"Obama Doctrine Emerges: International Support Critical To Military Missions"

[Clio the Leo]

Obama Doctrine Emerges: International Support Critical To Military Missions
Susan Crabtree | March 27, 2011

For Americans accustomed to U.S. presidents, especially George W. Bush, making decisions about war and peace unilaterally and weary of the results of that approach in Afghanistan and Iraq, the difference is stark.

After 9/11, Bush talked loudly and carried a big stick, famously threatening to catch Osama bin Laden and bring him back "dead or alive," with no results after nearly a decade, and selling the public on a doctrine of preemption in Iraq even though years later the administration still could not prove there was ever a real threat.

Obama appears to be embracing almost the opposite approach. In Libya, he was content to take cautious, behind-the-scenes steps that led to eventual international support -- even if it meant weeks of delay and potentially worse conditions on the ground. As he struggles to find a way to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and continue to stabilize Iraq, he is extremely leery of committing ground troops anywhere else and he firmly pledged not to do so in Libya.

The Bush wars were so long and costly, that many Americans and their representatives in Washington are wary of committing the U.S. military in any additional conflicts. The consternation over the decision to dedicate U.S. forces to Libya cuts across traditional ideological boundaries. Democrats and Republicans of all political strips have questioned his decision to intervene in Libya against the government of the notorious Muammar Qaddafi while leaving other dictators with records of crushing democratic rebellions free.

Obama has tried to make the case that helping innocent people escape brutal governments is the right thing to do -- but only if and when the international community can provide some backup.

"I firmly believe that when innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Qaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives--then it's in our national interest to act," he said in his weekly address. "And it's our responsibility.then it's in our national interest to act. And it's our responsibility."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/obama-doctrine-emerges-international-support-critical-to-military-missions.php

President Barack Obama speaks during a working dinner for Heads of Delegation at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., April 12, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

[ClarkUSA]

1. Correct. Barack Obama is the President I always wanted as a kid and the best one in my lifetime.

He's a great role model for family men and for young boys, too. I certainly can't say that for recent presidents.

[zalinda]

2. Talking points?

Yup, this exactly what it is. This article talks as if the Bush (now Obama's) wars are over. They are not. And, Obama has added unmanned drones in Pakistan into the mix, not exactly a peaceful move.

This article is pure, plain propaganda.

zalinda

[displacedvermoter]

4. Excellent!

[dkf]

3. And is it our responsibility to then nation build?

Obama has an inability to get us out of these things. Until he figures out how to do that he has no business getting us in. And I'm sorry but leaving NATO to do the job isn't getting out.

[ProSense]

5. "Obama has an inability to get us out of these things." Actually,

he doesn't. In 2010, he had withdrew more than 100,000 troops from Iraq and the bases there are being closed:

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

link

[TheKentuckian]

6. I wish somebody's doctrine included somebody else paying for global security

instead of us borrowing money from the beneficiaries of our protection scheme.