Joe emails: We have had the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine.
We now have the Obama Doctrine. The Obama Doctrine essentially is that U.S. must, unfortunately, project force. It has to do so without international approval at times. To the extent nations must be upset, because it is necessary to project power, Obama does so in a manner that projects US power, but served with a farmers market organic style side of appeasement. Note that it is not the type of John Kerry/Wilsonian/Global Test B.S. He will project power even without the consent of the whole world and code pink, however, he will only do so if he appeases some other power.
In other words, it is a sort of Harvard Law School style of appeasement strategy hoping to win hearts and minds when history has shown that grabbing the other side by the short hairs is most effective.
Today’s decision to abandon a permanent missile shield over Eastern Europe in favor of some sort of mobile system was based on the appraisal that the danger from long range missiles from Iran was not as severe as the danger from medium range missiles. The question left unanswered is who will be attacking Eastern Europe with medium range missiles?
The decision had much to do with Russia being upset over the projection of US footprint in its backyard of Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama had two choices. Continue to build the US missile shield over Europe because it is absolutely necessary to project US power there and upset Russia and Iran, or, abandon the missile shield in favor of a more mobile less permanent shield and continue to upset Iran by turning the slavic civilization against the muslim civilization but not upsetting Russia.
So, Obama chose to appease Russia. What he gets for this appeasement of an entirely non violent Russia it is entirely unclear. Russia will not intervene on Obama’s behalf with Iran, Russian civilization is of almost no use save for mail order brides. However, Obama cannot help himself, he has an appeasement instinct, kind of like a reverse chase instinct.
Now, apply the Obama doctrine to Israel. There is no greater example of US projection of force into the Levant than the state of Israel with settlements on lands conquered and held due to the primacy of western know how in the way of military superiority, specifically the singular inability of an arab to fly a jet. Obama, contrary to the opinion of the jews at Young Israel of Century City, will not sell Israel down a the river for a plug nickel. If push comes to shove on Iran and Iran obtains nukes and Israel says we will bomb them, look for an announcement by Obama extending America’s nuclear umbrella over the holy land, and at the same time offering to have ACORN train the Palestinians to be nonviolent suicide bombers. However, Obama does not like settlements because it is a projection of US force without a countervailing appeasement.
Unlike his predecessors, Obama believes a freeze must be enforced because of his appeasement instinct. He cannot help himself. The settlements themselves are meaningless, the Jews who live on the settlements will be evicted tout suite by their fellow countrymen if the arabs so much state that they want peace and evidence such intent by stating that for a period of 30 days, no one on official arab media will say the word Jews or Israel and kill/evil/destroy/blood sucking/rip their hearts out in the same sentence. However, the settlements represent a marvelous opportunity for appeasement. Obama knows that the Jews are not hard hearted enough to settle the west bank for keeps, and he knows that there is give on this issue. He can simultaneously appease the Palestinians by sticking it to Israel. What he gets out of it is unclear. In my mind, he gets nothing, as is the case by appeasing the Russians on the missile shield. The Palestinians view the settlements as a marginal issue, as they want major capitulation from the West on Israel. But with Obama, the ends never justify the means, rather, the means justify the ends. Obama and his liberal buddies love the process more than the result. They only want peace in the Middle East if it is through a process involving appeasement.
That has never worked in the Middle East. Peace in the Middle East works when the US is strong without any countervailing power. The problem is that Islamic fundamentalism has replaced the USSR as a countervailing force. So long as US troops are being killed by IEDs in the name of Allah, the Arabs will not make the peace. If Obama wants to win the peace in the middle east, he should conduct the Afghanistan campaign with maximum prejudice, must like the Iraq campaign was conducted under Bush. Use airpower and use mercenaries and shoot to kill. Then the US can impose its terms on the arabs and Israel for peace.
Under the Obama doctrine, the process becomes more important than the purpose. It is as if Obama would critique Joe Montana’s Super Bowl XXIII miracle 3 minute scoring drive by noting that he failed to throw passes to the sidelines to work the clock, as was logical and expected by the Bengals, and risked it by throwing midfield passes. Unless there is some logic, it does not work for Obama. I am all for logic, but if it is tied to appeasement, it is not logical.
