Vernuccio’s View: Collapse of the Obama Doctrine

Frank Vernuccio

Frank Vernuccio

Collapse of the Obama Doctrine

Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., Esq.

Far beyond any precedent in American history, President Obama’s foreign and defense policies have utterly collapsed, severely endangering both the United States and its allies to a degree never anticipated.

The Obama doctrine, which can be described as a unilateral reduction of U.S. military capabilities, reduced American presence worldwide, acceptance of questionable international agreements, and subordinating Washington’s global role to international organizations or other powers, has not only failed to yield positive results, has increased the risk of wars large and small worldwide, allowed terrorism to expand exponentially, and jeopardized the lives of U.S. citizens.

President Obama In CubaTo a unique and extensive degree, Mr. Obama has acted on his own, leaving out Congress, the American people, and according to some reports some of his own advisors in his decision-making process. Indeed, throughout his two terms in office, the President has failed to provide a thorough and candid statement of either his worldview or his national security goals.

The hallmarks of the Obama Doctrine include:

Missteps in defense planning.  Examples include the President’s opposition to a defense budget based on real threats, not politics. He also sponsored an arms control agreement, the New Start Treaty, that allowed Russia to gain the lead in nuclear weapons. In a Newsmax interview, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is “the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do.”

Middle Eastern withdrawal, and a failure to forcefully confront terrorism. The President ordered a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, allowing ISIS to thrive.

Mr. Obama also took a very vocal role in supporting “Arab Spring” movements, which perhaps unintentionally, allowed Islamic terrorists to gain more influence in Middle Eastern governments.  Curiously, however, there was one such movement he pointedly refused to encourage: The “Green Revolution” in Iran, which would have brought more moderates into Iran’s hard-core anti-American regime. No rational explanation has ever been provided by the White House as to why it supported such movements in nations such as Egypt, while the Green Revolution in Iran was ignored.


Missteps Recognized, But Not Corrected

The lack of any credible western deterrent in Europe, combined with the President’s acquiescence in the Kremlin’s first-ever lead in nuclear arms (as a result of his agreement to the 2009 nuclear arms treaty) gave Moscow an additional assurance that its invasion of Ukraine, its threats against former Soviet satellites, and its dramatic and vast military arms buildup, would result in any substantial consequences.

It should also be noted that Mr. Obama has also sought to close down the only facility in the U.S. that manufactures tanks, at a time when U.S. armor is over-aged, American manufacturing employment is in crisis and Russia is developing exceptionally advanced and powerful new armored vehicles.

The dire necessity which mandated the very limited return of previously withdrawn U.S. forces to Europe and Iraq, (although in numbers which suggest more a publicity stunt than a substantive military move) both tacit admissions of the Administration’s policy failures in those regions, should have been taken as a lesson by the President.  But in his recent actions towards Cuba, his failure to confront the growing military presence of Russia, China, and terrorist forces in the Americas, and his continuing failure to significantly prepare for the very real threats facing the United States from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, indicate that no such lesson was learned.

The inability by the President and the two Secretaries of State under his tenure to respond to the obvious failure of their foreign and defense policies indicates either an inability to acknowledge a reality that differs from their ideology, or an adherence to a worldview that the vast majority of Americans find both dangerous and abhorrent.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email