Presidential Doctrines are statements relative to the foreign relations goals, objectives and policies of the United States. The Monroe Doctrine declared that European colonization of the Americas was no longer welcomed and would be considered as an act of aggression requiring a U.S. response. The Truman Doctrine said the United States would support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. Next to the Monroe Doctrine, the Kennedy Doctrine is perhaps the most emphatic in its declaration that “…that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Thirty-one years ago, President Jimmy Carter outlined the Carter Doctrine in which he said, “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” President Ronald Reagan added the “Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine” which modified the Doctrine to include internal security of the Persian Gulf nations. The Clinton Doctrine stated, “…we can say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it’s within our power to stop it, we will stop it.”
Four weeks ago, there was a vocal call within this country for President Obama to go into Libya and assist the rebels in removing Colonel Gadhafi from power. The President only acted after Gadhafi used airpower to bomb his citizens and the Arab League called for a “no fly zone.” The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution for the implementation of the air restriction and a coalitions of nations led by the U.S. started executing the mission on March 19th. The continuation of the “no fly zone” has been turned over to NATO (an organization that the U.S. still has considerable influence in).
But Libya begs the question: why intervene at all? And why now? After all, our interest weren’t threatened and the rebellion in Libya didn’t qualify for inclusion under the Bush Doctrine which says that we will make no distinction between terrorist and those who harbor them. The answer is because as a people we will not knowingly condone the murder of the innocent. And with this, we get an indication of the Obama Doctrine: “The U.S. will take military action to avert a humanitarian crisis if its scope is limited and if it has the backing of the world community.” This doctrine appears to be a corollary to the Clinton Doctrine. And if this, in fact, turned out to be the Obama Doctrine, it is doomed to fail.
Previous Presidential Doctrines have been firmly declarative: “If you as a nation do something we view as a negative, we will view your action as an hostile act and reserve the right to respond as we deem fit.” Our Doctrines don’t require the approval or support of other nations because our Doctrines are intended to protect OUR security interest first. Doctrines built on consensus from other nations are doctrines that value the security interest of others over ours and do not protect us in a world where the interlinking of global economies make all nation states vulnerable. The perceived Obama Doctrine begs the question: If Libya today, why not the Ivory Coast tomorrow or Syria or Yemen? Where will others want us to intervene to protect their interest?
President Obama did the right thing by using air power to enforce a “no-fly zone” in Libya. Such intervention is clearly called for by and legal under the Clinton Doctrine. But if President Obama undertook this action under the so-called Obama Doctrine, then he did the right thing for the wrong reason and getting the U.S. and NATO out of Libya gracefully will be a difficult thing for him to do.