LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 23, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

A Call to Action

Bizarre, Apparently Jihadist Slaying in London (Video)

Hell on Earth for Greeks

Revenge of the Bear: Russia Strikes Back in Syria

Another Memorial Day in This Endless War

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * A Call to Action
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
States of Emergency: The Object of American Studies

States of Emergency: The Object of American Studies

By Russ Castronovo (Editor), Susan Gillman (Editor)

more items

 
Reports

The Obama Doctrine

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 16, 2009

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

    Let’s face it: If the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips had failed, the foes of President Obama’s foreign policy would have thrown the Book of Handy Jimmy Carter Epithets at him.

    Obama would have been called every name in that book: “feckless,” “weak,” “naive,” “powerless,” “irresolute,” “supine” and “spineless.” We know this because all those words had already been hurled at the president even before the Somali pirates grabbed Phillips.

    Two days before the rescue, John Bolton, President Bush’s U.N. ambassador, told Fox News that the episode offered “a clear case for the use of force by the United States,” then added: “I am very concerned, however, that both the administration and many of our friends in Europe have fallen into the trap of seeing this as a law enforcement question, which it most certainly is not.”

    This rote argument that conservatives have been using against liberals since Sept. 11, 2001, just happened not to be true. Obama didn’t say much. He just relied on the skill and bravery of our Navy SEALs.

    But if Obama’s critics were briefly silenced, they won’t stay quiet for long, and not just because the pirates, as they showed Wednesday, are not going away. The truth is that the president is moving American foreign policy in a new direction, and conservatives dislike what is becoming the Obama Doctrine.

Advertisement

    His doctrine departs from the previous administration’s approach by embracing a longer tradition of American foreign policy. Obama insists that the United States can’t achieve great objectives on its own, even though it is “always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone,” as he put it in Strasbourg, France.

    This may break with George W. Bush’s style—particularly at the level of rhetoric, and especially during Bush’s first term—but it is in keeping with the traditions of Roosevelt, Truman and George H.W. Bush. Obama insists that we do not have unlimited resources to do whatever we want, whenever we want to. We have to make choices. Thus is his buildup in Afghanistan premised on a gradual withdrawal from Iraq.

    And the Obama Doctrine seeks to regain the world’s sympathy by acknowledging that while the United States is a great nation built on worthy principles, we are not perfect.

    Obama’s willingness to point to our imperfection drives many conservatives crazy. Writing on Commentary magazine’s Web site, Peter Wehner, the director of strategic initiatives in the 43rd president’s White House, expressed his discomfort with “the ease and eagerness with which he [Obama] criticized the country he represents.” Wehner said he got “a queasy feeling” from “the growing sense that Obama is willing to denigrate America in order to boost his own personal popularity in other countries.”

    That Obama would run down his country for his personal benefit is a serious charge. It also ignores what Obama actually said and did.

    In his Strasbourg speech, Obama spoke of times “where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Is he wrong about that? Has everyone forgotten about “freedom fries” and “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”?

    But Obama offered his apology as a prelude to criticism of a European “anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious,” which failed to recognize “the good that America so often does in the world” and instead chose “to blame America for much of what’s bad.” Obama wasn’t aggrandizing himself. He was making a shrewd pro-American argument: We’ll acknowledge our mistakes, but you need to admit yours. 

    If I have qualms about the Obama Doctrine, they have to do with the relatively short shrift it has so far given to concerns over human rights and democracy. The United States cannot impose democracy everywhere, but we should stand up forcefully for democrats, political prisoners and human rights activists anywhere.

    Yet on the whole, Obama is simply paying heed to Reinhold Niebuhr, a thinker admired both by the president and by conservatives. Niebuhr warned that some of “the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest” and also that a “nation with an inordinate degree of political power is doubly tempted to exceed the bounds of historical possibilities.”

    The Obama Doctrine is a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power, but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness. Those are the limits that defenders of the recent past have trouble accepting. 

    E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.

    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By KDelphi, April 19, 2009 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHT—please stop this.You are making it very difficult for those of us with arthritis of the hands to scroll past you to read something interesting.

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 19, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Some people have to be born again because there was a serious brain defect when they were born the first time. And there is no way that anyone else can “get it” unless they obey them and do exactly as they say. Because there is no god but god and Mohammed is his prophet, or Christ is his only son, or his name is unknowable, or some other patriarchal warmongering twaddle. I hope all you religious zealots lay down your lives to kill each other off as soon as possible, for there may be no other way to rid the earth of your infestation.

I apologize for feeding the troll.

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 19, 2009 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

Dwight Baker, the highly credentialed, wrote:

“For it has been known since mankind came on the scene no greater love could be shown—-THAN ONE TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR A BROTHER…..that is just who you are——a convoluted cynical coward.  Not a real man at all.”

And now writes, “That is what brings us joy in knowing we have been chosen to WORK HIS WORK.  Beating the tools of war into plowshares.”

How could somebody be totally unaware that calling others cowards and belittling their manhood because they don’t want to “lay down their lives,” is NOT “Beating the tools of war into plowshares,” but fanning the flames of war?

Believers are not sane people. Once having trained themselves to, as Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen put it, “believe six impossible things before breakfast,” they are ready to believe anything—that war is peace, that the bureaucracy we call government, which was instituted by rich, slaveholding, founders of this country to ensure that the rich would always rule and the people would never have a voice, might count their votes or heed their petitions, even that credentials can substitute for common sense.

Isn’t there something in the patriarchal religions that says that a camel can sooner pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the gates of heaven? Everyone in Congress is rich. None of them are going to any patriarchal heaven (even if they believe that they are forgiven), and yet fools continue to vote for them, petition them, and in many cases lay down their lives for them and for their big corporate donors.

General Smedley Butler said that war is a racket. Millions and millions of people have died in wars during my lifetime, and the world has not improved at all. The wars continue, fools continue to kill the innocent and to lay down their own lives for corporate profits, and evangelicals egg them on, mocking their manhood and calling them cowards if they don’t.

Those who cannot think logically and who constantly contradict themselves, really should refrain from making ad hominem attacks on others. But in their confusion and desperation, they may not be aware of what they’re doing, and therefore cannot apologize.

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

I am indeed a dissident and a rebel, Dwight. Those who think that voting or petitioning Congress will get them anywhere, haven’t been paying attention.

What I wrote was, “Patriarchal religions are basically a breeding and recruiting tool for patriarchal militaries. Patriarchal militaries are at the service of governments, which are at the service of multi-national corporations. Have you ever read General Smedley Butler’s, ‘War is a Racket’?

All evangelical religions preach peace, but once they hook a sucker, what they offer is ‘not peace but a sword.’ There is no religion that preaches permaculture and turns swords into plowshares.”

And as soon as you started yammering about people laying down their lives, you proved my case.

Challenging their manhood to get them to kill strangers and risk dying themselves to make the Rockefellers of this world richer, works pretty well on teenyboppers, but it doesn’t work on people my generation who remember WWII. If you’re such a big man, why haven’t you laid down your own life yet, Dwight?

Somehow, I rather doubt than you could bully Scheer into laying down his life for Christ or Rockefeller either. Don’t your missionaries in the Congo try to evangelicize the youngsters so you can sell them to the militaries as child soldiers? That’s what other evangelicals and NGOs do in the Congo. Older people are a lot harder to persuade, often having seen enough people lay down their lives, with no perceptible improvement in the world to show for it, over and over and over and over. But if you think that a few million more unnecessary deaths will make Christ or Rockefeller happy, be my guest.

I’d say, “peace,” but I understand that’s against your religion, so I won’t insult you. Insults are another thing I leave to the young ‘uns.  wink

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, KDelphi. And he’s totally unaware that he just proved me right.

Well, the sooner he lays down his life, the less trolling we’ll have here. But I don’t think that’s his intention. The game is to get others to lay down THEIR lives. If I had my way, all evangelicals should have to wear a sign and ring a bell, warning people that a military recruiter was nearby.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 18, 2009 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

good gawd..

Report this

By KDelphi, April 18, 2009 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

Mark—Saw the preacher. Religion is part of the reason the US is so conservative. Other “free” countries have outpeaced us so fast in recent years, when you visit there, you feel like an American Idiot. I did.

You do not see ministers and other religious figures at the inaugurations of prime ministers and other figureheads in other ‘free” countries. Americans talk about religious “fanatacism” is Islama and then fail to see the “log in their own eye”

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 18, 2009 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

KDelphi, what we in America usually call neo-conservatives, are called neo-liberals by most of the rest of the world. Different terms but the same animal. By their expansionist, militarist, and predatory capitalist actions shall ye know them.

Dwight Baker, I suppose it has never occurred to you that some people do not wish to be bondservants, neither of Christ nor man, and that we have no business being in the DRCongo.

Did you look at that video of the preacher who was beaten by the Border Patrol?

Very confused guy. He doesn’t seem to understand that the purpose of patriarchal religions is to teach submission and obedience to authority, and that by defending his Constitutional rights and defying the Border Patrol, he is failing to render unto Ceasar and setting a poor example for his sheeple.

We cannot export democracy because we have none to export. We cannot export financial stability and acumen because we have none to export. We cannot export religion because none of the evangelical religions follow the Golden Rule: do not try to convert others to your beliefs unless you would wish to be converted to their beliefs.

For believers, both religious and political, when things go right it is proof that their beliefs are correct, and when things go wrong, it is a test of their faith. So no matter what happens, believers continue to believe.

I suggest you read Colby and Dennett’s book, “Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil,” and explore some of the writings about managed inequality in Africa by Keith Harmon Snow on his website, http://www.allthingspass.com/

I lived for almost five years in Afghanistan, and one of the most interesting things I learned was the origin of the word “guru.” It has come to mean teacher or mentor, but originally it meant “we look.” For people in different circumstances, the answers are different. This is not a “one size fits all” world. We are not the chosen people, we do not have the one truth, and unless we learn to abide by the Golden Rule, and to treat others, their customs, their religions, and their cultures, with the same respect that we would want from them, there will never be peace.

Patriarchal religions are basically a breeding and recruiting tool for patriarchal militaries. Patriarchal militaries are at the service of governments, which are at the service of multi-national corporations. Have you ever read General Smedley Butler’s, “War is a Racket”?

All evangelical religions preach peace, but once they hook a sucker, what they offer is “not peace but a sword.” There is no religion that preaches permaculture and turns swords into plowshares.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 18, 2009 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Yep. Got them teenagers…feel good time in ‘Merka.Yee-haw!! I havent heard a thing from the rich of the uS, China and the EU that we kill for, so that they can have bluefin sushi, but not for long, because we are running out. Same for shark fin and tiger penis soups and edible gold…(in that kids are running out of arms to lose…)

Mark E. Smith—Umm, yeah, that about sums it up. Except, he is not a ‘conservative”—he is a neo-liberal, who loves Pres. Obama MADLY! (He probably also likes Clinton alot) Very good points…I will go look at the link…

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 17, 2009 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

Wanna see the Obama doctrine at work?

Obama has ensured that nobody will be prosecuted for torturing American citizens. This is fascism and we have no more rights.

Watch this video: Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol - 11 stitches

Look at how many comments say there’s nothing wrong with what was done.

Report this

By Erroll, April 16, 2009 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

E.J.Dionne seems to believe that it is a good thing that “The Obama doctrine is a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power, but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness.” One must marvel at this dose of rationalization [if not self-delusion] of a liberal interventionist regarding the role of a president who is also a liberal interventionist. One also suspects that the Afghans and the Pakistanis would take issue would Mr. Dionne’s characterization of Obama’s use of practical limits and self-awareness especially when they involve air attacks against innocent Afghans and Pakistanis.

Obama’s claim as being an agent of hope would certainly not seem to apply to any hope given to those Afghans and Pakistanis who have had their loved ones blown to bits by liberal interventionists like Barack Obama despite Mr. Dionne’s protestations to the contrary.

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, April 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Gee, you make it sound like killing three teenagers who were trying to help stop the illegal fishing and toxic waste dumping off their coast by developed countries, was a good thing.

Just like you tried to make Obama’s plan to give more money to insurance companies instead of having the single-payer health care system most Americans want, is a good thing.

Do you also think Obama’s bailouts are a good thing?

What about his increasing the defense budget?

Do you approve of Obama’s defense of illegal wiretapping?

I don’t really understand what a right-winger like yourself is doing on TruthDig, E.J. Dionne, but right-wing policies are not beyond criticism just because a Democrat does them.

Obama voted for the Bush/Cheney agenda as a Senator, and is continuing and expanding upon that agenda as President. Are you simply opposed to freedom of speech and believe that no matter what a President of either party does, they should not be criticized, or are you okay with criticizing Republicans, but not Democrats, for the exact same policies?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.