obama doctrine

The fall of Aleppo might have brought some comfort to Kerry, who had spent months negotiating one failed cease-fire after
Bana Alabed should not die. She needs to live and prosper. In the meanwhile, the ratings-hungry media should leave Bana alone
The recent article in "The Atlantic" was disappointing in that it presents a portrait of a President who appears to have given up trying to deliver on the promise of his 2009 Cairo speech. He has resigned himself to an "unfixable" Middle East and "thrown in the towel", blaming the Arabs for this failure.
The American public has had enough of wars, doesn't know what to believe when politicians speak, and is more interested in taking care of things at home. This is not likely to change when the next president takes office, and Clinton and Trump know it.
I don't intend to vote for Donald Trump. But I don't intend to vote for Hillary Clinton either. Which puts me in a personal
"You don’t know, as you’re doing it, whether it’s stupid or not."
The political capital invested by the Obama administration and the Rouhani government gives us good reasons to be not only "cautiously optimistic" but "optimistic" regarding the Iranian nuclear crisis.
When crises emerge, critics charge that Obama should act more quickly and more aggressively, or they argue that no US interests are involved and the US should decline any intervention. Headlines often claim that the administration has no strategy, no doctrine, or no organizing principle. But for those who study the field, Obama's is an easily recognizable strategy.
The American public isn't exactly strongly supportive of Obama's foreign policy right now, but one thing the public really doesn't support is getting involved with any of the various conflicts raging over there. We are still -- again, according to the polls -- a pretty war-weary nation.