If there's an Obama doctrine on foreign entanglements...

[Direckshun]

I've been thinking about what a single Obama doctrine must look like, one that makes sense of all our entanglements from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Iran, Burma, and so on.

It's two-pronged. One is with soft power, and the other is hard power.

When it comes to soft power, the Obama administration sees engagement as preferable to isolation, as evidenced by his Cairo speech early on and the constant overtures towards Burma as well as the other ones to Egypt, and Iran.

But this is hardly revelatory; Obama's hardly the first to embrace it.

Where Obama I think really lays an interesting path is on his pluralistic embrace of hard power -- although I'd say this isn't really revelatory either since it largely follows in the steps of George Bush the first.

Conflicts or struggles against foreign nations do not have to be lead de facto by the United States, but instead should be lead and shaped by the nations closest to the conflict politically. In those cases, should the administration find their case compelling on some mishmash of humanitarian or profit-oriented grounds, American will provide logistics, support, and power where it needs be and is specified by those at the front of the conflict.

See: Libya, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and most recently the American support in the French intervention in Mali

In entanglements where there's no real opportunity for engagement, or any particular mood internationally, the administration either doesn't engage (the country's continued snubbing of North Korea and Cuba) or pulls out (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule -- if we get a pure profit out of the deal, we're of course going unilateral, as we've continued to do in Bahrain and Kyrgyzstan, and to a lesser extent in Pakistan or Yemen.

But what this has done, is it has expanded American reach globally, cemented America as the arbiter of foreign engagement, and allowed for our influence to expand militarily without sparing much in the way of American lives.

I came across this thought today reading about the French intervention in Mali to expunge the country of the Islamic extremists who'd taken a huge portion of the country. It was an invasion of extremists that tormented the Malians, and threatened a ton of the natural resources there that France depends on. So France uses our ample military logistical power on the continent with their troops and Malian support to largely fight the radicals off. The whole thing played like a repeat of Libya: a successful intervention that was celebrated by the local population rather than reviled, and cost absolutely zero American lives.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The whole thing played like a repeat of Libya: a successful intervention that was celebrated by the local population rather than reviled, and cost absolutely zero American lives.

Yeah, total success.

[petegz28]

Meanwhile Hillary is currently testifying on why Americans died in Benghazi, Libya

[blaise]

I like to look at it this way. When something good happens we'll say Obama's policies work, and when something bad happens we'll say it's because of Bush, or it's beyond Obama's control or something.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

I like to look at it this way. When something good happens we'll say Obama's policies work, and when something bad happens we'll say it's because of Bush, or it's beyond Obama's control or something.

Q

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Q

I call it the "cosmo doctrine."

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

I call it the "cosmo doctrine."

I'm flattered.

[InChiefsHell]

Well, we know he's sending arms to Egypt, namely F-16's, as a means of financial aid package from 2010...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01...mid-criticism/

If Q, screw you.

Either he really doesn't think Egypt is run by a guy who hates us and Israel, or he's a ****ing lunatic. Or both, I guess...

[InChiefsHell]

BTW, I couldn't find the story in any other place besides Fox and the like. NBC is too consumed with Michelle's dress maker.

[Chief Henry]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Meanwhile Hillary is currently testifying on why Americans died in Benghazi, Libya

What difference does it make ?

[Prison Bitch]

What's the over/under on people who actually read that entire first post? 2?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Yeah, total success.

In removing Qaddafi successfully, militarily? Is there any question?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Well, we know he's sending arms to Egypt, namely F-16's, as a means of financial aid package from 2010...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01...mid-criticism/

If Q, screw you.

Either he really doesn't think Egypt is run by a guy who hates us and Israel, or he's a ****ing lunatic. Or both, I guess...

The United States makes bank off Egypt, and has for decades prior to this arrangement. We make money off some really shitty people.

I'm clearly against that, but regardless let's not pretend this is purely an Obama thing.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

What's the over/under on people who actually read that entire first post? 2?

Maybe.

[InChiefsHell]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The United States makes bank off Egypt, and has for decades prior to this arrangement. We make money off some really shitty people.

I'm clearly against that, but regardless let's not pretend this is purely an Obama thing.

No, let's not pretend that. I'm just saying, RIGHT NOW it IS an Obama thing. I don't see how we make money off of this deal though. We are GIVING them to Egypt, not selling them...