Barack Obama's Faulty Foreign Policy Doctrine

Introduction: Please note that this is based on an article by Spencer Ackerman of the American Prospect, and so this may in fact not be Obama's doctrine but rather the faulty interpretation by Ackerman of it.

Ackerman describes Obama's doctrine as not only merely ending the Iraq War but moving beyond the mindset that got us into Iraq. Throughout, Ackerman points out that Obama wants to move beyond the politics of fear.

The Obama foreign-policy team describes it as "the politics of fear," a phrase most advisers used unprompted in our conversations. "For a long time we've not seen much creative thinking from Dems on national security, because, out of fear, we want to be a little different from the Republicans but not too
different, out of fear of being labeled weak or indecisive,"another top adviser says. Identifying that fear as the accelerant of theIraq War mind-set is the first step to a new and innovative foreign policy. John Kerry was not able to argue for fundamental change in foreign policy because he was consumed by that very political fear. Obama's admonition to Democrats is much like Pope John Paul II's to the Gdansk shipyard strikers -- first, be not afraid.

Ackerman then goes on to point out that in order to see how a potential Presidential candidate will conduct foreign policy one needs to examine their foreign policy team. This is a good point, however Ackerman follows this up with a naive point about how Obama's team is full of folks with world experience. This is of course nonsensical. Every foreign policy team will have folks with intimate knowledge of the rest of the world. Ackerman foolishly assigns this extra meaning as he describes a foreign policy that moves from democracy promotion to so called dignity promotion...

What's typically neglected in these arguments is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen. Democracy, in other words, is valuable to people insofar as it allows them first to meet their basic needs. It is much harder to provide that sense of dignity than to hold an election in Baghdad or Gaza and declare oneself shocked when illiberal forces triumph. "Look at why the baddies win these elections," Power says. "It's because [populations are] living in climates of fear." U.S. policy, she continues, should be "about meeting people where they're at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That's the swamp that needs draining. If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not
[providing]."

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years."

This is not only patently ridiculous but frankly totally disingenuous. What is bringing hunger, disease, and lack of civil rights than the despotic regimes that Bush is trying to replace with democracies. If we are to take Ackerman seriously then we are supposed to believe that Obama will be able to work with despots in Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Palestine, and everywhere else where despots rule to end the despair that these very despots created. Furthermore, Obama wants to forward a protectionist free trade policy that will cut off the single biggest market to economic expansion for many of these countries. After all, it is economic destitude that is the single biggest factor for this so called lack of dignity.

While Obama is going on about bringing dignity to the world, he is against free trade with most of our neighbors. Colombia, for instance, is counting heavily on its free trade pact with the U.S. in order to continue economic expansion. Yet, Obama wants to renegotiate most free trade pacts, and is against completing most that are on the table. How does Obama expect people to move out of destitude if he blocks industry in those countries from having access to the U.S. market?

The article continues by linking this policy with the GWOT...

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years."

First, extremists can always find anything to demagogue, but more than that, it is silly and naive to think that he, Barack Obama, can transform their economic societies without transforming their societies in general. One of the main reasonse that extremists are able to demagogue is because there is no free press to counter them. Not so in democracies. In Iraq, for instance, there are several hundred television stations now and many times that many newspapers. Furthermore, blogging has become all the rage in Iraq, and Iraqis now have full access to the internet. The same sort of revolution has gone on in Afghanistan. Even if Obama was somehow able to succeed in this so called dignity tour, the press, controlled by the governments of our enemies, would no doubt spin things for their citizens against us.

The article tries to present Obama's foreign policy vision as something bold and new, but in reality it is as naive as the candidate himself. The foreign policy vision is the ultimate bumper sticker solution that Obama and his ilk have spent so much time railing against. While they talk about the politics of fear they don't explain what that is and how they will change it. While they talk about the policy of dignity it is one of those things that you are only going to put on paper.

Barack Obama would have us believe that he can produce jobs, economic opportunity, and better health care in a country like Somalia while holding in place the anarchy the country has had since 1992. He would have us believe that we can work with Robert Mughabe to end poverty in Zimbabwe even though it was his policies that brought famine there in the first place. We are to believe that the Iranian mullahs will work with us to end famine and poverty in that country even though it is the tyranical government that created those conditions.

This so called foreign policy vision is yet another example of Obama's naive and disastrous vision of the world. We are to bring dignity to the rest of the world while