obama doctrine

On Syria, Kerry adopted a policy that was surface-level ambitious but hollow from the inside. With Iranian courtship in full
Bana's tragedy was taken up by the global media as a perfect analogy for the Syrian crisis. A sweet little girl with a bright
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.
The president's promise on mass killings is now being tested once again, as he considers the plight of Iraqi members of the
Never before in the history of the United States has there been such a yawning gap between the rhetoric of American power and its application abroad.
The United States should use the 300 soldiers who are on their way to Iraq to stiffen its allies spines and to generate collective action to fight the forces of evil now set loose in the Middle East. America can help with this endeavor, but the heavy lifting must be the responsibility of America's Middle East Allies.
If the War Party wins in 2016, all bets are off. We will prepare to fight in the Eurasian heartland, the South China Sea, and the resource-rich lands of Africa -- because if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here. Just when it seemed like we were about to give peace a chance, the United States will suddenly revert to a three-war doctrine.
I believe that President Obama is probably handling world events about as well as they can be handled. He seems to have a good feel for American public opinion. And he appreciates the complexity of the global order.
A few writers saw Obama's speech at the General Assembly as an effort to craft an "Obama Doctrine." In fact, it was anything but a new "doctrine." Instead of framing hard fast answers, the President asked tough questions.
President Obama appears ready to declare an end to America's war on radical Islam. Yet the jihadists remain at war with us. In time, we will learn whether the Obama Doctrine puts the United States, and her allies, on the winning side of this epic conflict.
The president's foreign policy has certainly been "smart" from a domestic political point of view. The president has effectively removed foreign policy as a Republican talking point. But in its actual effects overseas, it has been anything but smart.
2011-11-29-20111107bothsidesnow.jpg Huffington-Matalin debate U.S. military policy in Iran, Syria and Afghanistan after a decade of costly failures. Do war whoops resemble pre-Vietnam, pre-Iraq? And did St. Rick jump the shark by being so stridently anti-contraception and college?
It is possible that President Obama is reverting back to a new version of Wilsonian diplomacy in order to let the Arab world sort itself out, instead of directly affecting the outcome with U.S. intervention.