Last week I watched a video of President Obama sitting behind home plate at the Estadio Latinoamerico (Havana’s baseball stadium). As he sat in an open collar shirt wearing sunglasses, ESPN reporters questioned him about the most recent terrorist attack in Brussels. That video perfectly encapsulates Obama’s entire foreign policy. Critics will decry his willingness to throw aside our allies and attend a baseball game as ISIS overthrows Western Europe, and supporters will claim another instance of the President’s lofty ambitions being derailed by our petty fascination with terrorism.
This issue serves as the focal point for this month’s cover story of The Atlantic, “The Obama Doctrine” by Jeffrey Goldberg. The article represents the first significant attempt by a foreign policy analyst to coagulate the President’s foreign policy into a set of coherent principles. This sort of analysis happens regularly as administrations prepare to leave office and dedicate a portion of their time to clarifying how they view international issues.
Goldberg’s doctrine revolves around the central theme of defying conventional wisdom. Obama sees himself as above the so-called “foreign policy establishment,” and he takes pride in wresting the ship of state from its grasp. According to Goldberg, Obama has introduced two key components of his foreign policy: a more stringent definition of what constitutes a national interest and an unwillingness to engage issues that fall outside his definition. Additionally, in instituting these principles, Obama has challenged the nature of our relationships with both friends and foes.
The doctrine first introduces a new definition of “national interest,” an ambiguous term that has been debated for decades. Obama’s definition uses a much more stringent definition than previous administrations. In other words, the aperture of what he would call a national interest is much narrower. Under this definition, very few issues constitute a national interest. To Obama, these include climate change, ISIS and the threat of a nuclear Iran. In contrast, the Syrian Civil War falls outside that framework.
A unique component of this definition is the strictness with which Obama adheres to it. Unlike conventional Presidents that might adapt their definition to conventional thought or popular opinion, Obama remains noticeably above the fray.
In adhering strictly to this definition, Obama has demonstrated an unwillingness to engage anything outside the circle. Goldberg’s article uses the decision not to strike the Assad regime in Syria following its use of chemical weapons (what the President had previously described as a red line that would require use of force) as the turning point in Obama’s presidency. His ability to pull the reigns of the “machine” back from the brink of conflict is what Goldberg calls Obama’s proudest moment. This decision, one that will likely remain contested for decades, demonstrates the President’s reluctance to pursue something not directly tied to the national interest.
In adhering to this policy that Goldberg outlines, the President regularly challenged the nature of our relationships with friends and foes around the globe. Defying convention of the past several decades, he began discussions and negotiations with Iran and Cuba. Conversely, he challenged why the United States remains steadfastly in support of countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel that he sees undermining his strategy around the world.
The doctrine Goldberg’s article introduces does not exist in a vacuum, and several authors responded quickly to the article’s key points. Professor Stephen Sestanovich notes that amidst all the thoughtful argumentation and colorful rhetoric that Obama routinely employs, he understates the impact his actions have on credibility, both of international norms and of the United States around the world. As Sestanovich explains, how can we now claim that the use of chemical weapons violates international norms if we are no longer willing to enforce it? The “foreign policy establishment” that Obama proudly defies exists to uphold those very principles. Although Obama uses the clever phrase “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone” to describe a seemingly pointless policy, how else do we impose punishment?
Regarding our allies, although countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel have operated on slightly different trajectories from what the President would like, such is the nature of an ally. Like a partner, they are not puppet states that can be manipulated at every turn; rather they should retain some level of autonomy so long as they are by your side when it counts most. Of course, Obama would respond by noting Saudi Arabia’s horrific human rights record and its failure to confront Sunni terror groups as more than petty subversion. Regardless, I believe allies should realize that partnerships are two-way streets, and if they want to undercut American policies, they should be willing to put up with some unfriendly rhetoric and more nuanced calculation of support.
Perhaps the one criticism I find most compelling, and the one I have yet to hear articulated, is the domestic political component of Obama’s foreign policy. Over the past few months, though these articles and various speeches by the President, his worldview has come into much sharper focus. Those of us with an ear in the foreign policy world recognize the coherence of his strategy regardless of whether or not we support it. But the fact remains that the American people do not agree. To most Americans, from my perspective at least, the President remains unaware of the severity of discontent among the public. They see the guy in sunglasses at a baseball game, oblivious to the evil dominating the world around us. The President, as he admits in the Goldberg piece, relies on a lofty and intellectual foreign policy. It does not fit conveniently on hats or bumper stickers. Compound this with the President’s inability or unwillingness to explain the nuances of his thought with the American people, and it’s no surprise this election season has turned out the way it has. My first column began with the observation that in response to tremendous fear and uneasiness after the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, the President stood at a podium in the Oval Office and said everything was fine. It seems that he remains steadfast in that conviction.
Brian Hopkins is a Trinity senior. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.