Following his nationally televised speech Monday night to address the conflict in Libya, the Obama Doctrine regarding foreign policy now seems to be more clear and concise:
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
In explaining America’s intervention in Libya, President Obama said that “faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,” the United States must act boldly to prevent it, even in cases where there is no immediate domestic threat. But at the same time he also suggested that we can not seek regime change in every repressive state around the world, saying that he does not favor using force widely or unilaterally, a notably different course from Bush.
So it appears the Obama Doctrine is to support pre-emptive military intervention, but only if there’s an “international mandate for action,” a broad coalition, including support from neighboring countries and pleas for help from the victims themselves.
I don't know (?) The "Obama Doctrine" is beginning to sound/look a lot the "Bush Doctrine" MINUS G. Dubya's LYING about Iraq's supposed WMDs:When "faced with the prospects of violence on a horrific scale" the U.S. must act boldly to prevent it, EVEN in cases where there is NO immediate domestic threat. […]I could be wrong? (and time will certainly tell)….But Pres. Obama seems to be (at least in my eyes) an *I said one thing as candidate and now I'm saying something different as President* kind of politician which makes him typical, in that sense, and therefore NOT the least bit an agent of real *Change.* Nonetheless, the President demonstrates a seriousness about governing, while the Repubs continue to show nothing but contempt for governing, GOVERNMENT, and intelligent and rational thinking. One need only catch a glimpse of the (**inhaling**)…reckless, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing FOOLS, hucksters, shape-shifters, CRAZIES and wanna-bees (**exhaling**)…on full display as potential Presidentail candidates to know that the GOP thinks that being "President" is a joke! Which, IMO, makes the GOP a joke.