The Obama Doctrine

President Obama gave the graduation address at West Point yesterday and once again tried to enunciate the Obama Doctrine. And today on “Morning Joe" (MSNBC), Joe Scarborough asked his assembled lefties to say what this Doctrine actually was. None did a very good job defining it. But by carefully reading our fearless leader’s commencement address text, I think I might be able to codify this Doctrine. Here goes my elevator capsule:

America will never again send our armed forces into battle except under extreme duress and actual threat to our homeland. We will deal with any and all other foreign aggression which does not meet these criteria with “soft power” which is defined as moral suasion, diplomacy, and, if necessary, sanctions … but will never include the implicit or explicit threat to use our military might or atomic weapons. As a consequence the United States will allow our armed forces and armaments to depreciate to a level appropriate to this new foreign-policy stance.

Read the subtle and circuitous route through Obama’s commencement address at West Point (including that which lies between the lines) and see if you don’t concur with my above assessment … see: The New York Times' Transcript  In this speech, Obama does decry our slipping back into our pre-WW2 isolationism.  However, if my statement of the Obama Doctrine is accurate, that is exactly what we are doing ... and I've said this before, see: The World Map. I could be wrong, but I really don’t believe that this is the zeitgeist that now pervades America … despite our foreign policy mistakes under George W. Bush.

I honestly don't think that the American people are ready to step back and concede the rest of the world to the Dark Side.

Afterward: And apparently the New York Times editorial board somewhat agrees with my slant ... see: NY Times Editorial.

The World Map

I've just coined a new word, "neo-iso." Neo-iso stands for neo-isolationism (or ist) … apparently this is the Obama administration’s new and evolving foreign policy.  Ever since he drew and then erased the red line in Syria, President Obama has become less interested in insinuating the United States into foreign adventures. This inward-turning policy toward world conflicts could perhaps reflect our country’s legacy distaste for our role in resolving international disputes. But I am somewhat doubtful that, in the majority, the American people have become dyed-in-the-wool neo-isos.

Clearly President Obama’s previous more belligerent stances in Afghanistan and Libya may have been … as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested in his recent book … merely for political purposes.  But realizing that these blunted excursions onto the world’s battlefields brought him little leadership purchase or respect from those world political A-listers whose adoration he craves, I believe that our "leader of the free world" has now opted for the new pre-qualifier -- “former.”

Into this vacuum created by this floundering disinterest on the United States’ part has stepped the wanna-be despots of the world … Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.  They see their opportunity and are seizing it … and we have, I am afraid, just begun to see the mischief that they can create for the free-world. This expansionist muscle-flexing on their parts is likely to last for decades.

If free Europe and Japan do not step up to counter this power eschewing on the United States’ part, I’m afraid that the map of the world may need considerable revisions before our fearless leader leaves office in 2017.  Then, the rebuilding of American hegemony will not occur overnight … if our next President can accomplish it  … or even if he/she so chooses.

For the strategic high ground, once surrendered, is very costly to retake. And it is very doubtful whether China or others would front us the funds for such an effort ... or, if not, whether our welfare state could be pared back enough in order to pay for our return to a position of military dominance.

Yes, Obama has clearly fulfilled his campaign promise “to fundamentally change America.”  However, I believe that our voters might have been better off to have asked for a few more specifics.