The Obama Doctrine – is there one?

Posted by on March 29, 2011 11:21 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories: 2012 Campaign

Lee’s Summit, March 29, 2011 – The more I hear what the pundits have to say on television about the new Obama Doctrine, the more confused I get:
Wolf Blitzer on CNN said “…the clearest form of what we can call the Obama Doctrine, when to deploy US military forces around the world…”
David Gergen a political analyst on CNN said “…the emerging Obama Doctrine.  Unless we are directly threatened, he’s only going to use force in extremely limited circumstances…”
Ed Hornick on CNN Politics said “…The U.S. can intervene in conflicts overseas “when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are,” he said. Case in point: The potential slaughter of Libyans rebelling against Col. Moammar Gadhafi.…”
Eliot Spitzer said “…there is the beginning of a doctrine about how President Obama views the use of force…”
Denis Kucinich said about the speech, “…this is a new Obama Doctrine, which is that you act on threats…”
Piers Morgan on CNN summed up my feelings – not about the speech, but the supposed Doctrine when he said “…It’s an unusual Doctrine…”
The experts can’t figure out what the Obama Doctrine is, so how are we mere mortals supposed to figure it out?
What happened (as Hornick points out in his article) to the simplicity of the Monroe Doctrine that warned European powers to stay out of affairs in the Western Hemisphere?  Or George W Bush’s doctrine that the US will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise its right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against terrorists?
Ronald Reagan had a simple and very consistent doctrine that he outlined in his 1985 State of the Union Address “We must stand by all our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives — on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua — to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth”
No, our current president is still searching for his Presidential personality, and so far in the challenges we’ve faced – whether foreign policy, or the national debt – he has been taciturn about the tough decisions; thus the 9 day delay in speaking to the American people, and his avoidance of seeking congressional approval.
Some of the right wing pundits call it a regime and his totalitarian mentality, even Chicago style politics.  I see it very differently, I see it as a human being struggling with the harsh reality that he must do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons – regardless of personal consequence.  In fact, he has a hard time with the last part of it; it chides his political side too much.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Lee’s Summit Conservative