Obama Doctrine Research Articles

The Bush Doctrine redux: changes and continuities in American grand strategy since ‘9/11’

This article examines the ideational dimension and political performance of American grand strategy since ‘9/11’ and explores to what extent the strategic assumptions, ideological dispositions, and security practices of the Bush Doctrine have endured since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It advances a constructivist understanding of American grand strategy as a nexus of national identity discourses and security practices. The article will first explore the significance of American exceptionalism in the ideational dimension of the Bush Doctrine and its practical impact in the pursuit of US national security. The article will then focus on the Obama Doctrine, arguing that its embrace of cooperative engagement and multilateralism represented a limited strategic course correction within the paradigm of liberal hegemony. Finally, the article will contrast grand strategy discourses under Bush and Donald Trump, exploring their shared foundations in Jacksonian nationalism and unilateralism that demonstrate the continued relevance of Bush’s strategic vision of US primacy.

The purpose of military force and the Obama doctrine: no fighting for face

The scholarly debate about the Obama doctrine has focused on the extent of military force in Obama’s foreign policy. Offering both a novel definition of presidential doctrines and a reinterpretation of the Obama doctrine, this article shifts the focus from the extent to the purpose of force. More specifically, it claims that the Obama doctrine is better described as a general unwillingness to fight for a reputation for resolve. Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama did not consider the US military as a tool for projecting firmness. Instead, his decisions concerning the use of force were dominated by material considerations, be it in limited or expansive military operations. To illustrate Obama’s refusal to fight for face, the article examines three prominent decision points during the Obama presidency – the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, the 2011 intervention in Libya, and Obama’s reaction to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons in 2013.

American foreign policy in Middle East: new transformations under W. Bush and Obama administrations

This study attempts to diagnose the changes witnessed by the American foreign policy in the Middle East, in both of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, this phase witnessed shift at the level of the visions, beliefs and attitudes. which reflected on the nature of the of dealing with the issues of the region , and embodied the most prominent features of change to adopt the U.S. policy toward the countries of the region in a general principle encapsulates policies , texture pressure in order to establish the values of democracy and human rights as a philosophy and a general principle , and inwardly save its interests in the Middle East , the United States sought for six decades in middle east countries to achieve stability on the expense of democracy , and through the support of totalitarian existing regimes , and cracking down on the opposition .but the events of September 11 forced them to change the approach to foreign policy encouraging democracy and claim to impose reforms. the study exposed to the George W. Bush hard doctrine, unilateral, military tool that give superiority to the implementation of the objectives of its foreign policy, on the contrast of president Obama doctrine with its realistic approach, which sees the need to combine all the tools of foreign policy to implement its objectives, Also this study return to realistic policy in its alliances and legitimacy, as well as dealt approach U.S. political discourse towards the Muslim world, and seek the main topics like, the war on Iraq in 2003and its impact on reformation in the Middle East .And the U.S. position on the Arab Spring, specifically the Syrian revolution. Also this study deals with U.S policy towards Iran Nuclear file, and The Arab-Israeli conflict .The study concluded that foreign policy changes occurred in George W. Bush second presidency is differ from his first presidency, and this transformation take a wider dimension and more comprehensive in Barack Obama's presidency.

From the Obama Doctrine to America First: the erosion of the Washington consensus on grand strategy

This article explores the social construction of American grand strategy as nexus of identity and national security. The article first highlights how the identity construct of American exceptionalism has underwritten a grand strategy of global leadership and military interventionism since the end of the Cold War, constituting liberal hegemony as dominant position within the bipartisan US foreign policy establishment. The article then explores the political impact of counter-hegemonic discourses of restraint and offshore balancing under the Obama presidency. It argues that in ‘leading from behind’ the Obama Doctrine represented a moderate intra-elite challenge to the status quo. Obama’s use of exceptionalist rhetoric to legitimate restraint simultaneously exposed the political limits of this strategic paradigm shift, which oscillated between continuity and change. Finally, the article examines Trump’s ‘America First’ stance, concluding that its combination of nationalism, nativism, and protectionism has resulted in the erosion of the Washington consensus on liberal hegemony.

DOKTRYNA OBAMY I WYKORZYSTANIE AMERYKAŃSKIEJ POTĘGI MILITARNEJ NA BLISKIM WSCHODZIE

DOKTRYNA OBAMY I WYKORZYSTANIE AMERYKAŃSKIEJ POTĘGI MILITARNEJ NA BLISKIM WSCHODZIE

Dollars, Arms, Words: Barack Obama and the Dilemmas of American Hegemony

This article discusses the foreign policy of Barack Obama and the basic elements and contours of what can be described as a putative “Obama Doctrine”. It argues that, while never precisely stated and outlined, this doctrine constituted an attempt to come to terms with the final manifestation of some ingrained and, after the 2008 global economic crisis, inescapable contradictions and flaws of the model of hegemony the United States had built and projected since the 1970s. To address this novel situation, and the multiple arcs of crisis the U.S. was facing, a radical strategic, diplomatic and discursive shift was needed. Cognisant of it, Obama pursued this change, although not always consistently or successfully, achieving results that appear all the more remarkable when compared with the foreign policies of his predecessor and, after almost two years in office, his successor.

Hanna S. Kassab and Jonathan D. Rosen (eds.), The Obama Doctrine in the Americas (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016), pp. xxiii + 344, £75.00, £32.95 pb, £31.95 E-book; $110, $49.99 pb, $46.99 E-book

Hanna S. Kassab and Jonathan D. Rosen (eds.), The Obama Doctrine in the Americas (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016), pp. xxiii + 344, £75.00, £32.95 pb, £31.95 E-book; $110, $49.99 pb, $46.99 E-book

"Доктрина Обами" в контексті еволюції зовнішньої політики США

The purpose of this article is to analyze the Obama doctrine in the context of the US foreign policy evolution since the Second World War. The American researchers suggest a vision of that evolution as a certain cycle of the US course in the world politics. Obama’s foreign policy was determined by two main factors: the internal economic situation and changes in the international environment. The combination of these factors led to the existence of multi-vector tendencies in the system of foreign policy decisions. In light of this, the development of a new concept of American world leadership was initiated at the political and academic levels in the United States. The article analyzes the results of the implementation of this concept.

The pros and cons of the Obama doctrine

The article is devoted to the study of the Obama Doctrine in American scientific thought following the end of his two presidential terms. The purpose of the article is to evaluate the period of Obama’s presidency in today’s American political science, in particular, to identify the assessments of the correlation between his program and the real political course. The research is based on the original theoretical basis of studying of the Obama Doctrine. The main issues described in the article are the following: features of the US foreign policy ideology which are traditional and constant, regardless of the ruling administration; the things «inherited» by the Obama Administration from the predecessor; the major achievements and mistakes in foreign policy which may be related to the period of 2009–2017. After the 9/11 attacks the fighting radical jihadists has become a top priority of American politics. Regional peace, prosperity, democracy and human rights were also important. The President has refused or allowed only a minimal military intervention in subsequent years. The President’s national security instruments became sanctions and negotiations. To judge the President’s management of the foreign policy it is important to follow such criteria as the ability to fulfil what was promised, to weaken the country’s enemies and to strengthen the allies, to develop a concept based on American interests, which should appear to be convincing and true and to get to the right course on a global scale. The change of the balance from periphery to the core created a vacuum of force, which was filled with ISIL. All the options offered by Obama have let the country’s enemies to believe that they can do whatever they want. And his disbelief in traditional allies has raised the question of the value of being an ally of the United States. However, Barack Obama, after the inheritance of the two wars and the global economic crisis during the George W. Bush Administration, has brought the country out of some of the old problems, avoiding falling into the trap of new ones. There were mistakes and lost opportunities. But, as George W. Bush and B. Clinton, Obama gave the successor a general foreign policy program and national power in a better state than when he came to power.

Book Review: Michelle Bentley and Jack Holland (eds), The Obama Doctrine: A Legacy of Continuity in US Foreign Policy?

Book Review: Michelle Bentley and Jack Holland (eds), <i>The Obama Doctrine: A Legacy of Continuity in US Foreign Policy?</i>

Transnational Self-Defense and Liberal Values: Replacing Law with Flawed Policy in the 'Obama Doctrine'

In December 2016, the Obama administration released a Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding the United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations (Report). Its purpose was to “enhance the public’s understanding of the legal and policy principles that have guided U.S. national security operations”. The Report outlines the administration’s view of international and domestic law regulating the resort to, and use of, armed force against non-state armed groups in the territory of other nations, here called “transnational self-defense.” In a personal foreword, President Obama claimed that the Report “reinforce[s] the fact that we defend our interests at home and around the world in a manner consistent with the laws, values, and traditions that are the source of our greatest strength.” In this chapter I argue that the Report and related 2013 Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG), which I collectively label the “Obama doctrine,” are inconsistent with both international law and fundamental American liberal values in two important ways. First, the Obama doctrine permits the resort to force in preemptive self-defense when not clearly necessary to avert a grave threat of impending harm. Second, the Report and PPG strongly imply that all uses of force in transnational self-defense occur within the context of armed conflict regulated by international laws of war. This adoption of an armed-conflict paradigm for all acts of transnational self-defense is erroneous in some contexts: not all violence between states and non-state actors creates or occurs within an armed conflict to which the laws of war apply. Relatedly, the Report extends its law of war paradigm to attacks against all “associated forces” of a non-state group without precisely outlining a legal and factual basis for doing so. When combined, these errors allow for much greater destruction of life and property than is clearly necessary to defend against a relatively specific, certain, impending threat of harm. Respect for international law and American liberal values requires a much more circumscribed and calibrated approach to transnational self-defense.

The Obama doctrine in the Americas

The Obama doctrine in the Americas

Soft Power, Leverage, and the Obama Doctrine in Cuba

Soft Power, Leverage, and the Obama Doctrine in Cuba

Soft Power, Leverage, and the Obama Doctrine in Cuba

Soft Power, Leverage, and the Obama Doctrine in Cuba

The Shadowboxer: The Obama Administration and Foreign Policy Grand Strategy

President Obama's foreign policy grand strategy can be described by the terms shadowboxing or shadowboxer. Shadowboxing is a technique that boxers use to practice, sparring with imaginary opponents or attacking shadows in preparation for the real fight. Similarly, President Obama attacks covert threats but rarely responds to visible or viable threats. Like a practicing boxer, President Obama is fighting the murky shadows while refusing to engage the main stage in the international arena. Obama's foreign policy grand strategy consists of the following five tenets. (1) Modest Retrenchment in Foreign Policy Spending. (2) Rebuilding America's Reputation: The Anti‐Thesis of George W. Bush. (3) Multilateralism. (4) Nonintervention and Avoiding “Boots on the Ground.” (5) Assertive Counterterrorism.Related Articles Quinn, Adam. 2007. “.” Politics &amp; Policy 35 (): 522–547. Haar, Roberta. 2010. “.” Politics &amp; Policy 38 (): 965–990. Farnsworth, Stephen, and S. Robert Lichter. 2013. “.” Politics &amp; Policy 41 (): 447–463. Related Media“The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4DJalBPNgc“Inside the Mind of a President.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM8qoXoQhL4“The New Internationalism: The Case for Restraint – Barry Posen” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGfvVc3UJUo

The Obama Doctrine - U.S. Strategic Retrenchment and its Consequences

The Obama Doctrine - U.S. Strategic Retrenchment and its Consequences

The Saudi‐Iranian Rivalry and the Obama Doctrine

The Saudi‐Iranian Rivalry and the Obama Doctrine

Normalization of US-Cuban Relations: Obama Doctrine and International Security in the Western Hemisphere

Normalization of US-Cuban Relations: Obama Doctrine and International Security in the Western Hemisphere

오바마 독트린과 미국의 대북 정책 프레임: 지정학, 핵전략, 불량국가

오바마 독트린과 미국의 대북 정책 프레임: 지정학, 핵전략, 불량국가

Externalizing the burden of war: the Obama Doctrine and US foreign policy in the Middle East

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring the Middle East has plunged into a state of instability. The United States has responded to these rising insecurities in a region of strategic importance with hesitation or half-hearted commitments. The Obama administration, plagued by the increasingly difficult decision of defining America's role in an apolar world while managing the political and economic legacy of the Bush administration, has relied on a policy of delegation. Obama neither refrained from military options nor showed any willingness to commit American ground troops to one of the strategically and operationally most complex environments of the world. Instead, Obama's preferred way of war is one relying on surrogates—both human and technological—that allow the United States to externalize, partially or wholly, the strategic, operational and tactical burden of warfare. Unlike any other previous US administration surrogate warfare has become the principal means of protecting US interests in the Middle East that are perceived to be all but vital. The need for deniability and legitimacy, cost–benefit considerations as well as the lack of capability have made warfare by surrogate a preferred option in the Middle East. The consequences for US policy in the region are profound, as the lack of control and oversight have empowered surrogates whose long-term interests are not compatible with those of the United States. More severely, the US might have jeopardized its standing as the traditional guarantor of security in the Middle East— something that partners and adversaries alike have exploited.