Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Obama Doctrine (from The Atlantic) (Original Post) YoungDemCA Mar 2016 OP
That is not nuanced it is a pitiful and vile attack against President Obama. Todays_Illusion Mar 2016 #1
I have not read it yet, BUT... Tree Frog Mar 2016 #2
Not at all. lovemydog Mar 2016 #5
Thanks for the Link! Tree Frog Mar 2016 #3
Thanks. I thought this part is especially interesting: lovemydog Mar 2016 #4
 

Tree Frog

(25 posts)
2. I have not read it yet, BUT...
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:08 AM
Mar 2016

...I listened to a discussion from the author of the article on Charlie Rose. Jeffery Goldberg wrote it. I was impressed and look forward to reading the article.

Here is the link- the story about Obama starts at 6 min 50 sec mark.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365688638/

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)
5. Not at all.
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:55 AM
Mar 2016

I think the President explains how the decision not to use military force is often as gut-wrenching as deciding to use it.

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)
4. Thanks. I thought this part is especially interesting:
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:40 AM
Mar 2016

Obama has come to a number of dovetailing conclusions about the world, and about America’s role in it. The first is that the Middle East is no longer terribly important to American interests. The second is that even if the Middle East were surpassingly important, there would still be little an American president could do to make it a better place. The third is that the innate American desire to fix the sorts of problems that manifest themselves most drastically in the Middle East inevitably leads to warfare, to the deaths of U.S. soldiers, and to the eventual hemorrhaging of U.S. credibility and power. The fourth is that the world cannot afford to see the diminishment of U.S. power. Just as the leaders of several American allies have found Obama’s leadership inadequate to the tasks before him, he himself has found world leadership wanting: global partners who often lack the vision and the will to spend political capital in pursuit of broad, progressive goals, and adversaries who are not, in his mind, as rational as he is. Obama believes that history has sides, and that America’s adversaries—and some of its putative allies—have situated themselves on the wrong one, a place where tribalism, fundamentalism, sectarianism, and militarism still flourish. What they don’t understand is that history is bending in his direction.

“The central argument is that by keeping America from immersing itself in the crises of the Middle East, the foreign-policy establishment believes that the president is precipitating our decline,” Ben Rhodes told me. “But the president himself takes the opposite view, which is that overextension in the Middle East will ultimately harm our economy, harm our ability to look for other opportunities and to deal with other challenges, and, most important, endanger the lives of American service members for reasons that are not in the direct American national-security interest.”

If you are a supporter of the president, his strategy makes eminent sense: Double down in those parts of the world where success is plausible, and limit America’s exposure to the rest. His critics believe, however, that problems like those presented by the Middle East don’t solve themselves—that, without American intervention, they metastasize.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Barack Obama»The Obama Doctrine (from ...