There is a lot of discussion about how the "Obama Doctrine" differs from the "Bush Doctrine." While I'm not sure that it yet qualifies as a “doctrine,” and seems like more of a case-by-case approach, the Obama administration's foreign policy in many respects is certainly quite different than the Bush approach.
The “Bush Doctrine” sought expansive ends, such as the democratic transformation of an entire region and the defeat of global terrorism; and it authorized preemptive war as means to these ends. The Obama administration has yet to articulate such a grand strategy.
Further, Obama's foreign policy decisions are being made in a very different international context. The US position in the world is quite different than when Bush launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To begin with, the US is mired in an economic slump, and weary of war. This constrains foreign policy decision making. The American public is highly skeptical of spending money on military intervention abroad, when there are pressing financial concerns at home. Furthermore, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made Americans far more skeptical of military intervention (public support for the mission in Afghanistan is only around 40%). Thus, broad ideological aims, such as "democratization," are far less likely to be seen as in the "national interest."
Perhaps more importantly, however, because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is already stretched militarily. Thus, preemptive action is less of an option than when Bush articulated his "doctrine," in 2002. Although US military capabilities are unmatched, they are not infinite.
Further, France and Britain dragged the US into a shooting war instead of the reverse. This is also partially due to the fact that the US is already heavily committed militarily. However, by seeking to enhance the legitimacy of the UNSC, rather than contesting its legitimacy, Obama seems far more committed to multilateralism than Bush.
More importantly, the US is effectively reacting to events in the Middle East, rather than catalyzing events there. The Obama administration is making decisions based upon actions by the people of in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.; rather than forcing their governments to react to US actions.
For these reasons, and others, the Obama foreign policy approach is inherently different than the Bush approach. It is more multilateral, and far more reactive rather than proactive. The grand-strategy of the Bush administration was transforming the world in US interests; however, Obama's seems to be to preserve US interests in a changing world.
Very true. We got away from some American ideals during the Bush days. His campaigns were not fought for people seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but instead founded on false evidence to scare the general public into justifying massive ground invasions. However, given the percieved frail state of American security after 9-11, much justification for the Iraq and Afgan was not needed.
ReplyDeleteNow more than ever, with growing economic powers in China and India, we need to work through collaboration and concensus. We also must grasp the financial burden of policing the world. We have allowed countries like India and China to broaden their economic footprint, building manufacturing facilities in Africa and Indonesia, and to conduct business internationally, without the threat of attack my militants. How? Because the American military umbrella is so wide, we not only protect the commerce of our interests, but those of the entire world...yet We burden the full financial load.
Excellent point regarding the rising powers interests in economic stability, yet lack of interest in military intervention to ensure it. There is certainly an argument that countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, Germany, are effectively "free-riders," and letting the US, France, and the UK do the heavy lifting.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the counter-point may be that these countries are afraid of supporting missions that may actually serve to make things worse. The shadow of Iraq looms large.
Yet, as you said there is a financial burden to policing the world. And like it or not, there will continue to be cases where some type of "policing" will seem necessary to stop mass killings. For better or worse, the UNSC is the most legitimate forum for deciding when such action is necessary. And when deemed necessary, other countries are going to have to share the burden of peace enforcement, because even the US and NATO do not have the resources to police the world alone. Moreover, it's not in the BRIC countries interest to allow the world to be ordered without their engagement.