The Obama Doctrine

The United States has recognized that local threats have worldwide consequences. Recognizing our global interconnectedness was essential for any foreign policy, especially in a world where traditional borders are quickly breaking down. The Doctrine highlighted that foreign intervention does not need to rely solely on military action. Today, political and economic sanctions are a key part of American foreign policy (Bolinder 2013). The Doctrine also calls for the U.S to lead the international community in spreading peace, prosperity and democracy around the world. It has become the foundation for United States foreign policy and a guidebook for international relations in a nuclear and digital age.

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has arguably been considered the greatest country in the world. The supposed leader of the free world, strongest and most powerful country in the world. The definition that the United States is the ‘greatest country’ in the world is open to discussion and can be compared at many different levels, however, for the purpose of this essay, the term ‘greatness’ is measured by its economic prowess and its hard power. The term ‘hard power’ is defined as ‘a coercive approach to international political relation, especially one that involves the use of military power’. After eight years of Obama doctrine, is it time to make America great again” must be broken down into two parts. What is Obama Doctrine, does it exist and then compare his Doctrine also tackle the quote of ‘making America great again’. This essay will argue that Obama Doctrine does exist and is linked to his foreign and domestic policies. It will also argue that America is still great but for different reasons. It will provide evidence that with the Obama doctrine it has moved from the historic use of hard power to a soft power footing. ‘Soft power” is defined as ‘a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economical or cultural influence’. However, even with this switch in posture, the United States has remained great. Albeit for

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, the first President declared to avoid “entangling alliances” and engaging internationally to not get drawn into war, which the US had followed unless it fell under certain circumstances. These certain circumstances entailed social demands and outbursts for a transition to an interventionist and almost bellicose ideology that drew in the United States to engage in foreign wars and policies.

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

The constitution defines the powers of congress and the president during war time. Congress is given the power to declare war. While the president is the commander in chief of the army. This gives the president the supreme authority over the army including the army, the navy, the Air force , the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. He makes the decisions to deploy troops, where to send the warships, and how the weapons should be used

Problem: In 1789 George Washington’s Farewell Address contained one major piece of advice to the county regarding relations with other nations: “avoid entangling alliances.” Those words shaped United States foreign policy for more than a century (Policy Making, American Government). Today some Americans think that Washington’s words are still wise ones, and that the United States (U.S.) should withdraw from world affairs whenever possible. In truth, however, the United States has been embroiled in world politics throughout the 20th century, and as a result, foreign policy takes up a great deal of government’s time, energy, and money.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Today, we are just over 100 days into Donald Trump’s presidency. Within those 100 days, Trump has already made two high-stakes bombings in the Middle East: one in Syria and one in Afghanistan (Hartung). From these two attacks, as well as numerous statements made by the president himself, Trump’s ideas regarding international relations are becoming more and more clear. Unlike Trump, Barack Obama’s thoughts and ideas regarding international relations are murky. However, after comparing numerous international relations theories, the theory that Obama is most congruent with is constructivism. Introduction to Global Politics (Brief Second Edition) describes the central concepts of constructivism as, “[seeking] to understand change. Ideas are social creations. Relationships result from historical processes. Ideas can evolve, replace older ways of thinking” (Lamy et al. 90). Constructivism is the international relations theory that best encapsulates Obama’s time in the White House because his actions and

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.

The “Bush Doctrine” was outlined in a speech by President George W. Bush in 2002. The US “would no longer rely solely on ‘Cold-War doctrines of containment and deterrence.’”9 The US would adopt preemption as its foreign policy, meaning they “reserve the right to preempt threats” and act accordingly.10 Furthermore, President Bush stated that the US would promote US principles and ideologies to countries around the world.11 g74 Lastly, President Bush stated that the US “would do what was necessary to remain the world’s sole superpower.”12 Kaplan and Kristol neatly summarize the Bush Doctrine as an “affirmative vision of American leadership, one that is neither reactive to nor dependent on the emergence of a specific threat.”13

Guzzini (2013) defines the important features of international relations theories, which define the underscoring themes of “realism” as a dominant type of political methodology for American imperialism. Realism is a theory that relies heavily on the notion of self-interested and fear-based notions of protecting national interests, which the United States has utilized through its powerful military. This international relations policy has generated a trend in post-9/11 American politics that has defined a unilateral approach to national threats on a global scale. Guzzini (2013) defines the underscoring political issues in American unilateralism that defines the realist perspective as a type of political responsibility of the United States to protect democracy around the world. This form of neo-imperialism is based on the premise that the U.S. can validate or rationalize the invasion of a non-democratic/terrorist nation without diplomatic cooperation with the UN or other nations. These are the important aspects of Guzzini’s (2013) important evaluation of “realism” as a significant contributor to American foreign policy initiatives that involve unilateral military interventions without global multilateral participation.

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.