The Obama Straw Man Doctrine
The false choice between war and peace.
In Manila yesterday, Fox News’ Ed Henry asked President Obama to explain the Obama doctrine.
As Obama faces increasing criticism from all sides regarding the efficacy of his foreign policy, he first scoffed at the question responding, “Well Ed, I doubt I’ll have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine.”
The President then proceeded to go into a long-winded explanation highlighting several foreign policy endeavors, including Ukraine and Syria.
President Obama also took aim at his critics and, true to form, the policies of the Bush administration. [Emphasis Added]
Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?
Despite insinuating that critics of his foreign policy are essentially war-mongers, the President had trouble finding examples where the criticism of his foreign policy centered on a lack of American boots on the ground.
The President first started with Syria. [Emphasis Added]
So if you look at Syria, for example, our interest is in helping the Syrian people, but nobody suggests that us being involved in a land war in Syria would necessarily accomplish this goal. And I would note that those who criticize our foreign policy with respect to Syria, they themselves say, no, no, no, we don’t mean sending in troops. Well, what do you mean?
He then moved on to Ukraine and Russia.[Emphasis Added]
And Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world. And we’ve been able to mobilize the international community to not only put diplomatic pressure on Russia, but also we’ve been able to organize European countries who many were skeptical would do anything to work with us in applying sanctions to Russia. Well, what else should we be doing? Well, we shouldn’t be putting troops in, the critics will say. That’s not what we mean. Well, okay, what are you saying?
Somehow, the President thinks his critics are simultaneously telling him to send troops in to these foreign policy situations, and keep them out. Why might this be?
CNN’s Jake Tapper had a panel to discuss the response, and the New York Times’ Johnathan Martin offered a possible explanation for the President’s contradictory response.
Politically it serves him well to keep up the sort of anti-Bush pose — here we are six years on after Bush — that’s always been their response, “Oh do you want to go back to the days of Bush and preemptive war.” But of course, it’s much more nuanced than that.
Even within the traditional bastions of steadfast Obama support like the New York Times, it seems the “blame Bush” strategy may finally have run its course.
I wouldn’t expect the President to deviate from it too soon, however. After all, old habits die hard.
(Featured Image Source: YouTube)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Obama’s foreign policy doctrine is the same as espoused by Shrillary during the Clinton years: diminish America at every turn because she doesn’t deserve to be the lone superpower. Then he goes one better: lie to everybody so nobody trusts the USA.
Or at least so they will never again trust Dems.
Hey Professor, is that a bendy straw or a twisty straw?
I’ve said it before: Straw Man is Baracula’s favorite person in the world…second only to himself.
Straw Man gets paraded nearly every day. In addition to being essentially a lie, it is also just getting really, really old.
Don’t forget those Straw Men Wars On Stick Women!
More excellent deconstruction of Obama’s foreign policy in National Review online today.
4-point summary, with apologies to Victor Davis Hansen:
1. Bush bad.
2. Obama noble and iconic (mixed-race ancestry and name).
3. US bad.
4. “the towering personality of Barack Obama.”
Now, no foreign policy from “the leader of the free world.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376725/foreign-policy-bad-none-victor-davis-hanson
There is no foreign policy.
Never has been. Moreover, on a day to day, issue to issue basis, even were there some guidelines and goals, Obama and minions still would be unqualified and incompetent. Making matters worse, as the other commentators above have basically pointed out, into that void is being applied Obama’s negative attitude toward the U.S.
I kinda have to disagree.
Sure, the best description of The Obama Doctrine is “ad hoc”. They have no core American values, so they just make stuff up as seems good-ish in the moment.
Conversely, Obama made clear in the very beginning with the Cairo speech that his attitude towards Islam was one of admiration and conciliation…if not outright obsequiousness. Certainly typified by “magic thinking”.
Israel has always been the American analog in the Mid-East, and Obama has no love for America. Ergo, Israel is the historical oppressor and aggressor who “can do better”.
As we saw in both South America and Iran in the early days, Obama’s support for dictators can be counted on, and freedom movements are ignored.
So, all things considered, that is sort of a de facto foreign policy.
Okay. I said “negative attitude toward U.S.”, because it goes beyond the obsequiousness to all things Islam. You’re clearer on that, however; no disagreement.
There is a foreign policy: America the Great Satan. Israel the Little Satan. Both must be cut down to size.
My personal take: he was born / brought up missing what I’m calling “the American gene.” This gene leads you to:
Help the good guys win
Make life better than how you found it
Know the difference between right and wrong.
He got his world view from his far left mother, father and grandparents / his Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis / his Ivy League Marxism / his Black Liberation Theology from Rev. Wright / add Alinsky Cloward Piven Ayers etc. Mix in affinity (his time as Barry Soweto in Indonesia?) for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Maybe there’s an Obama Doctrine in there.
Not so much: support countries that value the rule of law and economic freedom, honor US treaties, protect the homeland, give succor to allies. Be good to your word. Best offense is a good defense. Plan far far ahead. Be prepared for all possible contingencies. Speak softly. Big stick.
Obama wouldve been avoidable had we had a press willing to be free and do its constitutional duty.
Obama has zero, that is, no conscience.
So every bad act is considered a win in his eyes.
“why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?”
_____________________________
LOL. Obama’s worried about wasting taxpayer money? Funny, but it doesn’t seem to bother him when his administration pays out tens of billions of tax dollars every year in “tax credits” to illegal aliens, or when it pays out tens of billions of tax dollars in Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits to illegal aliens, or when it pays out tens of billions of tax dollars in food stamps to illegal aliens, etc.
Somehow, spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year on welfare benefits for foreign fraudsters and crooks is perfectly okay under the “Obama doctrine,” but spending to provide security for our diplomatic and/or military personnel overseas, or to protect allies, is just wasteful and crazy!
Strawmen, strawmen, dancing ’round the clown
Who set them all up just to shoot them all down.
What Statesman in history has ever stood up & said he will not fight under any circumstances apart from Obama, Kerry & Neville Chamberlain (“…a small place, far away…”)?
The techniques he has used to cow the American people (Raids by the IRS, EPA & the like) will not work with the likes of Putin & Assad (I’m laughing as I type).
This guy has still got over three years to go in office. Worse is to come. Much much worse.
The Obama Doctrine: Cowardice in the face of your foreign enemies, using the force of government against your domestic enemies.
The Obama Straw man doctrine is one reason why straw man Kerry is out doing his ‘thing’ – telling the world that global warming is the greatest crisis we face in our time.
The topic is so out there that no one could get ever get a handle on the nonsense. With it, there is no one to blame. Climate happens. Hence, Obama is free and clear of any ownership of any foreign policy doctrine.
Behind all of this, everywhere Obama looks there is colonialism and he detests colonialism. That’s why Winston Churchill was sent packing.
To Obama ownership is colonialism, colonialism is ownership. Industry, global industry, is also considered colonialism. Even owning a foreign policy is colonialism to Obama. Owning up to the truth of what he has done is colonialism. It is seen as usurping his ‘freedom’.
Collectivism & climate change on the other hand makes it easy to spread the blame around – no ownership of property and no responsibility. His is a ganja foreign policy.
Obama needs serious counseling.
This video explains Obama better:
http://youtu.be/003vkFedcQ0
It does. Thank you. It’s a must-watch.
Isn’t that the same straw man Ron Paul and his supporters use? Of course, they both view the world the same way.
Can you all tell me the last successful foreign policy endeavor was????
No answer just criticize criticize after all none of us would go fight in Syria or Moscow we send all the 19 year olds to sacrifice life And limb
The bush doctrine bomb the hell out of third world countries and mess up the countries economy all so your buddies and Boeing and Raytheon can get rich and you can blame the next president for the recession.