Commentaries posted do not necessarily represent the opinion of LDN.

 Any opinions expressed are those of the writers.

Presidential Doctrine evaluated

By Jim Killebrew

Send a link to a friend  Share

[May 23, 2014]  A lot has been said about privacy in America. This is especially true when the National Security Agency (NSA) story about surveillance broke and Edward Snowden, a former employee of the CIA and a contractor for the NSA leaked the presence of spying on Americans and other numerous global surveillance programs. Spying on the American people came to light when it was discovered through the whistleblower that “meta data” were being kept on all the telephone calls made in America for further “analysis” with different projects. Many political and non-political people alike were complaining about the loss of privacy by these activities.

Before the presidential election on November 5, 2012 I posted the following article. It outlined what I thought was a “new” Presidential doctrine being formed by the current President. He was re-elected on promises of change and transparency in his Administration. His promise was to gain control of an “out of control” world with eruptions of civil wars, terrorist acts and fallen world leaders. He has now been in office for almost 18 months of his second term. Read the following and see if he has kept his promises.

November 5, 2012: By the time this is being read the foreign policy debate between the President and his challenger is history. Nevertheless, since the United States is a world power, the foreign policy of this country is felt around the world. Additionally, the way we implement foreign policy goes a long way toward keeping us safe.

In 1823 when the country was still healing from the wounds of the Revolutionary War that resulted in the breaking away from the tyranny of Great Britain, President James Monroe created what has been called the "Monroe Doctrine." Simply stated, President Monroe said in his seventh State of the Union address that the United States would no longer allow European colonies to continue with the practice of colonizing in America. Nor would any further European influences be allowed to interfere with various states in the United States.

In 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine to define the natural consequence of that Doctrine to extend it to include Latin America. From the premise of his statement, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick," Roosevelt said, "If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters need fear no interference from the United States." He further added, "Chronic the Western Hemisphere...may force the United the exercise of an international police power." Obviously, President Kennedy used elements of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Doctrine to establish a blockade against the former Soviet Union from establishing nuclear weapons in Cuba.

With the growth of communism after World War II and during the Korean War in 1947 President Harry Truman initiated the "Truman Doctrine" in his promise to help countries with economic stability, equipment and even military force for those who were threatened by the spread of communism. If the country's citizens were resisting the attempts of subjugation by communist pressure, the Truman Doctrine established the containment policy to keep communism out of free countries.

In 1980 President Carter saw attempts by the Soviet Union to consolidate strategic positions in the Middle East to capture the world oil market. Because of the "vital interest of the United States," in the Persian Gulf region, President Carter vowed to use military force if necessary to protect American economic and national interests in the Persian Gulf. Being a strong ally with Israel, it was President Carter's efforts that brought about the alliance between Egypt and Israel through the Camp David peace talks.

From the 1980s until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the Reagan Doctrine that was created by President Ronald Reagan moved from simple containment of communism to actually providing military and financial support to guerilla forces to actually fight the threat of communist takeover of a government. President Reagan believed in a strong national defense by ensuring a strong military and thought weaknesses perceived by enemies was motivation for them to be emboldened to attack the United States.

President George W. Bush developed a "Doctrine" as a result of the events on 9/11/2001 when terrorists slammed commercial jetliners into the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania. The heart of his Doctrine consisted of his belief that those countries that harbored terrorists and trained terrorism to attack others around the world should be treated as actual terrorists themselves. This added the component of "prevention" to the Doctrines that have survived past Presidential Administrations. The "Bush Doctrine" consists of a series of policies meant to keep American citizens safe from terrorists.

Now, with the advent of the current President's inauguration a new "Doctrine" was implemented. It began with announcements to the enemies against whom we were waging war being told of the future date of withdrawal of American forces so the enemy could prepare their own combatants during their wait for the Americans to leave. It then moved on to a world apology tour where the President went around the world apologizing for America to those who sought to destroy America. To put the exclamation point on the new "Obama Doctrine", the President punctuated his meetings with Middle Eastern leaders with a waist-deep bow. Not to be misunderstood by the leaders harboring those training in terrorist camps, the President began to move away from the only Democracy in the Middle East, Israel.

[to top of second column]

With the new Obama Doctrine firmly in place the Iranians now have almost four more years advancement in building nuclear weapons and delivery systems of those weapons. The so-called "Arab Spring" has resulted in a destabilization of the region with Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt and thousands of civilian citizens killed in Syria. The relationship between Russia and the United States is at a low ebb while the Russian President waits for the US President to be re-elected so he can "have more flexibility" to work with the Russian government. This new Presidential Doctrine represents a new chapter in past Presidential Doctrines. Take a look at one outcome with the new Doctrine:

In my lifetime, especially when mass media came to the fore with television, if any attack on an American Consulate or Embassy occurred that resulted in American lives being lost, it would have been the number one discussion in the Administration and Congress. There would have been "measured" responses applied to responsible groups and a concerted voice of condemnation of the act. Instead, with this current terrorist attack in Libya resulting in a murdered Ambassador and three other Americans it was initially covered by the Administration by having the blame placed squarely on some short video aired on YouTube that began playing back in July. The result of that "Doctrine" it only seemed to embolden others in the area to raise up riots against twenty-two other Consulates and Embassies in the region.

The President, instead of rushing back to the White House and meeting with his National Security team to discuss options and draw the curtain of protection around the other Embassies and Consulates in Northern Africa and the Middle East, flew off to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. Some of his subsequent discussion was presented to the American people via a late-night talk show and a discussion group on the daytime television program, "The View." Even a month later the Administration and the State Department seemed to be at odds in statements about the entire incident.

If this is a strategy the Administration is using to demonstrate to the rest of the world that America is changing its foreign policy from a position of strength with immediate consequences for terrorist attacks to a position of tolerance and quiet, apologetic humility resulting in covering up the attack with diversion, and apologizing for America's actions, it seems to be working. Not to America's advantage, but the emboldened positions of the radicals who are watching.

If the President is given another four-year term in office, I wonder how far this new strategy will take us regarding our position in the world community as we move "forward"?


Of course we know the President was re-elected and has been given another four years in office. Since the beginning of his second term how can we judge the state of the union in terms of foreign affairs? Are we safer now since Iran has now had five and one-half years to continue to develop their nuclear war materials? Are the Russians close allies because of the “flexibility” the President afforded them after his election? Have the questions in Benghazi been answered with those responsible punished for their part? Do we have better relations with our ally Israel? Do we have the respect in the world that was promised by the President who wanted the world leaders to think better of America because of his apology tour and waist-deep bows? Have we been able to see resolution in the affairs in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? Have we gained more influence with nations like Sudan, Nigeria and Mexico?

Not even counting the domestic scandals that have emerged during the first 18 months of the second term of the President, can we truthfully say our standing in the world is on more solid footing that it ever has been due to the implementation of the Obama Doctrine? Keep in mind we knew all of this more than 18 months ago.


Click here to respond to the editor about this article.


< Recent commentaries

Back to top