Unveiling the Obama Doctrine
President Barack Obama did more than collect his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Besides the trumpet fanfare, the black-tie festivities, the pomp, the circumstance and of course the speech, he unveiled what Washington-watchers are calling the Obama doctrine. But what is it, exactly?
A quick online search shows an early mention of the Obama doctrine in March 2008, when Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were still slugging it out for the Democratic presidential nomination. The American Prospect cited Obama speeches starting in January of that election year and talked to Obama’s foreign policy team to get an idea of what the future president’s world view might be. One key quote from the candidate on the Iraq war was seen as defining the doctrine: ”I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place.”
“An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda,” The American Prospect said. “Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It’s both and neither — an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.”
More of the doctrine emerged, according to a column in The Washington Post, after Obama’s handling of the rescue of a U.S. ship captain from Somali pirates in April 2009, in which Obama said little and relied on Navy SEALs to free the captive: “The Obama Doctrine seeks to regain the world’s sympathy by acknowledging that while the United States is a great nation built on worthy principles, it is not perfect.”
Fast-forward to Oslo and Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech, which is winning praise from perennial Obama critics Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
The Atlantic’s political blog called it “multilaterlism with teeth” and described it this way: ”Obama sought to move past the liberal sentiment that Americans felt as a backlash to the Iraq War: the idea that America was engaged in an imperialist enterprise, militarily and culturally. His answer: we do not seek to impose our will, but we will stand for global security and rights.”
It’s not the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, but it’s not what some of Obama’s anti-war critics want either.
No one like a wife to keep even a peace laureate honest
Cheering crowds greeted U.S. President Barack Obama in Norway as he received one of the world’s great honors but at least one person was there to ensure that the pomp and circumstance of winning the Nobel Peace Prize did not go to his head.
When her husband, who is not only president but a best-selling author, wrote seven lines of text in the guest book at the Nobel Institute on Thursday, first lady Michelle Obama asked if he were writing a book, and then commented as she prepared to write her entry: “Mine won’t be as long.”
Obama joshed gently back: ”She will resist writing something sarcastic since this will be recorded for the future.”
When asked what he wrote in the guest book, Obama said he had congratulated the Nobel Committee for work done not just for peace “but to give voice to the voiceless and oppressed around the world.”
By tradition, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient visits the institute to sign the guest book and meet the selection committee.
Obama accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace in Oslo nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to break the momentum of the Taliban. In his acceptance speech, Obama said the United States must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified.
How Obama’s Nobel speech played in Washington
For a man who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama didn’t look all that happy as he strode to the lectern in Oslo. He had that downturned smile that was almost an acknowledgement of all the critics who say the award is premature — especially for a commander-in-chief who has just vowed to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan.
The speech itself didn’t make much of a splash on morning television in Washington. None of the major TV networks carried it live, though CNN did, cutting away from Obama from time to time to show an audience listening attentively, with a few eyelids drooping. But viewers didn’t have many options if they wanted to see the speech as it happened. They could see a blink of Obama sandwiched in between the televised feature stories — Dillie the Deer, a taped interview with first lady Michelle Obama, a duel interview with Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman to promote their new movie.
The Washington Post ran a live feed on its Web site; after the speech ended, there was a story and a photo slide show. The New York Times posted a text of the address. The Drudge Report – a one-stop online gateway for some in Washington — ran two small headlines about the Nobel ceremony (“Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize…” and ”Norwegians Incensed Over Obama Snubs…”) over the main story. Just after the speech it was “SNOW DRIFTS TO 15FT!” but later it changed to “DEMS TO LIFT DEBT CEILING BY $1.8 TRILLION!”
Before the chattering classes start weighing in on how he did, let’s hear what you think? Was it statesmanlike or disappointing? Or something in between?
Photo credit: REUTERS/John McConnico/Pool (President Barack Obama poses with Nobel Peace Prize medal and certificate, Oslo, December 10, 2009)
“I have seen college students receive college degrees who did not earn them, I even heard of a law and accounting student receiving their license that had not passed the BAR and CPA Exam”
Then they did not deserve their degrees or licences. And they are a small minority who devalue the efforts of the many people who earnt their qualifications through hard work.
“Sometimes you can give an award on potential and a direction or as a sign of support”
No. An award has always been for the recognition of something worthy. Not the belief that the recipient will do something worthy of the award at a later date.
Imagine if university degrees were handed out because of four years of study you have yet to do.
Imagine if you were given an Oscar for a movie you have not even made.
Imagine if you were given the medical nobel prize for a cure you have not yet invented, the physics nobel prize for a theory you have not yet discovered, or the literature nobel prize for a book you have not yet written.
No. There is no way that this situation can be salvaged or justified.
If you think Obama’s popularity and the opinions of Europe are important, then fine. But the nobel peace prize didn’t need to be sacrificed on an alter for their sake.
War is a means to a end. Those in power and in command of fighting forces will use those forces to get what they want. War happens when communication breaks down, or when one or both parties are hostile towards each other for emotional reasons.
Iraq was about oil. Afghanistan is no different. Bin Laden is no longer on the agenda. The taliban only need to be gotten rid of because they will not negotiate deals with us. They are not concerned with doing business with the US so they have to go. As a predominantly Christian nation, we should remove the log from our own political eye so that we can see clearly enough to remove the specs from the eyes of those we deal with.
When we as a nation learn to care for our own fellow citizens then we can talk about “human rights” in other countries. Then we can talk about the “liberation” of people in suffering. Just because we treat our citizens like well fed cattle it doesn’t mean we are any better than countries that treat their people like poorly fed cattle.
War is a waste of life, money, and time. Especially when there is so much work to be done.