The Obama Doctrine

Everybody knows that Barack Obama was against invading Iraq in 2002-2003 whereas Hillary Clinton was for it. But what does that mean today and what does it mean for the future? Obama says "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" but, again, what does that mean? Spencer Ackerman spent some time talking to Obama's inner circle of foreign policy advisors trying to figure it out and came away very impressed with the Obama Doctrine.

Photo by Flickr user Allison Harger used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Posted by Monster | March 24, 2008 12:00 PM

Well, trying to use HTML to kill the annoying italics didn't work.

And yeah, um, Obama would do wonders for our foreign policy.

Posted by Monster | March 24, 2008 12:02 PM

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 was the line that sold me on Obama. I had a distaste for Clinton and a wariness of McCain, sold maybe it was easier to sell on me. But that line indicated to me that Obama had really sat down and thought this thing over.

Obama has, in the past, supported Instant Run-off Voting at lower levels of government service. I'd like to see him make that part of his platform; perhaps it's too politically dangerous to do so at this point. Doing so would make the two big parties less effect, would make the primary process was less of a factor and enable the rise of third-parties into becoming viable alternatives, thus reducing the polarization we see in government and probably marginalizing the neocon part of the Republican party. I doubt the Dems would allow it, though - they rely on defining themselves as "Not the Republicans". They'd have to come up with a comprehensive agenda instead of picking up people who are angry at the status quo.

The rise of third-party viability would do a great deal to eliminate the mindset that got us into war.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 12:08 PM

"sold"? "effect"? I'm pretty tired. "process was less"? ha.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 12:12 PM

I notice that Mr. Ackerman did not mention Zbigniew Brzezinski the Israel bashing antisemite who is another of Senator Obamas' foreign policy advisers. Amazing what the Obamabots like to ignore.

Posted by SLC | March 24, 2008 12:28 PM

"Everybody knows that Barack Obama was against invading Iraq in 2002-2003 whereas Hillary Clinton was for it."

Unless you were in Congress or the White House in 2002-2003 I'm not sure that what you say about the Iraq War today really matters. I'm not sure that what you may have said about it then really matters.

See: here's what really gets to Obama skeptics (not to be confused with Clinton supporters, or Republicans) like me. This is a movement about a man, not about ideas like the Enlightenment, or about policies like the Civil Rights Movement.

Honest Democrats acknowledge that on the issues Clinton and Obama have almost identical positions. This whole nasty business is really pretty vapid. It's about personality. The Obama phenomenon is little more than a middlebrow liberal cult of personality.

Posted by Linus | March 24, 2008 12:33 PM

The "Obama doctrine" is the kind of doctrine that has been adopted by many liberals, centrists, libertarians, and even Republicans throughout the 20th century.

What's NEW is the "Bush Doctrine" and the idea of preemptive war.

And those against the Bush Doctrine are not all anti-war hippies, although the neocons would like us to think this is true.

So I'm not so much "impressed" by the Obama Doctrine as I am glad it is a return to a sensible view on foreign policy.

Posted by AKBY | March 24, 2008 12:35 PM

Actually, SLC, Brzezinski is neither an antisemite nor a member of Obama's inner foreign-policy circle.

Posted by Spenc/r Ackerm/m | March 24, 2008 12:37 PM

Zbig is indeed an advisor, but in an extremely limited role. I think they've exchanged a few emails, but that's about it.

And Linus, you are a tool. I thought we had gotten over the cult meme. Most of us like Obama the man and his ideas.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 24, 2008 12:38 PM

"Unless you were in Congress or the White House in 2002-2003 I'm not sure that what you say about the Iraq War today really matters. I'm not sure that what you may have said about it then really matters."

Shorter Linus - "Fuck Democracy! Trust Oligarchy!"

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Zbigniew Brzezinski the Israel bashing antisemite..

Robots acting like robots is normal. Human beings longing to be, and emulating, robots is weird.

Posted by jonnybutter | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

Linus: You can go ahead and dismiss Obama's candidacy as a "liberal cult of personality" if that makes you sleep easier at night. But here's the thing. For many, many, many of his supporters, it's about his wisdom and judgment regarding the Iraq war. Yes, Clinton and Obama have almost identical positions now. But to suggest that "what you may have said about [the Iraq war] doesn't really matter" is nonsense. Of course it matters. Why would we trust the wisdom and judgment of someone who claims that her vote was not for war, even though the bill was for the Authorization of Use of Military Force in Iraq? Why would we trust the wisdom and judgment of a candidate who only opposed the war in 2005, when we have a candidate that opposed it in 2002, and correctly predicted that it would be a war of undetermined costs and undetermined length? In fact, why would you trust the wisdom and judgment of someone who says John McCain, who openly suggests we should be in Iraq for decades,that we should "bomb, bomb, bomb" Iran, and "confuses" Iran and al Qaeda, is qualified to be commander in chief?
Dismiss his candidacy (and his supporters) as a cult of personality at your own peril. When it came time to make the biggest foreign policy decision in decades, two candidates failed miserably, and only Obama expressed the wisdom needed in the next President.

Posted by Ready for change | March 24, 2008 12:46 PM

Honest Democrats acknowledge that on the issues Clinton and Obama have almost identical positions.

I most certainly do not acknowledge that, and I am, whether you'd like to acknowledge such or not, an honest Democrat. There are lots of clear, genuine policy differences between these two candidates, and I fully believe that they would make for very different presidents in both foreign and domestic policy.

Are the differences separating either of them smaller than the differences separating them both from John McCain? Certainly. But it does not follow that there are no differences between them or that they're identical on the issues. Do they have very very similar plans for many of the marquee issues that tend to dominate national attention? Sure. But those five or six platform bullet points do not a president make.

And for what it's worth, the bulk of my support for him comes from his policy positions, the things he has written about, talked about, and chosen to place his emphasis upon. But there are elements of personality involved in my support as well, because believe it or not, personality does matter in a president: whether it's his way of thinking beyond merely the decisions he's come to, whether it's temperament, whether it's leadership qualities, all of those things. We're electing a president, not a fellow at the Brookings Institute.

It's about personality. The Obama phenomenon is little more than a middlebrow liberal cult of personality.

Classy.

Posted by jbryan | March 24, 2008 12:48 PM

Re Spencer Ackerman

OK, how about Robert Malley who is not only an antisemitic Israel basher but the son of an antisemitic Israel basher. Is Mr. Ackerman going to deny that Mr. Malley is also an Obama adviser?

As for whether Prof. Brzezinski is an antisemite, that's a matter of opinion.

Posted by SLC | March 24, 2008 12:53 PM

Honest Democrats acknowledge that on the issues Clinton and Obama have almost identical positions. This whole nasty business is really pretty vapid. It's about personality. The Obama phenomenon is little more than a middlebrow liberal cult of personality.

Obama and Clinton may have similar on the issues, but certainly their approach toward policy differs greatly. This isn't "middlebrow liberal cult of personality," but rather a pragmatic analysis of leadership and management style, neither of which I find particularly vapid.

Posted by AKBY | March 24, 2008 1:03 PM

but the son of an antisemitic Israel basher

Oh goody. What other names have you in that envelope, Senator?

Posted by Pooh | March 24, 2008 1:08 PM

I read the article, but I'm unclear as to what the radical new "Obama doctrine" is besides "less war, more foreign aid." What other content is there?

Posted by rd | March 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Posted by Spenc/r Ackerm/m | March 24, 2008 1:24 PM

Re Spencer Ackerman

You mean after Alan Dershowitz and others raised the issue, Brzezinski and Malley were thrown under the bus.

Posted by SLC | March 24, 2008 1:37 PM

I'd like to call for a moratorium on the phrase "thrown under the bus." I swear it's been uttered more than even the word "delegate" this season.

Posted by jbryan | March 24, 2008 1:50 PM

Obama was correct about Iraq from the start. However, he made is "anti-stupid" war speech from the friendly confines of Springfield, IL, not the AIPAC filled halls of DC.

Since Obama has been in DC, he has voted along with Hillary to continue the funding of the war. If Obama were in DC during the run-up to war, he may have voted for the war due to pressure from The Lobby.

PS ... The slogan "Out of Iraq" and "Into Every 3rd World Hell-Hole" like Darfur is not a smart foreign policy. Samantha Power creams herself about helping the poor of the world, but it is the 20 year old Marine from Alabama that will die in order to right the world's wrongs.

Samantha Power and her crew of Ivy League do-gooders should purchase a bunch of assault rifles and bring liberty and prosperity to the dark continent themselves. Leave the rest of us out of it!

Posted by patrick | March 24, 2008 2:28 PM

Actually, SLC, Brzezinski is neither an antisemite nor a member of Obama's inner foreign-policy circle.

Ah, Spencer, but everyone is an antisemite to SLC. Don't waste your time.

Posted by J.B. | March 24, 2008 2:46 PM

patrick:

Dick Durbin voted against the Iraq War and for funding. Explain that.

Maybe...just maybe...when Obama said he was against the Iraq because it would get us stuck there at "an undetermined cost" for "an undetermined length of time", what he meant was, "this isn't a small decision, and once we go in, we'll have a responsibility to at least try to make this mess right"

It certainly seemed like that's what he meant: that Iraq was far too big and messy a responsibility to take on. But once it was taken on, voting to fund the war was not only not inconsistent with his previous stance...it actually flowed logically from his anti-war speech in 2002

Must be Teh Lobby!!!

Posted by Michael | March 24, 2008 2:56 PM

"See: here's what really gets to Obama skeptics (not to be confused with Clinton supporters, or Republicans) like me. This is a movement about a man, not about ideas like the Enlightenment, or about policies like the Civil Rights Movement."

When did Martin Luther King run for president? This is a primary, not Selma.

Also, they don't have the same policies when it comes to questions of cluster bomb bans, Iran, Cuba and others. He has spoken frankly of Palestinian suffering.

The biggest anti-Semite here is SLC who has stated here before that he hates the residents of the Jewish state.

Posted by Reality Man | March 24, 2008 8:44 PM

Re Reality Man

I really must take some exception to Mr. Reality Mans' claim that I have stated that I hate the residents of Israel. This is a vast exaggeration. What I said was that I found the Israelis I have interacted with to be rather arrogant and they are not the sort of people I would care to share a country with.

Posted by SLC | March 24, 2008 8:57 PM

I am utterly UNimpressed with Spencer Ackerman's assessment of the "Obama Doctrine". As others have pointed out, it's neither new nor radical.

In fact, it's basically the same brain dead policies that were followed for the last fifty years. Only when the neocons got in did it get even worse, but going back to the old ways is not an improvement.

Obama still has ZERO credible foreign policy SPECIFICS as opposed to general stuff about "stop being afraid" (true, always a good thing, but not when it's not translated into specifics) and "drain the swamp."

The question again: HOW do you "drain the swamp" in a way that is CREDIBLE? Fourth Gen War is about credibility. If you don't have it, you lose. The US doesn't have it. Throwing money at building wells, and feeding the poor doesn't give it to you as long as your overall policies are still about supporting corrupt governments with billions in arms sales, exporting CIA training in torture to Third World Countries, and otherwise behaving as if there was a major disconnect between your behavior and that of your supposed beneficiaries.

The Middle East wants to see results in Palestine. Where is Obama's PLAN for Palestine? He doesn't have one. He can't afford to have one because he's toast if the AIPAC crowd doesn't like him.

We need to make Iran a neutral if not an ally. Where is Obama's plan for Iran? He doesn't have one except more aggressive "diplomacy" (read: more sanctions - and eventually a war). Again, he can't afford to have one because it's against the AIPAC crowd's interests - not to mention the military-industrial complex and the oil companies.

Solve that problem first, then come to me about "draining the swamp." The "swamp" starts here.

Al Qaeda would be utterly irrelevant to the United States if the US would simply change its policies towards the Middle East. bin Laden would forget we exist if we did so.

But that means fundamentally re-examining policies with regard to oil, to Israel, and to military deployment in the region. The facts are that Obama has NO specific plans for these issues. None.

The notion that he is somehow going to "defeat Al Qaeda" in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a joke. He has absolutely NO specific plan for that - and he cannot have because it's not a feasible undertaking. You cannot defeat terrorism by killing all its adherents unless the specific group you're talking about is small and localized and without any national or international support (Che Guevara in Bolivia was the last example of that sort of terrorism.) Therefore Obama's talk is just that - "talk".

"Draining the swamp" worldwide is going to take decades, hundreds of billions - if not trillions - of dollars, and major changes in how the US conducts itself in the world and in its economic structure at home. I don't see any specifics from Obama on any of these points.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 24, 2008 10:52 PM

1. Appeal to the left by hinting at an unspecified increase in foreign aid. Replicating the Marshall Plan on a global scale is one of the oldest of liberal bromides.

2. Appeal to the right by promising to destroy al-Qaeda in some unspecified way.

A lot of hoopla for very little.

The article is mostly biographical information about Obama's advisers.

The 'dignity promotion' catchphrase will appeal to wine-track Democrats, but not to much of anyone else.

That Problem X can be solved by spending enough money is unfalsifiable if 'enough' is not specified in advance. But, does anyone really think Congress is going to authorize anything like the level of spending implied by a global Marshall Plan? Does anyone think an Obama administration would make fighting for that a priority, when he presumably will be pushing a health care plan and other expensive domestic programs?

Posted by David Tomlin | March 25, 2008 2:40 AM

SLC (if that's really your name),

there wouldn't be so much anti-semitism if there wasn't so much semitism.

Posted by Lamb Cannon | March 25, 2008 7:41 PM