Talk:Obama Doctrine

Original Research
Everything after the word "frequently" in the lead sentence is such. In fact, this term is not frequently used, and the second sentence says that it doesn't mean anything. The remainder is a laundry list of incidents where some writers have used the term "Obama Doctrine", without identifying any actual doctrine beyond the article creator's assertion that there is one (a novel synthesis). The actual useful content here is already covered in Barack Obama foreign policy, hence my original redirection. If this can't be redirected, though, it should go to AfD. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I challenge the idea that it's novel synthesis; several notable political commentators, as well as the president himself, have given their definition of the term. "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing." Certain elements, such as negotiation and multilateralism, are common to most definitions of the term, and I would challenge anyone to find a reliable source that denies this. Just because it has never been officially declared (most presidential doctrines never are, but are agreed upon by political commentators) and there is a certain disagreement over the details, doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on the term.


 * Barack Obama foreign policy is an entirely different article. That article is about specific foreign policy issues, and relations to specific countries. This article is about a term and its definition. The reason why the Obama Doctrine seems to be covered in that article is, quite frankly, because that article is so poorly written. The lead section is not used to summarise the article, but rather to introduce a term that is somewhat peripheral to the subject, and is not mentioned anywhere in the article.


 * Obviously I'm not going to put a lot of work into an article just to immediately have it made into a redirect; if I didn't think it was worthy of an article I wouldn't have created it! If, however, it is taken to AfD and the community decides it should be deleted, I would have to respect that. Lampman (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Economist article
Funny I saw this article, since I just noticed a piece in the latest edition of The Economist called "Is there an Obama doctrine?".

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15127255

Maybe there's something from there that might be incorporated into this article.

HonouraryMix (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
From the first paragraph:

"The Obama Doctrine has been praised by some as a welcome change from the dogmatic and aggressive Bush Doctrine."

Perhaps it's just me, but the last bit seems a bit biased? 216.137.228.7 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to me. The Bush Doctrine is not being labled as dogmatic and aggressive here.  It is so labeled by those who praise the Obama Doctrine in contrast with the Bush Doctrine.  In other words, the Obama Doctrine is getting praise from those who felt the Bush Doctrine was dogmatic and aggressive.


 * Though let me say that I think an article talking about "doctrines" in the case of a current US President that has only been in office for less than two years is more than silly when thinking about the history of the term.TheKillerPawletzki (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama further disassociates from the Bush Doctrine
Currently, there is much talk about a 52-page report from the White House where Obama more explicitly describes their approach towards foreign policy. Sadly, I can't find any information about the name of this document, which department it comes from, or where to find it. An article in the Telegraph seems to give a good overview. Many people are saying that it calls for an end to the War of Terror, but based on this article, it still recognizes that we must fight al-Qaeda and prevent homegrown terrorists, but it points out the difference between targeting specific terrorists versus claiming that we must eradicate the world of terrorism.

The article also stresses the document's call for "new partnerships with emerging centres of influence" and a "push for institutions that are more capable of responding to the challenges of our times", claiming that this portrays a new desire to cooperate with others and lead the world in innovation. The article's writer sees a detachment from the neoconservative view of the world, which American interests are vital and necessary ones for other states to adhere to. Instead, the documents states that "To succeed, we must face the world as it is," which the Telegraph writer sees as a more realist approach to foreign policy. Furthermore, counter-terrorism adviser to the president John Brennan says that it was wrong to "describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists", a description that plays into their eschatological view of the world. The reluctance to use such terms expresses a desire to move away from the previous climate of an ultimate battle between "us" and "the terrorists".

This Telegraph article definitely seems relevant to this Wikipedia article. I'm hesitant to incorporate this information into the Obama Doctrine article at the moment because I'd much rather see what the document this news article refers to actually says. If anyone else wants to add information from that article, or any others about the report, to this one they should feel free to, I think. --Enderandpeter (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Lihaas for adding info about that May 2010 National Security report. And thanks to Al-Jazeera for providing a link. --Enderandpeter (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jumping the gun a bit...
There is no Obama Doctrine. Yet. Can careful consideration really be considered a doctrine? Was Obama really the first to believe in this? This article is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.18.168 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan war
An artcle in the Economist says the following:

"Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership. - [...]the clearest explanation so far of an “Obama doctrine” of humanitarian military intervention."

Seems like it's relevant.

Later Edit: another relevant article

- ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article needs work, in part because of the ephemeral nature of the subject. Even before the most recent spate of chatter, I would have started the article by stating it's unclear if there is such a thing. In terms of post-Libya gossip, Drezner's post might be a good place to start, as it's both by an expert and contains links to some sources. Essentially everything, whether a "reliable" source or some guy with a blog who happens to be a tenured professor, is going to be an opinion piece though. Gonfaloniere (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambigious sentence
"Supporters of Obama's unilateral policies such as targeted killings of American citizens including former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton..."

Does this sentence mean that Obama has targeted John Bolton for assassination? Obviously not, but this needs to be rewarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.97.230 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New meaning
It seems that in the last few months, a more concrete (and concise) version of the Obama Doctrine has come to the fore. Succinctly, it's "Don't do dumb shit." I've seen similar formulations several times recently. Powers T 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, it has been this for a long time. Although it is generally reported as "don't do stupid stuff." --Kuzwa (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph
This is currently part of the second paragraph of this article:

"Generally speaking, it is widely, yet erroneously accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would emphasize negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs.[1][2] This policy has been praised by some as a welcome change from the equally interventionist Bush Doctrine.[3][4] Supporters of Obama's unilateral policies (such as targeted killings of American citizens) including former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, have described it as overly idealistic and naïve, promoting appeasement of adversaries."

What does that mean? It might be that the word "it" is overused and/or used to refer to more than one thing. I'm not being confrontational - I genuinely don't understand this passage, which seems to be repeatedly internally contradictory. I'd rephrase it if I could.

Examples:

first sentence - "it is widely, yet erroneously accepted ..." then "This policy" - apparently referring to the erroneous one. If it's erroneous, the correct one is not stated.

second sentence - praise as a welcome change from a doctrine which was "equally interventionist" - how is that a change? If this is supposed to say (overall) that it is similar to the Bush Doctrine, then just state that! But it is not clear that is what the article means to say.

third sentence - why would a "supporter" describe it as overly idealistic and naïve (which sound like criticisms)?

One interpretation is that this is really saying "People think Obama is more cautious and less interventionist than Bush was. They are wrong, but because of that error they praise Obama. Others (such as Bolton) criticise Obama as naïve, but in fact support parts of what he does." If that is so, (1) it needs to be totally re-written, because currently it is unclear and (2) rather than describing what the doctrine is not, and who likes and dislikes it based on misinterpretations, state what it actually is!

Sorry for the long post. I came to this page because I wanted to find out what the Obama doctrine (or an approximation of it) is - but I just got confused by this paragraph in the opening and wanted to record why. Thanks. 92.234.27.127 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)