Why the “Obama Doctrine” Stinks

Last night’s debate was a rather worthless affair. McCain made some strong points near the end on issues of foreign policy, but his bumbling and rambling during the economic portion was difficult to watch. It doesn’t help that some of McCain’s economic policies are appalling, and I plan to write about McCain’s terrible mortgage plan later today, but for now, let’s talk about the “Obama Doctrine.”

I thought Obama preformed adequately at the debate last night; he sounded able and confident, and even looked presidential walking around the stage. Unfortunately, these recent debates have not forced Obama to deal with the conflict inherent in his foreign policy vision: when and where the U.S. should intervene militarily. McCain never pressed him as to what specifically Obama’s interventionism is going to look like, or why it would produce radically different results than interventions over the last 10 years.

Christopher Hitchens recently wrote a piece on why Obama was right about Pakistan, and he correctly identified that,

“Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the “good” war in Afghanistan with the “bad” one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can’t quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he’s ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.”

We may agree that the U.S. needs to enter Pakistan if an opportunity to hit Al-Qaeda presents itself, but entering their territory without their government’s permission may force those unhappy with the newly elected Pakistani government to create unrest and even move to overthrow the regime. Let’s not forget that the U.S. is deeply unpopular in Pakistan, and the fact that a simple military action into Pakistan can spin the political situation in the country out of control is something Obama isn’t adequately addressing. We may end up with a situation in Pakistan (and Afghanistan) far worse than what we have seen in Iraq.

That isn’t to say that Obama’s policy is wrong; I believe that the US will likely do (and should do) what it needs when dealing with terrorist groups undermining the Afghan and Pakistani governments. I would like to ask all Obama supporters, if a war in Pakistan becomes as costly as the one in Iraq, will they still believe it is the “good” war?

It is not just the unwillingness of Obama supporters to address this fact that makes me uneasy about an Obama presidency; His murky stance on the use force to stop genocide is just as feeble. Obama may argue that the United States must intervene to stop crimes against humanity from occurring, yet he is both unwilling to admit that our actions in Iraq were rooted in that very logic, and also fails to recognize that intervention means a long term commitment that may have unintended consequences. Even small peace keeping missions can turn into assignments where our military is forced to do more than bring a physical presence. Both the United Nations Operation in Somalia and the American military intervention there failed to bring peace or stability, for reasons completely within the world’s control. The WSJ writes:

“The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started [in Somalia]. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation. Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland.”

This should be a lesson etched into Barack Obama’s mind, and why his Iraq policy has been, and continues to be wrong. Obama, when it suits him, claims that the U.S. cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems, and argues that even if the removal of our troops in Iraq led to genocide, he would not change his position. Yet, as David Weigel Points out for Reason magazine:

“[Obama] has called for, or retroactively endorsed, interventions in Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Sudan. He has advocated a humanitarian-based foreign policy for his entire public career. Since coming to the U.S. Senate in 2005, he has built up a brain trust of academics and ex-Clintonites who, like him, challenge the logic of the Iraq war but not the logic of wars like Iraq.”

I am in favor of interventionism, and so while I tend to agree that the U.S. should involve itself in the conflicts pushed for by Obama, it is maddening to see him and other Democrats condemn the mission in Iraq, even when they were once some of the strongest supporters of liberating the nation from Saddam’s control. Obama is basically arguing that he is in favor of interventionism, as long as it doesn’t require much of a commitment from the United States. Or worse, that he is for interventionism as long as it wasn’t started by a Republican administration. Obama wants it both ways; he wants to take the moral high road when it comes to past crimes against humanity and why the U.S. should have involved itself, and yet asserts that our current missions to do such things are wrong and unimportant.

It seems like Obama can’t even keep these diverging tangents in his policy from getting the best of him. He mentioned in the recent town hall debate that,

“If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.”

How can he possible mutter these words, and at the same time concede that he would have pulled out of Iraq knowing that his policy would bring about that very occurrence? Perhaps Obama is only committed to past tragedies that don’t require him to take decisive action.

If this is the future of the United States under the “Obama Doctrine”, then I have serious misgivings about the use of American power and influence under his presidency.

(Cross posted at But, I am a Liberal!)