIS (Center for Strategic and International
Studies) and Caroline Wadhams from the Center for American
Progress.

[Petros Kusmu]

I don't want to divert too much from the original question, but I
truly believe that the killing or capturing of Osama Bin Laden was a
very important "card" that the United States could've played in
influencing Arab states with its principals. From an outsider's point
of view, America is seen as a modern, colonial country that screws
over other countries when it doesn't work towards its interests–
rendering it's attempts of promoting their "American rhetoric"
useless. Could you imagined how POWERFUL it would speak about American
principals of democracy and justice if Bin Laden was captured and put
on trial? It would speak volumes about America's rhetoric and would be
one of the strongest foreign policy actions since it'd give those who
spite America one major reason less to do so. Richard Nelson's (CSIS)
argument of (paraphrased) "Well he killed 3000 people, so I feel as if
it's pretty justified". My reply: Nuremberg Trials of '45-'46. Real
justice doesn't have exceptions. Justice is justice.


On Jun 6, 8:06 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Matt Mill]

I have been very pleased with the direction President Obama's foreign
policy has taken. The three D's that Secretary Clinton has espoused --
Defense, Diplomacy, and Development -- have been joined with a fourth;
Democracy. There are still major problems in the region, and in the
countries that have experienced the revolutions. In Egypt, for
example, the military is still in control of the country. More
disconcerting is the protracted civil war taking place in Libya, to
which the West is now committed. Real change in American policy is
generally incremental rather than revolutionary. By siding with the
people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen against oppressive
governments, even when some of those governments are American allies,
the President has improved the United States image. How strategically
pragmatic it would be to support similar developments in, say, Riyadh
is less clear.

[Jacob Bundy]

I believe Obama's "pragmatic" approach to the Arab Spring has been a
very appropriate and effective. This is an effective approach because
each situation and country has its own internal dynamics and issues so
they each need to be approached differently. One must also consider
international willingness to become involved in certain countries as
well as individual nation's self interests in a particular foreign
country. The US was able to aid militarily in Libya due to the UN
declaration and NATO support but has yet to commit to other countries
that have not received such international involvement. By taking all
of these variables into account, Obama has been able to make wiser
decisions when considering whether to become involved in a conflict.
As mentioned by Caroline Wadhams, the dwindling aid provided by other
nations in Afghanistan may lead the US the increase its expected
withdrawal rate of troops in order to follow suit. It is yet to be
seen whether this may actually prove to be detrimental to the progress
that has been made there.

[Moyo Kimathi]

Even though I find the Presidents approach to be just fine, it worries me to see the inconsistencies his policies are towards other countries and other leaders. It is good to note though that he is a no win situation. He cannot just sit and watch innocent civilians getting killed while protesting, but then again, the United States does not have the capacity to intervene in every uprising suppression.

Because he understands this, he has asked other nations to join and help up hold the right for people to speak out against the oppression inflicted by the government.

To me, his doctrine is make sure the world knows that the U.S will not go in it alone abut will require other governments to step up also; especially the powerful governments like France, the UK, Germany, Russia etc. This is what I believe Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wadhams were saying.

[Ivan Ho]

Most of the replies are espousing that Obama has some kind of approach to the situation in the Middle East and the Arab spring revolts, however I want to ask, did Obama really do anything? His "pragmatic" approach has him making comments without committing any real effort on the part of Americans. With Egypt, his staff were neutral on most issues and did not side with the Egyptian people overthrowing Mubarak for quite a long time. Obama was waiting for the situation to be clear whether or not to "support" the winning side. With Libya, other countries had petitioned the U.N, namely Europeans to enforce a no-fly zone and install ground troops. The U.S was hesitant to commit forces within Libya and Obama still has no clear plans at all.Thus, what has been Obama's approach? Is there an approach at all? One clear theme is that Obama is hesitant to commit to any actionable plan. He has simply waited for the situation to develop.

[Moyo Kimathi]

Looking at the two countries you pointed out; Egypt and Libya. For Egypt, Obama didn't have to commit any resources there because he never had to. The military refused to fire on it's own people and that was the fall of Mubarak. Not to mention the sanction placed on his regime by the US and other countries. The waiting paid off and he avoid over-extending the US.

On Libya, Obama didn't want another Iraq or Afghanistan where the US is taking the lead and doing the majority of the fight. The uprising came from with in and to respect that, the option to put "boots" on the ground would've undermined it and it a western sponsored uprising. No one wants that, not even the Libyans. Additionally, France had already shown that they were willing to take the lead on the issue, why not have them do that? It doesn't always have to be the US leading. Finally, in the patience, the international body (NATO) decided they were going to impose the no-fly zone and sanctions on Ghaddafi and his regime. The US committed planes that were and still are getting used for bombing and enforcement of the agreement/no-fly zone.

This US is not and I would even dare say will no longer be able to be the sole country commuting forces in international conflicts because the country is stretched too thin. Security and the enforcement of individual human rights is the responsibility of each country, not just the US. the responsibility should lie with the group of powerful nations instead of just one. And I believe that's the message (doctrine) Obama is sending.

[Alexander Henderson]

I have to agree with Ivan on this. It seems that Obama just seems to wait until there is a clear outcome before throwing his support behind the uprisings. He took an unreasonable amount of time to decide what his policy towards the Egyptian situation would be. He intervened in Libya only after the European nations had expressed intentions to take action. It seems like the only reason he decided to take action in Libya is because he won't be the person singled out and blamed on the international stage in the event that the military conflict in Libya backfires. Throughout his time in office it seems that Obama has been afraid to make any enemies within foreign governments. I believe this is because Obama has a strong desire to be America's "beam of light" and not become the globally disrespected figure that G. W. Bush had become after the invasion of Iraq. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to wish for friendly relationships with as many foreign governments in possible, but his fear of making foreign enemies has reached the point where it gets in the way of him being able to take quick and decisive actions. Although, it would be unrealistic to expect Obama to have a good foreign policy because he had virtually no foreign policy experience coming in to office.

[Ivan Ho]

"For Egypt, Obama didn't have to commit any resources there because he never had to. The military refused to fire on it's own people and that was the fall of Mubarak. Not to mention the sanction placed on his regime by the US and other countries. The waiting paid off and he avoid over-extending the US."

I never suggested that Obama should have commit any resources to Egypt. Obama was ambiguous on whether who he supported in Egypt and that is where the problem lies. Where is Obama's commitment? I call hypocrisy for all the democratic values he espoused, he waited for a clear winner. 

"On Libya, Obama didn't want another Iraq or Afghanistan where the US is taking the lead and doing the majority of the fight. The uprising came from with in and to respect that, the option to put "boots" on the ground would've undermined it and it a western sponsored uprising. No one wants that, not even the Libyans."

The Libyans don't want boots on the ground? Yet, they wanted air support to destroy Gaddaffi's forces? That's hypocrisy.  If by not a Western sponsored uprising, you mean it is a western sponsored uprising, then you madam are correct. The Libyan affair is completely sponsored and supported by not only Western countries, but by the Arab league as well. Now how does Obama fit in this?  The Europeans  were willing to lead the whole operation, but the UN needed US sponsor, especially since the US has the technological capacity to conduct a no-fly zone.

[Josephine Bahn]

I thought that one of the most interesting quotes from the speakers
this week came from Ozzie Nelson when he said, "I think we're doing
the right thing in Libya, I don't know what else to do." The criticism
that Obama sometimes takes seems irrational to me sometimes, when I
think, well would I have handled it differently, could I have handled
it differently? For someone who studies in depth the nature of Obama's
Administration, and can't seem to find another alternative, I find
myself struggling to do the same. In situations like the Arab Spring,
I find it utterly difficult to disagree with Obama's current course of
action. It seems to fit the times, and well, it's working for America
right now.

I also found Nelson's argument on what exactly a doctrine is to be a
bit astounding. He suggested that: "Most doctrines come out of
threats. Obama entered office already in threats." (i.e.: the economy
as well as the war, etc.) So the idea of pragmatism works. Nelson goes
on to say that he believes, "Obama will have to wait to the second
term, if he is lucky to be reelected, in order to develop his own
doctrine."

Both Nelson and Wadhams suggested that Obama leans towards the
"greater interdependence of people." Wadhams went on to say: "What
happens to those in other countries affects the US. People (countries)
have to work together, the US can't work alone. We no longer live in a
zero sum game." With these ideas in mind, it appears that Obama has
had to maintain the US prominence throughout the world, while
attempting to incorporate different, new, and rising states in the
process. A tall order for any person.

With these things in mind, I look forward to the completion of Obama’s
first term to see where exactly his policies will focus. Hopefully we
will not have to wait until the possible second term to see major
policy changes, like Nelson suggested.

On Jun 7, 6:15 pm, Ivan Ho <iv...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> "For Egypt, Obama didn't have to commit any resources there because he never
> had to. The military refused to fire on it's own people and that was the
> fall of Mubarak. Not to mention the sanction placed on his regime by the US
> and other countries. The waiting paid off and he avoid over-extending the
> US."
>
> I never suggested that Obama should have commit any resources to Egypt.
> Obama was ambiguous on whether who he supported in Egypt and that is where
> the problem lies. Where is Obama's commitment? I call hypocrisy for all
> the democratic values he espoused, he waited for a clear winner.
>
> "On Libya, Obama didn't want another Iraq or Afghanistan where the US is
> taking the lead and doing the majority of the fight. The uprising came from
> with in and to respect that, the option to put "boots" on the ground
> would've undermined it and it a western sponsored uprising. No one wants
> that, not even the Libyans."
>
> The Libyans don't want boots on the ground? Yet, they wanted air support to
> destroy Gaddaffi's forces? That's hypocrisy.  If by not a Western sponsored
> uprising, you mean it is a western sponsored uprising, then you madam are
> correct. The Libyan affair is completely sponsored and supported by not only
> Western countries, but by the Arab league as well. Now how does Obama fit in
> this?  The Europeans  were willing to lead the whole operation, but the UN
> needed US sponsor, especially since the US has the technological capacity to
> conduct a no-fly zone.
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Alexander Henderson

> <hende...@mail.gvsu.edu>wrote:

> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Moyo Kimathi <moyo.kima...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> Even though I find the Presidents approach to be just fine, it worries me
> >>> to see the inconsistencies his policies are towards other countries and
> >>> other leaders. It is good to note though that he is a no win situation. He
> >>> cannot just sit and watch innocent civilians getting killed while
> >>> protesting, but then again, the United States does not have the capacity
> >>> to intervene in every uprising suppression.
>
> >>> Because he understands this, he has asked other nations to join and help
> >>> up hold the right for people to speak out against the oppression inflicted
> >>> by the government.
>
> >>> To me, his doctrine is make sure the world knows that the U.S will not go
> >>> in it alone abut will require other governments to step up also; especially
> >>> the powerful governments like France, the UK, Germany, Russia etc. This is
> >>> what I believe Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wadhams were saying.
>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Indhika Jayaratnam <
> >>> indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>> The Obama Doctrine:  June 6th International Affairs event
>
> >>>> How do you view President Obama’s “pragmatic” approach to the Arab
> >>>> Spring, and how the Administration has based its policy on the
> >>>> specific circumstances of each Arab Revolution? You can offer your own
> >>>> opinions, and/or refer to comments made by the speakers – Richard
> >>>> “Ozzie” Nelson from CSIS (Center for Strategic and International
> >>>> Studies) and Caroline Wadhams  from the Center for American

> >>>> Progress.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Matt Mill]

On Jun 9, 4:12 pm, Josephine Bahn <josephine.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought that one of the most interesting quotes from the speakers
> this week came from Ozzie Nelson when he said, "I think we're doing
> the right thing in Libya, I don't know what else to do." The criticism
> that Obama sometimes takes seems irrational to me sometimes, when I
> think, well would I have handled it differently, could I have handled
> it differently? For someone who studies in depth the nature of Obama's
> Administration, and can't seem to find another alternative, I find
> myself struggling to do the same. In situations like the Arab Spring,
> I find it utterly difficult to disagree with Obama's current course of
> action. It seems to fit the times, and well, it's working for America
> right now.

While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying -- that human
beings have a moral responsibility to prevent atrocity when it is
preventable -- the line of thought you present here is a trap. "I

think we're doing the right thing in Libya, I don't know what else to

do" is the same justification as "well, somebody must do something."
What should be done and who should do it? Is there a moral
responsibility to intervene when the odds of success are unknown? If
the desired political outcome is to protect civilians from the effects
of political violence, then the air campaign has already failed. If it
is Qadaffi's ouster, then there has been mixed success. But what
happens when Qadaffi is swinging from a meathook in Tripoli? What are
the political goals of the rebels? Remember that this revolution,
unlike the ones in Egypt and Tunisia, has been violent from the very
start.