Bush v. Obama Doctrines

by Herbert I. London
September 13, 2010 at 4:30 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1541/bush-v-obama-doctrines

The George W. Bush foreign policy doctrine was predicated on three principles outlined in a host of speeches from 2002 to 2008. These included: challenging radical Islamist havens abroad (what Vice President Cheney called "draining the swamp"); building democratic institutions as a moderating influence in tyrannical states that harbor radical Islamic factions, and preemption (attacking those intent on doing harm to us before that harm is inflicted).

Whether one agrees with these principles or not, they were what guided the president's foreign policy. What is most notable, however, is the dramatic shift from the Bush to the Obama Doctrine. If Bush placed an unyielding faith in democracy as a source of conversion, Obama relies instead on transnational associations -- what some have described as the end of national sovereignty.

The Obama doctrine seems to have four central themes, each in its way related to diminished national sovereignty:

The first is a reliance on multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Elevating the UN Ambassador's role to a cabinet position was a tell-tale sign. Most significantly, channeling U.S. goals through the Security Council, notwithstanding the veto of any one nation, has been a central focus of this administration. This is the case in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well as the attempt to prevent the nuclear ambition of Iran.

Second the Human Rights Commission. Despite the fact, the commission is populated by the most egregious abusers of human rights, the Obama administration reversed the decision of previous presidents and joined this organization, claiming it was in the national interest to monitor cases the commission was considering.

Third, the Obama team appears to believe it must apologize for America's previous foreign policy decisions. From Berlin to Cairo, President Obama has made it clear that a new dawn is rising in which the mistakes of the past will be redressed. Instead of an unequivocal defense of the national interest, the administration offers mea culpas. The assertion of American power and its stabilizing influence have been subordinated to multilateral understanding and the appeasement of self declared enemies.

Fourth, the government's suit against Arizona legislation, which calls for the enforcement of the law against illegal aliens, is a demonstration of the belief that borders do not matter and that sovereignty is in the eye of the beholder. If a state is unable to secure its border against illegal entrants because of a federal lawsuit, the message is unmistakable that: this administration will not support state efforts to defend its borders.

The impetus for these positions is the belief that globalization -- a reliance on multilateral arrangements -- will provide greater security for the U.S. than the unilateral assertion of American will. That there is not a shred of evidence to support this theory is apparently irrelevant, as true believers on the Obama team are pursuing this agenda relentlessly.

For those of us who believe that only American influence can serve as a stabilizing international force, these are sad days. The sovereignty Americans fought and died for is now held hostage to the Obama Doctrine.

Supporters of this Doctrine will of course argue that America does not have the resources to be "the world's policeman." Alas, it is not the lack of resources, but the lack of will that ultimately determines policy directions. We cannot do everything, but we can surely do something.

The ultimate foundation of a free society is a binding cohesive sentiment. But the difference between the Bush Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine suggests a people divided and a foreign policy in disarray. Ortega y Gasset once noted, "To create a concept is to leave reality behind." Our foreign policymakers seem to need a dose of reality and the suppression of theory. Doctrines should be based on something more than what you would like to see happen.

Related Topics:  Herbert I. London receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list