The New Republic

I am still puzzled by this obsession with determining the "Obama Doctrine". Doctines, especially ones that are inflexible (if succinctly characterisable by Journalists) are surely *not* what we would want in an FP? Perhaps Obama's "Doctrine" is to only pursue the things that are important to him, and that he is likely to achieve? Scolding Saudi Arabia doesn't strike means being particularly useful, and it's not like Obama is departing from tradition there. There are a number of other questionable statements in the article: "when we do use force, he wants it to be only where it looks easy and the rest of the world approves" Afghanistan has been popular and easy? And of course, there are no other reasons we're not wading into Syria! "Obama’s America, however, is turning from leader to facilitator, from agent to observer of history, who might wade in, or might not." It would help if Joffee could provide some examples of where Obama's predecessors "would always" wade in. This is the sort of thing that sounds clever with hindsight, but is really a uselss observation. Even Bush didn't roll into Damascus or Tehran. "Diffidence does not deliver." Was this written before Obama got Osama?

- Nari224

May 24, 2011 at 12:44am

“I am still puzzled by this obsession with determining the "Obama Doctrine". Doctines, especially ones that are inflexible (if succinctly characterisable by Journalists) are surely *not* what we would want in an FP?” There is a big difference between a consistent and principled foreign policy and an “inflexible” one. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, had principled foreign policies which they carried out with firmness as well as flexibility. Kennedy stood up to Soviet threats but he also compromised when necessary.

- arnon

May 24, 2011 at 12:54am

Obama's basic approach is to do what we can where we can after carefully weighing our interests, principles, opportunities and obstacles. In a very complicated, multi-polar world, it is justifiably very context-specific. So sometimes he takes calculated risks to be an "agent of history" (to use Mr. Joffe's terminology), as in the Libyan intervention, the way we went after bin Laden, and a Middle East speech that tried to nudge forward a peace process important to U.S. security and necessary for Israel's long-term survival. And he recognizes that for some countries and issues we have little or no sway over the course of history. In either event, unlike his hapless predecessor whose consistent mix of arrogance and ignorance the author might prefer, Obama sees that our policies and actions must be reality-based. This is not to say that Obama always gets everything right. No president does. But like many of his more successful predecessors he is learning on the job in dealing with a diverse array of challenges, no two exactly alike. Mr. Joffe characterizes the Obama Doctrine as "choosy engagement." I'd call it wisdom.

- Thunderroad

May 24, 2011 at 3:28am

"American political rhetoric is always about cadences that oscillate between the lofty and the profane, yet all of Obama’s predecessors since FDR have weighted their baskets in favor of American power and principle." No they haven't. Truman didn't apply that weight to Czechoslovakia in '48, Eisenhower didn't apply it to the GDR in '53 or to Hungary in '56, Nixon didn't apply it to Czechoslovakia in '68, Nixon didn't apply it to Poland in '70, Reagan didn't apply it to Poland in '80. The entire history of the Cold War in Europe was an American bending of principle to accept the presence of Soviet power as it stood practically, while -- no argument here -- declaring where its principles would be in an ideal situation. But that is in many ways the perspective Obama has taken on the Middle East and Iran.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2011 at 3:43am

Arnon: Webster: doctrine, n "a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations" The purpose of articulating such a statement (at least in the terms I understand Joffee is looking for, as opposed to say the Monroe Doctrine) is to communicate the things you will not tolerate to others. Ergo, if it is to mean anything it straightjackets you to some extent, or it communicates that there are certain things that you are unlikely to be flexible upon. Since Obama is operating in a period of declining relative American power, not to mention 2.5 wars, some ambiguity probably serves us well. He is also unlikely to be able to project the same image of dangerous uncertainty as his predecessor, but uncertainty is still presumably something he seeks. Anyway, anyone who we care about is going to make their own judgements, irrespective of the President's public statements, so the whole thing is a bit meaningless other than as a feel good exercise. That is not without value, but let's not make more of it than it is. "FDR, Truman, Kennedy, had principled foreign policies which they carried out with firmness as well as flexibility. Kennedy stood up to Soviet threats but he also compromised when necessary." So they were firm, yet yielding? In other words, when it was easy they stood firm, and didn't when it wasn't? Sounds rather like the posts critique of Obama, except his predecessors were clearly shown to not quite be willing to back up their rhetoric in the examples (and others) that irony listed.

- Nari224

May 24, 2011 at 6:10am

"On the one hand, Obama breaks with every U.S. president since the Six Day War by calling for a settlement with the Palestinians 'based on the 1967 lines.' That is more than the fabled U.N. Resolution 242 demanded from Israel, which spoke about 'withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict,' not from _all_ of them." The president did NOT say or imply that Israel should withdraw from ALL the territories. Mr. Joffe needs to stick to the plain meaning of the stated words, not to what he imagines the words to be. In fact, Mr. Obama's language is no different from what PM Netanyahu accepted on November 11, 2010, according to the press release from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Joint_statement_PM_Netanyahu_US_Sec_Clinton_11-Nov-2010.htm

- jaylapidus

May 24, 2011 at 10:19am

Good points, Irony & Jaylapidus

- Tristan

May 24, 2011 at 12:00pm

Obama said he would draw down troops in Iraq, and escalate the war in Afghanistan. He has done both. He said he would go after Bin Laden, even if that meant unilaterally invading Pakistan to do so. He killed Bin Laden. He has carried out numerous counter-terrorism missions and drone attacks utilizing the CIA and Spec-Ops in Pakistan. He has attempted to help negotiate a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He has used diplomacy and sanctions as a means of thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. He didn't intervene militarily in Egypt because he didn't have to. And we're attacking Libya because the international community supports the decision and Gaddafi won't go quietly. To me, these things seem fairly coherent--even if you don't support them in substance. And President Obama tends to be pretty honest about what his intentions are (see his 2007 Bin Laden statement for an example). He takes a very hawkish approach to fighting terrorist organizations (particularly Al-Qaeda); he emphasizes killing off key terrorist leaders. Otherwise, he usually assumes a hands-off stance, and tries to further diplomatic engagement with our enemies--strategic sanctions, etc. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and numerous competing anti-American factions, so we obviously manage that relationship differently. As far as Israel and Palestine are concerned, Obama is for a two-state solution. Period. He won't stick his neck out and propose anything truly controversial (the 1967 border rules have been offered up for years--Clinton and Bush included). I think that's clear. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his policies, I don't see how people can listen to the president and not hear him at the same time.

- maxhencke

May 24, 2011 at 12:03pm

After two years as president, we actually know quite a bit about Obama's thinking, both on foreign policy and domestic policy. Unfortunately, his thinking doesn't boil down to bumper sticker slogans very well. That may not serve the punditocracy very well, but it serves the American people and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, too. In what way is offering a nuanced statement of balance on Middle Eastern issues a bad thing? It makes bad theatre, to be sure. But we've had 40 years of theatrics, and if we continue with the current leadership on both sides, we'll have 40 more. We've now reached the point where a simple statement of balance and sanity really IS a bold vision. How depressing.

- gwcross

May 24, 2011 at 12:18pm

Nari224 Webster: doctrine Nari, did Webster also write about how Presidents from Washington to Obama should fashion their foreign policy? "Since Obama is operating in a period of declining relative American power..." And your proof that this is true? What kind of power were we in the 1936? A superpower like Germany or Russia or England?

- arnon

May 24, 2011 at 12:28pm

“No they haven't. Truman didn't apply that weight to Czechoslovakia in '48, Eisenhower didn't apply it to the GDR in '53 or to Hungary in '56, Nixon didn't apply it to Czechoslovakia in '68, Nixon didn't apply it to Poland in '70, Reagan didn't apply it to Poland in '80.” Ironyroad, what was the Berlin air lift all about? The reason we didn’t use force in Eastern Europe was because there was a de facto understanding that these were under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. Not true for Cuba or other places around the world.

- arnon

May 24, 2011 at 12:32pm

arnon, I agree, essentially, with your comment and I think the Berlin airlift was about defending our influence and authority in the areas assigned to us by the London and Potsdam Agreements -- we didn't try to take over East Berlin, and we didn't try to assert our rights of access across the Zone by way of military confrontation from our side (as an attempt to e.g. send an armored column to West Berlin would have been). We extended the West German currency reform to include West Berlin, but did not interfere further with the Soviet Zone.

- ironyroad

May 24, 2011 at 1:11pm

If all of those Cold War examples don't convince, how about, say, GW Bush with North Korea or (as someone mentioned above) Iran, either easily the source of a greater threat than Saddam's nonexistent WMDs? Bush had a doctrine with clear principles and no qualms about using force to back it up -- but even he practiced "choosy engagement." Consider also the author's example of Saudi Arabia. If Obama doesn't want to alienate a major source of oil and our "first line of defense against Iran," is it really a surprise? Neither did Bush, despite a War On Terror prompted by the actions of Saudi terrorists; likewise, the Cold War presidents buddied up with the worst sort of anti-democratic thugs in their efforts to keep the world safe for democracy. Criticize a lamentable preference for interests over prinicples -- but not from the perspective of some kind of alleged break with the way American presidents have usually behaved. If there's a difference with previous administrations, it's that Obama has chosen not bind himself to a doctrine he'll have to back away from when it's not feasible. Then there's that whole thing where Obama's facing an economic crisis and already fighting two inherited wars, at least one of which was supposed to be "easy"; I'd hope that in those circumstances the man would pick his battles. Promoting America's interests and values through diplomacy and, where necessary, the considered use of force, all while keeping in mind the limitations of what we can actually accomplish -- that actually sounds refreshingly reasonable.

- frippo

May 24, 2011 at 5:26pm

Maybe TNR's headliner for the banner link to Joffe's piece at the top of the home page should be "After Two Years, I Still Don't Have a Clue . . . "

- ironyroad

May 24, 2011 at 11:05pm

I usually find Joffe thought-provoking. But this time, I have to agree with the bulk of comments here. We're a people facing literal tornadoes and weird weather patterns. It's not completely new but it defies simplistic scenario planning. In such a situation, you don't know where they'll hit next. Well, the world is experiencing political tornadoes. Obama's done a decent job of creating a basic framework for the improvisational nature of a highly unpredictable series of weather patterns. He's not cut and dry but neither is he complacent. My only worry is he may somehow - by failing to push both Israelis and Palestinians - allow war to happen. But tragically - and I really mean this as a supporter of Israel - it may demand another war and lots of horrible loss of life - before either side accepts where their nearly-maximalist positions (both) are getting them.

- sollyman2

May 24, 2011 at 11:43pm

Arnon: "Nari, did Webster also write about how Presidents from Washington to Obama should fashion their foreign policy?" No, and since I didn't even intimate this, I have no idea what your point is. I was merely providing Webster as a cite for the definition of the word, which I then when on to explain why I felt it implied a level of inflexibility, as per my OP. By all means feel free to debate my argument, but to ask a completely tangential question and just ignore what I'd said brings into question what you are attempting to achieve her. Debate to convice or enhance your undertstanding doesn't seem to be it. ""Since Obama is operating in a period of declining relative American power..." And your proof that this is true? What kind of power were we in the 1936? A superpower like Germany or Russia or England?" What? A superpower like Russia in 1936? Since I'm talking about decline, it would be fair to assume that this is relative to a high point - let's take the immediate post war period shall we, like would make sense, or the period after the collapse of the USSR? Perhaps it has escaped your notice that while we undoubtably still live in a unipolar world, there is a rising competitor over the Pacific Ocean. Compare this to the decade or so where there was no such competitor on the horizon. We only need to look at the behavior of long time, but geographically far allies such as Japan and Australia, who are walking a careful path between the wishes of the US, and the sensibilities of China. Staying in the present, we can also look at how we have clearly demonstrated the limits of our military, and our willingness to engage (obviously we are not directly threatened), no to mention our lack of success in discouraging nuclear proliferation. And if we go back to the post war period, at least within the western hemisphere, we were it. That was when we were the worlds banker as opposed to borrower, and a major exporter of oil. See for example how we nixed the British and French in the Suez. Today, even the Germans are at least deferential to the Russians (their gas fixer).

- Nari224

May 25, 2011 at 2:35pm

I don't think any policy, besides thoughtful flexibility, is appropriate today and Obama is, I think, doing his best here. Events are not under our control. This includes, as mentioned, tornadoes - here and abroad, literally as well as metaphorically. Who for example could have predicted the earthquake in Japan, the tsunami and the meltdown at Fukushimi Daiichi? This is going to have terrible and unforeseen consequences probably for many decades, not least of which is to Japan's economy, and that is highly significant. It will affect the global economy, probably impact health over a broad region; and, there is no guarantee another equally bad earthquake/tsunami won't hit again soon - in Tokyo, in Indonesia; perhaps even here. I do think Obama, as any intelligent person would, is probably learning on the job. Better that than a doctrinaire "set of principles" and/or the equally doctrinaire "realist" point of view, which isn't actually realistic but instead reflects its own ideology. I think Obama is probably improvising - and that is in fact how great musicians, chess players, artists all think once outside of the opening/written rules. Middle Eastern and jazz music for example are both deliberately improvisational. Isn't basketball? And study the games of great chess players: they are noted for their ability to create. This doesn't indicate an adherence to principles - it reflects an ability to think in a new situation. Meanwhile though I wonder why everybody always, ALWAYS, spends so much time yammering about Israel and ignoring stuff like this? http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/possibly-the-most-important-news-about-the-middle-east-this-week/239458/

- Sophia

May 25, 2011 at 3:11pm

Incidentally, I do not think Obama or anybody else has the ability to prevent another war against Israel. No matter what. And nor do I think this should be blamed on the Israelis. They don't control the mindset, sorry; and this isn't dependent upon "settlements" either, any more than the the creation of PLO had what to do with "the occupation." Alas.

- Sophia

May 25, 2011 at 3:13pm

One final thought on the above and I will shut up (for now:) The only thing that would have prevented wars against Israel was serious, sincere, and forceful support of the Jewish state since the 1940's by ALL of Europe especially Britain; and also the US and the Soviet Union who were jockeying for global dominance, not least in the Middle East. But ESPECIALLY since the Brits continued to play games, which they do to this day, including disseminating propaganda at home and abroad; and since the UN and UN funding go to support "camps" and also propaganda, hence war; and since antisemitism is still a problem in Europe; and since the Soviets and the West made the entire ME/Africa/Central Asia into a chessboard, in which the pawns were entire countries, there is just no way that rational solutions can now be found unless a whole lot of people all of a sudden become open-minded and creative and change their thinking. People have been actively funding, arming and supporting irrational positions, for decades. So how on earth are a couple of guys, Bibi and Obama, Abbas even, supposed to straighten this out? It will take Ha Shem and all his angels working retroactively, and maybe the Brits developing a conscience, maybe that would help. Meanwhile, because powerful outside forces have reinforced the worst attitudes in the Middle East, we are screwed. IMO.

- Sophia

May 25, 2011 at 3:21pm

"Meanwhile though I wonder why everybody always, ALWAYS, spends so much time yammering about Israel and ignoring stuff like this?" Sophia, I agree wholeheartedly that the Iranian nuclear plot is one of nastier threats out there, in the longer term, and far more worrying than almost anything else in the region, including Hamas and Hizbollah. In fact, the only more worrying thing is Pakistan, which is a ramshackle circus with uncontrolled religious mania and nukes. But Obama has been also trying to deal with that threat in particular and to repair the missteps and ball-dropping that we had from 2000-8; he experimented with a couple of approaches and was roundly excoriated by everyone here from Marty Peretz on down for actually, you know, trying something and attempting to weld together a new strategy. He took flak for soft-pedaling on the Green movement when it was still possible that a chink in the regime's position could be exploited. In fact, in late 2009 (?) a potential agreement that A'jad signed off on was blitzed by the Mullahs when he got back to Teheran, revealing that the Iranian leadership consists of people leap-frogging each other to show how much they won't back down from the West. Guess what -- Teheran is dysfunctional too! But don't you think that at least part of the administration's irritation with Netanyahu is that, at a time when the U.S. is working 24/7 to try and neutralize what could be the biggest threat to Israel ever, our attempts to resolve the major international disadvantage Israel has (the perception of continued occupation) are seen as being anti-Israeli?

- ironyroad

May 25, 2011 at 4:18pm

Irony, I think you are right on in identifying the reason for Obama's annoyance with Netanyahu. I sometimes imagine Obama sitting down in the early days of his term and asking the Palestinian leaders why there was not peace, and what they would need from Israel for there to be peace. They told him quite clearly that what they needed was for Israel to stop building houses over the green line and to return to the '67 borders. And, so, Obama told Bibi in a straightforward way what he needed to do for there to be peace in the Middle East. Sadly, Obama seems to have had no sense that he was being "played". The obvious question that he failed to ask himself or his Palestinian interlocutors, was why Israel was attacked in 1967 when its borders were, in fact, the '67 borders. Why were there repeated terrorist incursions and massacres WITHIN the "green line" version of Israel before the sin of occupation? In other words, if the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are the reason that the peace eludes us now, why was there not peace before these territories were occupied? And, why is it reasonable for Israelis to assume, given the facts of history, that peace would be at hand if only they abandoned their communities in the highlands above their population centers? It's unfortunate that Palestinian propaganda, aided and abetted by a dependable residue of antisemitism, has persuaded the nations of the world that the "occupation" is the root of all evil. And it's profoundly disconcerting that an American president should be so gullible as to be taken in by this cock-and-bull story. But it's unreasonable to expect the Israelis to return once again to a severely disadvantaged strategic position simply to placate the pique of the President and the annoyance of a multitude of nations who could care less whether or not Israel survives.

- willjames77

May 25, 2011 at 6:53pm

That's a major objection, willjames, and I'm not at all certain what the answer should be. I think I'd still say that some deep miscommunication over the medium vs. longer-term problems, and potential solutions to same, seems to be in permanent play in U.S.-Israel relations at the political level these days. The thing that occurs to me, reading over your post a couple of times, is that the period before 1967 was the period of a Pan-Arabic threat (military threat, that is) to wipe out Israel by force, implicitly backed at times by Soviet maneuvering. Palestinian national claims, questions of occupation/and indeed a Palestinian presence internationally, were not an unmoveable part of the debate the way they are today. Israel's greatest ally was France. After that, the circumstances altered. This was/is now the period of the growth of Hizbollah, terrorist tactics against El Al and other airlines, the intifadas, and a significant shift of the Israeli military posture to a kind of policing/security role for which armies are not good candidates, to be blunt about it. The military threat to Israel in the old sense declined, due to Camp David among others, but the potential for low-level destructive hostility arising out of the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon grew exponentially. At the same time, the existence of the PA on an identifiable territory gradually gave the world outside the ME the sense that everything is basically in place for a solution. Israel's greatest ally is the United States. Thus, leaving out Iran for a minute as a potential major threat -- the question can certainly be raised as to whether any partner for negotiations can be found on the Pal side (as Hamas has joined the club, it makes answering it simpler), but the fact is that the direct military threat to Israel (certainly after the Yom Kippur War) has been replaced by a political and law-and-order threat that arises out of a situation that is difficult to justify in the contemporary world. If the Pals go to the UN, what's the convincing pushback to "we're a nation, this is our territory, and another nation is sitting on parts of it"? It's not 1967, and presumably they are not going to announce a drive to the sea. So, just an attempt to formulate an answer, probably incoherent. But it strikes me that the current Israeli leadership isn't exactly coherent either.

- ironyroad

May 25, 2011 at 9:53pm

I would say "rambling" rather than "incoherent". ;>) I agree with your assessment that Israel, apart from Iran looming on the horizon, faces a more severe challenge in resisting delegitimization than in repelling foreign armies. And I'm not sure either what the best response might be. I think that vast majority of Israelis have come to understand that granting legitimacy to the PLO in the Oslo days was a major blunder. The hope was that in changing its initials from PLO to PA the organization and its goals would change as well. But, in fact, only its tactics changed (while its propaganda skills reached new heights). The Israeli left never grasped this, which is why the public has turned its back on them. The Israeli right has seen through the PA's game but is still unsure how to extricate themselves from the trap they stepped into. But now that Hamas and the PA are one, and the "moderates" seem to have vanished overnight, new options may become thinkable that were off the table while the "peace process" was underway.

- willjames77

May 26, 2011 at 1:33pm