Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Perhaps a surprising revelation from a man who seems to have spent his whole life chasing Platonic essences. Politico reports:
In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, President Obama brushed aside the suggestion that his approach to Libya could be replicated in other countries, like Syria.
"I think it's important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of Obama Doctrine that we're going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board," Obama said. "Each country in this region is different. Our principles remain the same."
Obama called Libya a "unique situation" and said that he isn't "going to go around trying to use military force to impose or apply certain forms of government." He added, "We may not be applying the same tools in each country, in every case."
Obama also offered this response when asked if he's considering arming Libyan rebels: "I'm not ruling it out. But I'm also not ruling it in."
What does the Ricochet community think? Is Obama unearthing his inner Edmund Burke and discovering that “Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect?” Or is this simply a dodge for the fact that those “political principle(s)” Burke refers to have no place in the Obama Situation Room?
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
This man and his Department of State are wandering in the wilderness of foreign policy. I'm getting very cranky as I age and my tolerance for stupidity is below nil. If anybody tells him about letters of marque and reprisal he'll probably try to go after the Hessians.
Jan '11
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Here's Obama's problem: we went into Libya for a reason he can't admit publicly. We went to war in Libya because our allies pushed him into it.
When you look at the pros and cons, side by side, you can't see any reason why we should go after Libya but not intervene in Egypt or Syria or Iran. The only variable that remains is that Europe pushed the action in Libya.
If Obama were to admit that we're fighting a war that Europe wants but that our country really doesn't need, he'd get eaten alive. So, he's going to avoid the question as much as he can. He gave a speech to pluck the heartstring of compassion, and now he'll say (in a tactic straight from Clinton) that "he already answered the question."
May '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Tom Sowell calls this "one-day-at-time rationalism" and has some harsh words for it.
Oct '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
The United Mercenaries of America, is once again playing the role of barbarians to Europe's Rome. Europe has an oil problem and we are their Army. The President of the United States of America places America's sons and daughters in harms way while he is off funding Brazil's oil exploration in the Gulf while prohibiting our oil producers from doing the same thing. Not a word for over a week. A bad singer may occasionally go off key; but only a great singer can sing an entire song off key.
And our proud congress, whose face has just been sharply slapped with the encouragement of Republican leadership, whistles past the graveyard.
I just can't wait to vote for those guys again...
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 1:27amAug '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
So now we are Blue Helmets without the blue helmets.
How very tragic a development.
Aug '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
One big difference - Rome's mercenaries at least had the sense to get paid for their efforts as opposed to our bankrupting ourselves for the honor.
Dec '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
I can see it now. The President discusses Foreign Policy and military intervention in his next book release "Winging it" by Barrack Obama
Aug '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Cribbed from the PJ Tatler and Charlie Martin:
Two rules:
From the Big Zero himself, "“I think it’s important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of ‘Obama doctrine’ that we’re going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board.”
There is no Obama Doctrine, just stuff he does with the two caveats above.
The corollary to the caveats is, "blame Bush" and "despite Bush."
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
It is a dodge. Assad in Syria is massacring his opponents as well, and his country is -- if anything -- of greater strategic significance than Libya. He went in to shut up Samantha Powers and Hillary. But he cannot tell us that.
Sep '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
"Obama called Libya a "unique situation" and said that he isn't "going to go around trying to use military force to impose or apply certain forms of government." He added, "We may not be applying the same tools in each country, in every case.""
The guy's intellectual chaos is the result of his Ivy League faculty lounge worldview meeting up with reality. We've just got to give up on him ever being coherent. It isn't going to happen. Given that, I liked his speech on Monday because he finally called clearly for Gaddafi to leave. That's about as good as it's going to get.
As for applying this elsewhere, he can't even apply the same principles in the same situation from day to day. Get real. Obama will never be consistent or rational.
Oct '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
He went in to support the North Africa Islamization movement. We all strain and stretch to avoid the obvious: Obama is in the leftist camp that considers any enemy of America to be his friend. Al Qaida may be a naughty word, but the left in America is allied with the left across the world in it's tacit support. Once the Axis of Evil wins, they can then fight over the spoils.
That's how it's supposed to play out. It remains to be seen.
Oct '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
He is the Obi Wan Kenyaobi of voting present: "I'm not ruling it out. But I'm also not ruling it in."
Yes, you dope, if you're not ruling it out, you by definition are ruling it in. Either it's off the table, or it's not. Ruling it out and ruling it in are mutually exclusive.
May '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
No inner Burke, but absolutely inner Carter — inner über-Carter.
Once again Obama has demonstrated the worst thing in the world to be is an American ally. We're lairs, we don't keep our word, we don't do what we say. We will turn on you for the thinnest reason.
The 94th Congress let Vietnam and Cambodia twist in 1975, and genocide ensued. Carter let the Shah twist, allowing the darkest, most perverted form of fascist Islam to assume state posture. Clinton walked away from the Kurds after firing a few cruise missiles, and abandoned the Kosovo Liberation Army to the Serbs. Obama has turned his back on Israel, promoted and assisted the fall of Egypt, and is now actively engaged in killing to impose contradictory opinions on Libya.
All allies of the United States, none perfect, yet all were in an orientation acceptable to usual United States foreign policy objectives. Now, for the absurd stated sake of "change", U.S. military might is misdirected like the stream from a Ghostbusters Proton Pack.
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:19amFeb '11
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
"a man who seems to have spent his whole life chasing Platonic essences"...Obama is a Word man, not an Idea man...the two don't always go together. There are many people who spend their lives in thickets of abstract-sounding verbiage but who are really incapable of thinking abstractly in any coherent way.
Dec '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
I think the so-called Obama Doctrine may not even work in Libya, much less Syria or anywhere else.
From what I've seen the rebel forces need a lot more than part time air support and better arms. What I repeatedly see in video clips is an undisciplined, unorganized, untrained, and unled mob in pickup trucks and automobiles. Even if they had better weapons they would not know how to use them effectively.
Unless there is something we don't know about, Obama has telegraphed his entire plan to Gaddafi. That's no way to win an armed conflict.
Time is on Gaddafi's side. I doubt the "coalition" will hold together politically for more than six to twelve months. Obama cannot politically afford to still be fighting in Libya a year from now.
Obama may be repeating the mistakes of LBJ, who thought that by slowly ratcheting up the pressure the enemy would eventually give up.
May '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Of course we have a doctrine, one that the Left has tried to enforce on US military action for decades. We can only use "Kinetic Military Action" when there is no identifiable US security interest at stake.
May '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
I'm in uncomfortable agreement with the President, though he's probably just using this idea as cover for the real reason, neatly outlined by Mulville up there.
There's really no point in a doctrine. It limits your options, removes the force multiplier of strategic ambiguity, and it changes with every President, even assuming the rare President who actually adheres to his doctrine. Doctrines are great for speechwriters, but harmful to policy.
I doubt he thinks about it that way, though. Just hoping the press will cover for him as usual.
Jun '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Melanie Phillips,on her blog yesterday: "[T]he west has not produced one single leader who possesses the insight, statesmanship and moral courage to deal with [the problems of the Middle East]. . . . [T]he US is currently led by a President whose lethal anti-western radicalism has rendered America an impotent giant, whose powerlessness is plain for all the enemies of the west to see."
VDH on NRO today: "The Obama Doctrine is simple: Proclaim a utopian policy, and then pray that most of the people who hear it are Neanderthals who will ignore it. Having said one thing, doing quite another is not only thereby okay, but also absolutely essential. Keep that paradox in mind, and almost everything the president does makes sense."
Dec '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
I also think Mulville is right. It was France, Italy, and Britain, along with Hillary and Rice, who shamed and pushed him into intervening.
No matter what the UN resolution says, they should be targeting Gaddafi and letting Gaddafi know it through back channels. The only way out of the mess is to get rid of Gaddafi one way or another, which was the whole point of the exercise to begin with.
The UN would never approve of that and everyone knows it, including Gaddafi.
Obama has demonstrated he is weak and indecisive, so it may be up to France and Britain to take care of Gaddafi.
May '10
Re: Doctrine? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Doctrine!
Searching for meaning in the words of a habitual liar is a fruitless exercise.