A COUPLE OF DAYS ago, Spencer Ackerman of the American Prospect published a lengthy article that revealed at long last–drum roll, please–the Obama Doctrine for foreign policy. Ackerman, working with copious cooperation from the Obama brain trust and himself a de facto Obama press agent, labeled the Obama Doctrine “an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy.” He also tossed around important sounding words like “transformative” with youthful abandon.
Before delving into the specifics of the Obama Doctrine, it makes sense to look at the Doctrinaires who produced the plan. Because of her unfortunate tendency to shoot her mouth off to the media, Obama advisor emeritus Samantha Power is the rock star of the group. While Power will always be beloved in some right wing circles for calling Hillary Clinton “a monster”–the affront that earned Power “emeritus” status on Team Obama–her general attitude regarding foreign policy challenges likely won’t appeal to hard-headed, hard-hearted conservatives.
Like her former Doctrinaire colleagues, Power is an idealist. She earned fame being one of the world’s foremost opponents of genocide, even earning the nickname “the Genocide Chick” and shooting hoops with George Clooney in the process. Of course, this is an extremely laudable part of Power’s background.
What’s disturbing about Power’s philosophy is how it elevates global politics into an inappropriately high-minded realm. In the Ackerman column, Power muses, “Look at why the baddies win these elections. It’s because [populations are] living in climates of fear. [U.S. policy should be] about meeting people where they’re at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That’s the swamp that needs draining. If we’re to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we’re not [providing].”
“Climates of fear” are indeed a bad thing, and they can produce undesirable results. But is the principal American foreign policy challenge today really based on people acting out because they live in “climates of fear?” Does al Qaeda act out of fear, or does something more malicious lie in the jihadist heart?
And what are we to make of Power’s insistence that we need to meet people “where they’re at?” Does “meeting people where they’re at” include situations when “where they’re at” includes a pining for a world without Israel and a visceral need to control the output of Dutch film makers? That’s probably an uncomfortable question for Obama and his Doctrinaires. You won’t find it asked or answered anywhere in Ackerman’s column.
The problem with having idealists form your foreign policy is that idealists tend not to care for the grotty details that upset their world view. Power is (or rather was) just one of the high-minded Doctrinaires whose résumé evidences a certain fondness for dovish idealism. Sarah Sewall is, according to Ackerman, one of Obama’s closest advisors. Sewall made her bones as a human rights advocate and disarmament advocate. Disarmament advocates since their regrettable Helen Caldecott led heyday in the 80’s have never been a repository for hard-headed foreign policy prescriptions.
Even the member of the team who’s supposed to give the rest of them muscular cover shows a proclivity for airy aims. General Scott Gration flew 274 missions as fighter pilot in the First Gulf War. As a veteran of 32 years of service in the Air Force, Gration, according to Newsweek, is the guy “who lends gravitas to Obama.”
But even Gration aims so high as to separate himself from reality. Newsweek quotes him as saying, “I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world.” True enough. And if unicorns could gather peacefully beneath a setting sun each night, the world would be a better place. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with Gration’s sentiment. But coming from the guy who’s supposed to provide a dash of blood and steel to Obama’s foreign policy prescriptions, it’s a jolting dalliance with an unattainable fantasy world.
SO WHAT KIND of Doctrine have the Doctrinaires produced? Not surprisingly, one jammed with high-minded goals but an aversion to taking on the intellectual or physical challenges necessary to achieve them. Given the stark disparity between their expressed goals and the Doctrinaires’ reluctance to act, the Obama Doctrine is predictably overflowing with internal contradictions and sweeping flowery assertions that ignore uncomfortable facts on the ground.
The most prominent of these internal contradictions comes when Ackerman assures the reader, “An inextricable part of [the] doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda.” This apparent sop to simplistic swing voters is probably meant to reassure them that Obama can be tough when necessary. Team Obama probably hopes the fact that Obama’s “thorough destruction” of al Qaeda will ignore Iraq, where al Qaeda operates its largest franchise and Obama has promised a total retreat, will escape the voters’ notice.
But the disingenuousness isn’t nearly as disquieting as the idealized version of the world that Obama and his minions apparently have adopted. Near the end of the piece, Ackerman crystallizes the thinking. “Why not pursue the enlightened global leadership promised by liberal internationalism?” Ackerman asks. “Why not abandon fear? What is it we have to fear, exactly?” Predictably, Power looks back 75 years to make the same point. “Obama goes back to Roosevelt. Freedom from fear and freedom from want. What if we actually offered that?”
As is often the case, lost in the clichéd invocation of Franklin Roosevelt is that there actually was much to fear back in the 1930’s. Nazism and totalitarianism, then in their nascent stages, would combine to take tens of millions of innocent lives. If America had been appropriately respectful and, yes, fearful of these threats, the butcher’s bill would have been less ghastly.
To answer the question of what we have to fear today, perhaps Team Obama could talk to Theo van Gogh. Oh never mind–he’s dead. Maybe they could ask Hirsan Ali, who has millions of people who would like to make her dead, too. If they’re of a mind to, they could begin a dialogue with the gay community in the Netherlands or the rocket-dodging population in Israel. They would likely find that people are fearful for a reason.
Honestly grappling with the very real perils of our era would mean putting the airy idealism and hollow rhetoric on hold. The Obama Doctrine shows that Barack Obama and his Doctrinaires have no intention of doing any such thing.
Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
