The Obama doctrine: Light footprint, lightweight thinking
One of the essential elements of the new consensus in foreign policy is the belief in the primacy of domestic policy. Before America asserts itself abroad, it is universally agreed, we must put our house in order. (“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities,” Eisenhower declared in a famous speech in 1953.) Of course history never provides such a “before.” There is no temporary suspension of crises and duties in which we may refresh ourselves. Like individuals, nations exist in many realms simultaneously. Obama is right about “nation-building at home,” but his implication that therefore we are exempt from assisting in the building of nations abroad, that fiscally speaking it is them or us, is momentously wrong. Even in our current woes, societies and movements in trouble look to us. And yet almost every conversation about our diplomacy now turns into a conversation about our economy. This is sophisticated thinking at its most simplistic. The causal relationship between our fiscal condition and our place in the world is not as neat as the economicists say. There are many ways to reduce defense spending, and each of them represents not an incontestable budget number but a contestable strategic vision; and anyway the defense budget is hardly what threatens the government’s solvency. And will the economicists, the actuarial doves, become interventionists if we finally balance the budget? Of course not: they have other grounds-ideological, moral, historical—for their love of the light footprint. (In the matter of Israel, incidentally, the light-footprintists demand a heavy touch—another irony, or a hypocrisy?)
I do not understand all this good conscience about the weakening of America’s influence in the world, since I regard America’s influence as generally a blessing for the world. I am not referring only to the export of our technology and our culture. If the United States does not determine to assist democratic struggles around the world, then those struggles will suffer and even fail.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What a bald, naked attempt to partially excuse Obama’s foreign policy failures by linking it to Rumsfeld. By calling it the Obama-Rumsfeld foreign policy it makes it seem like some of this isn’t Obama’s fault! the fact is, Obama’s foreign policy has nothing to do with Donald Rumsfeld.
Warner Todd Huston on January 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Being light in the loafers gives you a light footprint.
Flange on January 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM
Obama, and like thinkers, do not agree that America’s influence in the world has been positive. You have to look at books like “A People’s History of the United States” in order to understand that they think America is a scourge, a bully, an interfering monster, and a force for evil. See, we’ve been preventing the rise of Socialism around the world, and that’s unforgivable.
He, and they, want America weakened so that we cannot, and will not, interfere with how other nations run their affairs.
Steven Den Beste on January 29, 2013 at 7:47 PM
President Choom’s Doctrine: Aid your country’s enemies (by giving them fighter jets and main battle tanks) while badmouthing your friends (Israel and Britain, for example).
The loser’s losing strategy.
RoadRunner on January 29, 2013 at 8:25 PM