Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama frames new national security doctrine in terms of peace and diplomacy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:29 AM
Original message
President Obama frames new national security doctrine in terms of peace and diplomacy
Thu May 27, 2010

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s first formal National Security Strategy argues that preserving American leadership in the world hinges on learning to accept and manage the rise of many competitors, and dismisses as far too narrow the Bush era doctrine that fighting terrorism should be the nation’s overarching objective.

In a 52-page document that tries to balance the idealism of Mr. Obama’s campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a fractious and threatening world over the past 16 months, Mr. Obama describes an American strategy that recognizes limits on how much the United States can spend to shape the globe.

An America “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic crisis,” he argues, cannot sustain extended fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while fulfilling other commitments at home and abroad.

“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction of the strategy being released on Thursday. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”


That line is just one of many subtle slaps at President George W. Bush. Much of the National Security Strategy, which is required by Congress, reads as an argument for a restoration of an older order of reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern threats. While Mr. Bush’s 2002 document explicitly said the United States would never allow the rise of a rival superpower, Mr. Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor, but that global power is increasingly diffuse. “To succeed, we must face the world as it is,” he says.

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/28strategy.html?pagewanted=print


For the first time, a White House National Security Strategy includes a commitment to building the nation's economic health. A key tenet of Obama's domestic agenda is creating what he calls a "new foundation" for the economic future through better education, national debt reduction, a stronger U.S. clean energy industry, greater scientific research and a revamped health care system.

Obama says in the document that success in these areas is crucial to maintaining U.S. influence abroad.

"Our strategy starts by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home," the president wrote in a preface.

The strategy also says that in an age of globalization, economic turmoil in other nations can directly affect the lives of Americans. "We have also seen how shocks to the global economy can precipitate disaster," the document says.

read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOHvy03tYuPQNp0ldHC9APDXkyhAD9FV46LO0


In a formal break with the go-it-alone Bush era, President Barack Obama's strategy called for expanding partnerships beyond traditional U.S. allies to encompass rising powers like China and India in order to share the international burden, according to portions of the document obtained by Reuters.

Obama's first official declaration of national security goals, due to be released in full later on Thursday, pointedly omitted predecessor George W. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war that alienated some U.S. allies.

Laying out a vision for keeping America safe as it fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the document formalized Obama's intent to emphasize multilateral diplomacy over military might as he tries to reshape the world order.

While renewing previous presidents' commitment to preserve U.S. conventional military superiority, the doctrine laid out on Thursday put an official stamp on Obama's departure from what Bush's critics called "cowboy diplomacy."

"We need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions," the document said. But it insisted the United States did not have the option to "walk away."

read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P62320100527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ahh, there's a nice switch in thinking from the constant refrain of war. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. yes
I'm gratified and encouraged by the change in rhetoric. I'll be looking for concrete examples which prove this change to be more than just 'framing' of what has looked to be a military-centered approach; albeit with this president exercising more restraint and diplomacy than I would expect from any republican administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Obama's departure from what Bush's critics called "cowboy diplomacy"-Reuters article
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P62320100527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a new national security doctrine that would join diplomatic engagement and economic discipline with military power to bolster America's standing in the world. In a formal break with the go-it-alone Bush era, President Barack Obama's strategy called for expanding partnerships beyond traditional U.S. allies to encompass rising powers like China and India in order to share the international burden, according to portions of the document obtained by Reuters.

Faced with a struggling economy and record deficits, the administration also acknowledged that boosting economic growth and getting the U.S. fiscal house in order must be top national security priorities. "At the center of our efforts is a commitment to renew our economy, which serves as the wellspring of American power," the wide-ranging policy statement said.

The administration even reiterated Obama's determination to try to engage with "hostile nations" -- a veiled reference to nuclear-defiant Iran and North Korea -- but threatened to isolate them if they continued to defy international norms.

Bush used his first policy statement in 2002 to stake out the right to unilateral and pre-emptive military action against countries and terrorist groups deemed threats to the United States in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Obama's plan implicitly distanced his administration from what became known as the Bush Doctrine and underpinned the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. While renewing previous presidents' commitment to preserve U.S. conventional military superiority, the doctrine laid out on Thursday put an official stamp on Obama's departure from what Bush's critics called "cowboy diplomacy."

...we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials, achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth, and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change," it said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. "Framing" is spin. I'm waiting for action
but have yet to see it.

Talk is cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I don't know what you consider this...I consider it action.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NATIONAL_SECURITY_STRATEGY?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

snip//

the new strategy breaks with some previous administrations in putting heavy emphasis on the value of global cooperation, developing wider security partnerships and helping other nations provide for their own defense.

In his first 16 months in office, Obama has pursued a strategy of gentle persuasion, sometimes summarized as "engagement."

His administration has attended more closely to ties with Europe, sought a "reset" of relations with Russia, pushed harder to restart stalled Mideast peace talks and consulted widely on a roadmap for defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Problem is
It is inconsistent rhetoric with the actions he has taken since in office. It is inconsistent with continuing the SOFA that Bush negotiated, not the 16 months he proposed. It is inconsistent with increasing our war in Afghanistan, without a concurrent commitment from our allies, or the diplomatic efforts. It is inconsistent with his "assassination" strategy in Pakistan, especially when conducted predominately by the CIA, without the involvement of the Pakistani government.

And there is NOTHING "gentle" or "persuasive" about any of those strategies.

Probably the biggest effort on his part that is consistent with that strategy is his work in arms reduction talks with Russia. He has continued the 6 party talks with North Korea, a strategy that started AT LEAST with the previous administration, if not the previous two. It is consistent with his strategy in Iran, which is a deviation from that of his predecessor.

The best explanation of all of this is that "No Drama Obama" does NOT like "turning on a dime". He prefers to be incremental, instead of transformational. He'd rather lead by persuasion, than by direction. For some of us, that means he tends to miss opportunities to be "audacious".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I think the last administration was 'audacious'
Edited on Thu May-27-10 08:19 AM by bigtree
. . . in their promotion of militarism as their primary and all-consuming response to every global challenge or 'threat', and in their unilateral enactment of those ambitions.

I think the pragmatic approach of President Obama is a reflection of his desire to achieve more than just some unitary solution dictated by executive action or WH initiative, but rather an emphasis on measures which are sustainable and supported beyond his presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Rhetoric vs action
"I think the pragmatic approach of President Obama is a reflection of his desire to achieve more than just some unitary solution dictated by executive action or WH initiative, but rather an emphasis on measures which are sustainable and supported beyond his presidency."

That's his rhetoric. As of yet, it's not particularly his action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. 'as of yet' . . .
The assumption I'd take from the new policy declaration would be that he's signaling a shift or a redefinition of policy. That's what I'll be looking for in the coming months.

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the shift in words. I remember that Bush's actions were mostly true to his militaristic policy directives which were cut and pasted from PNAC documents. I'm encouraged by this president's (rhetorical) departure from most of that. It should have an impact on the actions and direction of his subordinates charged with implementing his foreign policy initiatives. The State Dept. is going to affirm the presidents policy today in a speech. I expect that agency will take on more responsibility and will be lobbying Congress for more resources to make the diplomacy real and meaningful.

Also, this rhetorical shift comes in the wake of admissions from the military leadership that they are reaching the limits of their ability to alone effect the changes the president is seeking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. That is the ray of hope here
Obama isn't big on turning on a dime, and is more the incrementalist and consensus builder than a director and commander. He basically has been "going along to get along" so far and this could be a first (maybe second) step towards changing the path. 16 months in is a long time considering that he'll lose the ability to move things much in the last 2 years. But we will have to "wait and see".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Nope. That is framing.
It talks of "new strategy" And despite the fact that Obama is a better statesman than Bush ever was (which accounts for improved ties with "old Europe") Obama has nonetheless expanded the so-called 'war' on terror deeper into Pakistan and Yemen.

When I see action, I'll be happy to call it that.

Action is withdrawal from Afghanistan. We're doing the opposite now. We've increased military engagement in Afghanistan, not decreased. When I see decreased military presence, that will be action and I will be happy to admit that.

Saying your going to do something is not action. Actually doing it is what constitutes action, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Now that's criticism...
Obama announced something yesterday and you're not impressed because you haven't seen action yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well, he has a history of talking rot about change
so I think it's a valid criticism, even if you do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Because it is inconsistent with his actions
Basically, the criticism is that he's talking a good game, but his actions, to date, aren't consistent with this rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Examples?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
14. K & R
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. 52-page document
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC