Kevin Sullivan

On Doctrines

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The world according to Barack Obama–according to Spencer Ackerman–seems like a peculiar one filled with cliches and misconceptions about terrorism.  I’ve always had mixed emotions about Obama’s foreign policy team.  I believe most of them are quite reputable, and even the ones I have issues with are solid in their area of expertise (i.e. Power).  There seems, at a cursory level, to be this pervasive group-think from his advisers over how a President Obama would change the way in which we do global business.  My concern is that the Obama foreign policy brain trust seems to have an almost nihilistic giddiness over the supposedly grand shift away from the Bush Doctrine that they represent.  It’s almost as if they’ve taken a hearty gulp of the “change” Kool-Aid and applied it abroad.  

Of course, the Bush Doctrine–when truly applied–strikes me as the best way to confront the state-sponsorship of terrorism.  Chasing Al Qaeda into ever cave and cubbyhole, however, does not.  A shift away from democracy promotion to “dignity” promotion doesn’t instill me with confidence, either (I think we should loosely and conditionally be in the business of both, but I digress).  The Leftists will swoon over how “clever” and “nuanced” this shift could be, but there’s no evidence that it would solve the issue of unconventional, terror-oriented warfare.  Terrorism is a classless business, and there’s no direct correlation between terrorism and poverty.  This theory is a construct made up by the Power wing of the foreign policy inteligencia, and it’s really just a way to divert support ($$$) towards their global focus (“Reduce nukes, and terror will cease! Stop global warming, and terror will cease! Give Palestinians their right of return, and terror will cease!”). 

I think the truth of the matter is that extremism will always be there, as there will always be collections of people around the world who live differently than us.  Obama’s “doctrine” may be less militaristic, and perhaps more humanitarian (although no president has given more aid to Africa than President Bush, but please don’t tell that to Samantha Power).  But the key problem with Obama’s ”doctrine” is that it comes to us prior to any kind of feasible application.  Whereas the Bush Doctrine was a direct response to an attack upon the United States, Obama’s plan seems to make more sense in a domestic campaign season than it does in practice.  I’m not suggesting that it’s all bad, I’m simply noting how underwhelming it is.  The plan still puts America in the role of therapist; ready and willing to heal the world’s problems and win her affection.  It’s just a little bit heavier on the butter than the guns.  For all the talk of his “Wilsonian” rhetoric, I think President Bush’s stated policy of isolating terror financiers is more realistic than what we’ve seen him apply since 2001 (and far more realistic than the Obama doctrine).