On The Obama Doctrine

Note: Originally given May 2012

 It is nearly inarguable that foreign policy is among a President’s greatest responsibilities. As this is the case, it is vital that we first examine the President’s foreign policy in order to evaluate his tenure as Commander in Chief and contrast it with Gov. Romney’s beliefs.

It would be rankly partisan to not commend the Administration for several successes. The President’s leadership in the killing of Osama Bin Laden, his Secretary of State’s role increasing freedoms for the downtrodden in Myanmar, and his willingness to continue the conflict against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates begun by his predecessor are all laudable.

But this Administration is sadly a failed one. I briefly present to you tonight my perception of an Obama Doctrine, views held by this Administration that are to blame for these failures.

The Obama Doctrine can be summarized through three tenets; first, that American power and leadership should be tethered to the whims of international institutions and the sensitivities of undemocratic nations. Second, that those around the world seeking democratic governance at great peril to their lives are more nuisance than opportunity. Third, that rogue states like Iran and North Korea are to be naively engaged with at great cost to our interest.

These precepts are intertwined.  In Libya, this Administration belatedly resigned itself to leading from behind, waiting to intervene until what was a popular revolt against a bloody despot had metastasized into civil war. Why did he hesitate but out of undue deference to Russia and China, nations whose hands are richly stained with the blood of their own citizens.

This President’s response to the Arab Spring has been to treat its democratic disciples as an annoyance, rarely given their cause the slightest mention. His damnable silence during the Green Revolution was a moral abandonment of our principles as Americans to look with fraternity on those who would rather be butchered wholesale by government thugs than bow to a theocracy.

Why was this Administration silent during the Green Revolution but out of fear that support for those butchered in the streets of Tehran would harm attempts at engagement? This from a regime whose only acceptable negotiations are to negotiate on the negotiations.

The brave citizens in Syria, whose struggle is now a year old with 10,000 slaughtered, have been sacrificed on an altar of convenience. This Administration waited five months to say what Syrians had said from the start, and has since been silent while Assad waits out the storm with massacres.

Presented with the opportunity of leadership transition in North Korea, the Administration joyously proclaimed that is had curtailed a drive for missile launches in the Sea of Japan. Imagine our surprise to find the North Koreans attempting to launch long-range missiles soon after.

In Latin America, press freedom in Ecuador and Bolivia are virtually non-existent, Chavez and Ortega continue to deny basic political rights, and this Administration finds it better to stab Britain in the back over the Falklands.

What is it that ails this Administration that they would intervene in Libya under the ambiguity of a “right to protect” Libyan citizens, yet be hushed to the Syrians besieged by their own government? The disease is thus: that this Administration views American power and leadership as something to be shunned and reluctantly assumed, better left to other powers. When our power brushes up against a nation like Russia and China, we retreat into a meek supporting role at best, and a complicit observer at worst. This is not the thinking of a certain Democratic President who circumvented the UN to stop genocide in Kosovo.

This Administration’s handling of Iran’s nuclear program has nothing short of shameful. When the Senate voted unanimously for stronger sanctions, this Administration worked hard to dilute the measures, believing  that 3 years of failed engagement could still work. And what of the sanctions save that they have done nothing to curtail Iran’s apocalyptic ambitions? In the past three years, the Iranians have progressed further than in the past three decades. Before this Administration, Iran had zero centrifuges providing 20% weapons-grade uranium; it now has hundreds. Our appeasement of Iran, including three years of cold-shouldering to Israel and the Saudis, has done irreparable harm to the safety and security of the world.

This Administration remains so committed to separating itself from Bush policies that it has turned a blind eye to our interests and values. Ironically, this President’s few successes are either due to the successes of his masterful Secretary of State, or to policies continued from Bush policy.

So what is this Obama Doctrine? It is an aversion to American power, a tendency to see democratic movements as a nuisance to our decline in power, and a willingness to engage with rogue states in unrequited naiveté.

Where does Gov. Romney’s vision contrast with this evaluation? Unlike this Administration, Gov. Romney understands that when the United States is strong, it is the greatest ally for peace this world has even seen. It is with this leadership that we ensure not only our security, but the security and prosperity of our friends (and our enemies) throughout the world.

Under Gov. Romney, no longer will it be tacitly deemed acceptable for Iran to possess nuclear capability that, in the President’s own words, would be a gamechanger. Under Gov. Romney, the democrats of Syria and the greater Arab world would not be left wondering whether or not we believe in our commitment to democracy, human rights, and self-determination for those gunned down in Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang.

Gov. Romney rejects the idea that we can retreat into a less assuming role in this world. Our shared values with our allies are not to be compromised, our renewed commitment to the freedom of peoples under the yoke of tyranny should be rightfully weighed with our interest, and our diplomacy should not be all-extending.

There remains a sincere hope that our foreign policy can lead us into another American Century of leadership. That hope is built on nothing less than a rejection of the Obama Doctrine, and a validation of Gov. Romney.