{"id":119315,"date":"2025-02-20T17:05:58","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T15:05:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=119315"},"modified":"2025-02-20T09:28:51","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:28:51","slug":"20-05-111","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=119315","title":{"rendered":"The Obama Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>The Obama Doctrine<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

Jeffrey Goldberg
\n<\/strong>[April 2016]<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Ruven Afanador<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Why Ukraine will always be vulnerable to Russian domination<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Russia\u2019s invasion of <\/span>Crimea<\/span>\u00a0in early 2014, and its decision to use force to buttress the rule of its client Bashar al-Assad, have been cited by Obama\u2019s critics as proof that the post-red-line world no longer fears America.<\/span><\/p>\n

    So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. \u201cThe argument is made,\u201d I said, \u201cthat Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought,\u00a0He\u2019s too logical, he\u2019s too rational, he\u2019s too into retrenchment. I\u2019m going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine<\/span><\/strong><\/i>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Obama didn\u2019t much like my line of inquiry. \u201cLook, this theory is so easily disposed of that I\u2019m always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don\u2019t think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush\u2019s watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq.\u201d Obama was referring to Putin\u2019s 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine\u2014to keep an ex\u2013Soviet republic in Russia\u2019s sphere of influence.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cPutin acted in Ukraine<\/span><\/strong> in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there,\u201d he said. \u201cHe\u2019s done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine<\/span><\/strong>, than they were before they invaded Ukraine<\/span><\/strong> or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Obama\u2019s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u201cThe fact is that Ukraine<\/span><\/strong>, which is a non-nato<\/span>\u00a0country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n

    I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine<\/span><\/strong> was realistic or fatalistic.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cIt\u2019s realistic,\u201d he said. \u201cBut this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there\u2019s always going to be some ambiguity.\u201d He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. \u201cI think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn\u2019t exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn\u2019t maybe react in ways that might cause people to think,\u00a0Wow, this guy might be a little crazy<\/i>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cThe \u2018crazy Nixon\u2019 approach,\u201d I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you\u2019re capable of committing irrational acts.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cBut let\u2019s examine the Nixon theory,\u201d he said. \u201cSo we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I\u2019m going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova\u2014another vulnerable post-Soviet state? Wouldn\u2019t it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about that?<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cThere is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that\u2019s how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it\u2019s really important to somebody, and it\u2019s not that important to us, they know that, and we know that,\u201d he said. \u201cThere are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine<\/span><\/strong>, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Obama went on to say that the belief in the possibilities of projected toughness is rooted in \u201cmythologies\u201d about Ronald Reagan\u2019s foreign policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cIf you think about, let\u2019s say, the Iran hostage crisis, there is a narrative that has been promoted today by some of the Republican candidates that the day Reagan was elected, because he looked tough, the Iranians decided, \u2018We better turn over these hostages,\u2019\u2009\u201d he said. \u201cIn fact what had happened was that there was a long negotiation with the Iranians and because they so disliked Carter\u2014even though the negotiations had been completed\u2014they held those hostages until the day Reagan got elected. Reagan\u2019s posture, his rhetoric, etc., had nothing to do with their release. When you think of the military actions that Reagan took, you have Grenada\u2014which is hard to argue helped our ability to shape world events, although it was good politics for him back home. You have the Iran-Contra affair, in which we supported right-wing paramilitaries and did nothing to enhance our image in Central America, and it wasn\u2019t successful at all.\u201d He reminded me that Reagan\u2019s great foe, Daniel Ortega, is today the unrepentant president of Nicaragua.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Obama also cited Reagan\u2019s decision to almost immediately pull U.S. forces from Lebanon after 241 servicemen were killed in a Hezbollah attack in 1983. \u201cApparently all these things really helped us gain credibility with the Russians and the Chinese,\u201d because \u201cthat\u2019s the narrative that is told,\u201d he said sarcastically. \u201cNow, I actually think that Ronald Reagan had a great success in foreign policy, which was to recognize the opportunity that Gorbachev presented and to engage in extensive diplomacy\u2014which was roundly criticized by some of the same people who now use Ronald Reagan to promote the notion that we should go around bombing people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    In a conversation\u00a0<\/span>at the end of January, I asked the president to describe for me the threats he worries about most as he prepares, in the coming months, to hand off power to his successor.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cAs I survey the next 20 years, climate change worries me profoundly because of the effects that it has on all the other problems that we face,\u201d he said. \u201cIf you start seeing more severe drought; more significant famine; more displacement from the Indian subcontinent and coastal regions in Africa and Asia; the continuing problems of scarcity, refugees, poverty, disease\u2014this makes every other problem we\u2019ve got worse. That\u2019s above and beyond just the existential issues of a planet that starts getting into a bad feedback loop.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Terrorism, he said, is also a long-term problem \u201cwhen combined with the problem of failed states.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    What country does he consider the greatest challenge to America in the coming decades? \u201cIn terms of traditional great-state relations, I do believe that the relationship between the United States and China is going to be the most critical,\u201d he said. \u201cIf we get that right and China continues on a peaceful rise, then we have a partner that is growing in capability and sharing with us the burdens and responsibilities of maintaining an international order. If China fails; if it is not able to maintain a trajectory that satisfies its population and has to resort to nationalism as an organizing principle; if it feels so overwhelmed that it never takes on the responsibilities of a country its size in maintaining the international order; if it views the world only in terms of regional spheres of influence\u2014then not only do we see the potential for conflict with China, but we will find ourselves having more difficulty dealing with these other challenges that are going to come.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Many people, I noted, want the president to be more forceful in confronting China, especially in the South China Sea. Hillary Clinton, for one, has been heard to say in private settings, \u201cI don\u2019t want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cI\u2019ve been very explicit in saying that we have more to fear from a weakened, threatened China than a successful, rising China,\u201d Obama said. \u201cI think we have to be firm where China\u2019s actions are undermining international interests, and if you look at how we\u2019ve operated in the South China Sea, we have been able to mobilize most of Asia to isolate China in ways that have surprised China, frankly, and have very much served our interest in strengthening our alliances.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    A weak, flailing Russia constitutes a threat as well, though not quite a top-tier threat. \u201cUnlike China, they have demographic problems, economic structural problems, that would require not only vision but a generation to overcome,\u201d Obama said. \u201cThe path that Putin is taking is not going to help them overcome those challenges. But in that environment, the temptation to project military force to show greatness is strong, and that\u2019s what Putin\u2019s inclination is. So I don\u2019t underestimate the dangers there.\u201d\u2029Obama returned to a point he had made repeatedly to me, one that he hopes the country, and the next president, absorbs: \u201cYou know, the notion that diplomacy and technocrats and bureaucrats somehow are helping to keep America safe and secure, most people think,\u00a0Eh, that\u2019s nonsense<\/i>. But it\u2019s true. And by the way, it\u2019s the element of American power that the rest of the world appreciates unambiguously. When we deploy troops, there\u2019s always a sense on the part of other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated.\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

    Over the past year<\/span>, John Kerry has visited the White House regularly to ask Obama to violate Syria\u2019s sovereignty. On several occasions, Kerry has asked Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets, under cover of night, to \u201csend a message\u201d to the regime. The goal, Kerry has said, is not to overthrow Assad but to encourage him, and Iran and Russia, to negotiate peace. When the Assad alliance has had the upper hand on the battlefield, as it has these past several months, it has shown no inclination to take seriously Kerry\u2019s entreaties to negotiate in good faith. A few cruise missiles, Kerry has argued, might concentrate the attention of Assad and his backers. \u201cKerry\u2019s looking like a chump with the Russians, because he has no leverage,\u201d a senior administration official told me.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The U.S. wouldn\u2019t have to claim credit for the attacks, Kerry has told Obama\u2014but Assad would surely know the missiles\u2019 return address.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Obama has steadfastly resisted Kerry\u2019s requests, and seems to have grown impatient with his lobbying. Recently, when Kerry handed Obama a written outline of new steps to bring more pressure to bear on Assad, Obama said, \u201cOh, another proposal?\u201d Administration officials have told me that Vice President Biden, too, has become frustrated with Kerry\u2019s demands for action. He has said privately to the secretary of state, \u201cJohn, remember Vietnam? Remember how that started?\u201d At a National Security Council meeting held at the Pentagon in December, Obama announced that no one except the secretary of defense should bring him proposals for military action. Pentagon officials understood Obama\u2019s announcement to be a brushback pitch directed at Kerry.<\/span><\/p>\n