March 30, 2011--Our 21st Century President

At far back as the presidency of James Monroe, many of our chief executives have articulated policies about our place and role in the larger world that were subsequently dubbed doctrines.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the first and most famous, stated that efforts by European countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention.

Closer to our time, during the Cold War, the Truman Doctrine of 1947 declared that the U.S. would support Greece and Turkey with economic and military aid to prevent their falling under the Soviet sphere of influence. It further stated that it would be "the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

After that, still during the Cold War, under the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Still more recently, President Bush the Younger's Doctrine described a policy under which the United States has the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups. It was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq.

And now, just two nights ago, President Obama articulated a doctrine of his own that should be seen as appropriate for the 21st century.

The New York Tines report linked below offers the details of his speech to the nation about America's participation (underline participation) in the actions (underline actions) in Libya.

It is a bold but nuanced doctrine which is certain to get him into trouble with his antiwar Democratic base; and he is already of course being criticized by Republicans such as John McCain for not going far enough because it does not have the U.S. leading the action, merely participating under, help us, French leadership, nor does it call for the overt overthrow by force of the Gaddafi regime.

Both are reflexive, predictable positions more appropriate for the 20th than the 21st century. And since the Obama Doctrine has upset both sides in the ideological divide, whatever one's ultimate view of it--and it will likely take decades to sort that out--is is the first thing Obama has done internationally that is forward looking and truly bold.

Obama set his doctrine in contrast to Bush's both for the justifications and the unilateral and preemptive way in which we went about invading Iraq. To quote Obama--"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq." He could have added, but it was clearly implied, "And how did that turn out for us?"

His doctrine defines America's "national interest"--always the essential criterion when committing our armed forces to combat--in a very different way than any of his presidential predecessors. Their doctrines involved protecting us from severe economic or physical threat. Obama's includes that but puts at its center threats to our values, to what it means to be America.

In regard to when it is appropriate to use military power, he said:

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. . . .

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. [Italics added.]

Obama is savaged on a daily basis by right-wing talk-show hosts and GOP leaders and presidential candidate for not proclaiming American Exceptionalism. For not saying we have literally a God-ordained role to play in the world because we are qualitatively different from other nations because our country was founded as the result of a revolution through which we became the first "new nation" and developed a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire.

Obama did not use the E-word in his speech since exceptionalism expresses an exaggerated and arrogant view of our place in the world, but he did talk eloquently about America's "special" role--about our history, our values, and our democratic example.

For a century that is already seeing historic forces at work that will be discussed and debated a thousand years from now--what is going on in the Islamic world is that tectonically profound--Obama's is a doctrine for our times that redefines what it means to lead, appropriate ways to participate on the international stage, and calls for a way to inspire universal values without waving a Big Stick but by using the soft and hard powers at our disposal with both force and appropriate restraint. All with the knowledge that we are participating in a wave of history--more a tsunami--which we cannot ultimately control but may be able to help guide.

Obama's doctrine is obviously politically risky, even historically risky, because by acting this way America cannot be certain of any outcomes. Including of future presidential elections. Or how the map of the world that emerges will look. We like our wars to be more like the Second World War. But we live in a very different, asymmetrical world. When we think and act as if we are still fighting the Second or Cold War we wind up with what we saw in Vietnam and are seeing in Iraq. How we are now engaged in the Middle East, like it or not, is our best chance to be influential and secure our 21st century national interest--physical and economic security as well as the security that derives from seeing our values influencing the world's next generation.