Foreign Policy Common Law

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This column in the WaPo today is quite good:

James Monroe had one, and so should we. That seems to be the theory behind the rampant and premature speculation among national security wonks about what kind of new doctrine President Obama or President McCain would use to guide U.S. foreign policy. But let's not get carried away thinking about what a McCain or Obama doctrine might be. In today's complex world, a president doesn't need to have a one-size-fits-all template for handling foreign affairs. In fact, the next president would be better off without one.

Indeed. Enough with the doctrines. More . .

I actually liked Sandy Berger's description of the Clinton Administration process by the second term:

Ultimately, the Clinton team came to embrace the view that deeds mattered more than words. During the 1999 war over Kosovo, Clinton officials rebuffed pressures from the media and the foreign policy cognoscenti to couch the conflict in terms of a new foreign policy doctrine -- which senior administration aides referred to dismissively as the D-word. "We tried to establish common law rather than canon law," then-national security adviser Sandy Berger told us. "We set out to build a new role for the U.S. in the world by experience rather than doctrine."

I liked that. It also reminds me of a disagreement I had with Stirling Newberry and his insistence that Obama needed a theory of the world:

I have had enough with leaders with theories of the world. Give me some leaders who pay attention to facts, look for policies that might work, and can actually think themselves out of a paperbag and I think I can live with the not having a theory of the world. . . .

And this is where Stirling and differ on Obama - Obama does not need a theory of the world - he needs a theory of politics that deals with the real political world of today. . . . I do not have a problem with Obama's theory of governance. I have a problem with his theory of politics.

Speaking for me only

< BushCo To Consider September Iraq Troop Withdrawal | Sunday Mid-Day Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Foreign Policy Common Law | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Theories are necessary (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Demi Moaned on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM EST

I agree with you in the sense that Doctrines are grandiose and can be downright pernicious when they refuse to take account of new information that doesn't fit the model.

But theories are necessary for any kind of abstract thought, and a lack of a 'Doctrine' can just mean operating from a lot of unexamined (and perhaps conflicting) premises.

: Doctrine is not (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by PamFl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM EST

the proper word to use. It is defined as, "dogma; tenet; something to be taught." It implies an inflexibility, narrow-minded vision of reality-such as Communism.
A good leader must have a central core of ethics, critical thinking skills, and be adept at inductive & deductive reasoning.
The only "doctrine" a President should use as a guide is our Constitution.

[ Parent ]

Completely disagree (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:15:04 AM EST

The reason why we have so many problems is not because there is a doctrine, but we haven't had a doctrine since the end of the cold war. Bush doesn't have a doctrine, clinton didn't have a doctrine, it was and is problem. We need to have doctrine that guides us, that the rest of the world can guide the actions and know what kind of response their actions will provoke. Consistentency is the mother or piece and prosperity.

I think more than a doctrine (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:46:02 PM EST

per se, what we need is some pretty serious thinking about how we behave, and how we'd like to keep nudging the world to work, in a post-cold war world where nuclear proliferation is a given. Bill Clinton was the first president to have to deal with that world, and it's understandable that he floundered around a bit (any president would have) and had to feel his way.

I think flexible consistency is what's needed (in pretty much every area of life and politics, no?), but as you say, there have to be some kind of broad underlying principles to have any kind of coherent approach.

Bush's "doctrine" was to tell the tinpot dictators of the world that if they didn't have nuclear weapons, the U.S. was coming after them, no doubt greatly accelerating proliferation. So proliferation is no longer something that can be prevented (if it ever could) but only slowed down marginally. Instead of running around sanctioning and threatening Iran for taking the totally logical self-defensive step of accelerating its nuclear program, we need to put very serious thought into how we live with proliferation.

[ Parent ]

There is clearly a Bush Doctrine (none / 0) (#7)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

[ Parent ]

I just don't see there being a Bush doctrinne (none / 0) (#11)
by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST

Yes they call it a doctrine, but there is no guiding principle, which is why we are in such a mess. Nuclear weapons okay in India, N. Korea treated differently then Iraq, Iraq treated differently then Iran, it all leads to confusion. Which is why the world is so dangerous right now. There is no consistency. Consistency is the central part of any doctrine, or should be. Without a guiding tenant, all we have is inconsistent words built around force.

[ Parent ]

: You should login (none / 0) (#12)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST

At wikipedia and made an addition to that entry.
I think you are right. It's called a Bush Doctrine, but Bush has not acted honorably or consistently towards his own doctrine.

[ Parent ]

Values and Principles (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by santarita on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST

I don't think our foreign policy needs to have a bumper sticker doctrine. But we do need to be guided by a set of values and principles, that will be useful in meeting the myriad of challenges, both expected and unexpected. I suspect that at this point in the campaign McCain and Obama's values and principles are remarkably and depressingly similar. The one area of difference I hope will be in the degree to which the USA acts in concert with other countries. Hopefully a President Obama will not see the need to be the Lone Ranger.

Here's a doctrine for you (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Dadler on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM EST

Deal with each issue on it's own merit, in its own specific context, in a manner that evidences humility, respect and strength. But that's crazy talk.

Doctrines are Diplomatic tools (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:27:36 PM EST

And they have probably outlived their usefullness.

Monroe had one.

Kennedy had one.

They existed to define for other world leaders certain boundaries. The conditions by which an action they take (usually expansion) will be regarded as an act of war on the U.S.

actually, the monroe doctrine (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by cpinva on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM EST

made perfectly good sense, both at the time, and up through the present.

a doctrine, in and of itself isn't, by definition, a bad thing. how it's used is the issue. if it's flexible enough to allow for changed circumstances, it shouldn't be a problem. only when it's rigid (say, like, oh, i don't know, the bush doctrine maybe.) does it tend to create problems.

Indeed -- Establish a Doctrine (none / 0) (#1)
by The Maven on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:39:20 AM EST

and then that in itself becomes the overriding deciding principle. Everything that happens in the wider world is viewed through the lens of whether a response is called for under the ___ Doctrine, and if so, what form of response would be consistent with that Doctrine. But the world, quite obviously, does not conduct itself in a manner that would permit the application (or non-application) of a rigid Doctrine in all but the most exceptional of circumstances.

While there is undoubtedly a benefit for any leader (and their advisers) to have a well-defined Weltanschauung, it is also important for them to be address world events in an ad hoc, adaptive manner. If all you hold in your hand is a hammer (the Doctrine), all global problems start to look like nails.

An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy-July 13, 2008 (none / 0) (#2)
by SunnyLC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:48:57 AM EST

An Open Letter to Caroline Kennedy-July 13, 2008
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5jvtjb

You need to be a "Profile in Courage"....

Some doctrines that would make sense: (none / 0) (#4)
by Anne on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST

Don't Do Anything Stupid Doctrine
Look Before You Leap Doctrine
Ego Kills Doctrine

About the only ones I would want engraved in stone.

Is there a (none / 0) (#13)
by DaytonDem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST

doctrine in the house?... Sorry I know it is a serious subject, but I never get to use that joke.

There could or should be a discussion of goals (none / 0) (#15)
by wurman on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:35:48 PM EST

& some foreign policy guidelines for the State Dept. in our dealings with other nations.

What are the short-, medium-, & long-term goals of the USA on a global basis. When Gen. Clark is not busy defending his opinions of shot-down fighter pilots, he actually has a great deal to offer in terms of arriving at some genuine goals, objectives, attainments, & achievements for the strategic interests of the country.

Nobody listens.

It's amazing to read, hear, & watch as allegedly reasonable, thinking, opinion-molders simply ignore the obviously important issues that need to be discussed & then they leap to trivia such as how many regiments can be moved by September.

In my opinion Pres. Clinton was falsely "stuck" with the problems of unraveling the Reagan + Bush xli mistakes. The globe is still trying to playout the long string of stupid decisions imposed by the US from 1981 to 1992--from the US & Israeli attacks on Lebanon to the arming & training of bin Laden through the Iran-Contra insanity to the invasions of places such as Grenada & Panama. All those appear to be one-off, ad hoc, incoherent, disconnected responses to self-inflicted problems.

About the time the Clinton administration began to get some of the fires out & attempt to assess what might occur in the future, the bounce-back of the terrorists altered the flow of events.

Bu$h xliii, contrary to the Bush Doctrine, which is drivel & blather based on false assessments of Islam, the Middle East, Central Asia, the Pacific Rim (& just about everything else including the Bolton-ification of the United Nations), etc., has not established any goals. They, or he, can't even forumulate a policy for Iraq or articulate the re-discovery of the "Clinton" doctrine toward N. Korea.

Full circle: Clark can offer methodologies for both Iraq & Afghanistan in a 10-minute lecture. And that's his real criticism of Sen. McCain--who doesn't even seem to show any interest in formulating "policy," but will simply continue the present course of failure.

Clark & Sen. Obama: negotiate, negotiate.

McCain: bomb.

I agree with this comment... (none / 0) (#16)
by Jammer on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST

Clark has a great deal of deeply nuanced and thoughtful ideas that seem super smart to me. Why he has to struggle so hard to get a big audience is beyond me.

I think part of Clintons basic philosophy is that in the new world economy we will all grow together and make money together and have good lives trading and working together and with each other such that war will become unthinkable on a large scale. Other than that, it was put out the fires. He like most people was slow to recognize the depths to which Radical Muslims rejected the foregoing world view.

[ Parent ]

: Not just Clark; but he's a good example. (none / 0) (#18)
by wurman on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:13:46 PM EST

Pres. Carter could be effective here. His views pre-date the St. Ronnie of Raygun & Bush xli disasters.
When Pres. Carter went to the Middle East recently, the Bu$h xliii admin., the lame stream media, & the PNAC chickenhawks all worked full time to marginalize his effort. But . . . but . . . his discussions among the opposition Labor Party in Israel, Hamas (with side-long references to Hezbollah), & Fatah very obviously changed the dynamic in the region.
Within weeks, the Palestinian factions were working with each other, attempting to arrange a cease-fire & truce with Israel, & re-open the border crossings to Gaza.
Notice how that turned out----but we're assured that Pres. Carter was not instrumental in the result.
Condoleeza Rice immediately showed up in the area attempting to undo Pres. Carter's successful efforts. It seems likely that the desire for peace (stop shooting) by the enemies may over-ride her & the Bu$h xliii admin's need for war to preclude a successful, working coalition government in the Palestinian areas.
What I ponder & wonder is whether Sen. Obama will pay attention to Gen. Clark, Pres. Carter, & others who see negotiations, on any subject at any place at any time, as the ONLY resolution to perceived problems.

[ Parent ]

Hmm, didn't Obama tell his FP already? (none / 0) (#17)
by ineedalife on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST

Didn't Obama already say he wants to go back to the foreign policy of Reagan and Poppa Bush, and would be open to appoint Republicans as Defense Sec., and Sec. of State, to implement it?

Contrary to "Walk softly and carry a big stick", that policy is "Speak aggressively and use your stick every now and then so no one forgets you have it". So under Obama we can expect to invade some little country every couple of years. Question is, who is on Obama's list of targets? Venezuela? Nigeria?

I agree with this (none / 0) (#20)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:54:59 PM EST

I think the world and our relations with it are too complicated to reduce it all down to two or three overriding principles. The purpose of a doctrine is political - to get a buy-in from the electorate. Aside from that it just serves to tie your hands.

As usual WaPo is wrong (none / 0) (#21)
by koshembos on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:30:30 PM EST

I find the statement "the next president would be better off without one (template)" a total misunderstanding of reality and foreign policy. Tabula Rasa is not a good approach to anything but chaos. The WaPo seems to react to the Bush idiotic template for foreign policy. Bush is a stubborn hoodlum with a developmental level of a toddler. The next president should be an adult and none of the two candidates is a hoodlum.

I am not opposed to what Sandy Berger says or did. I simply say that the Clinton administration worked from a set of values and adapted to reality using experience which sounds fine.

I am afraid neither candidate has decent enough values and, at least now, they have no experience.