The Controversial Essay 'The Obama Doctrine'

Goldberg describes Obama’s dovetailing conclusions regarding the world in his controversial article, The Obama Doctrine. The first of these conclusions to be made is that the Middle East is no longer important to American interests. The Middle East has become a stereotype for terrorism. The article defines terrorism as not a central threat. This thought combined with Obama’s bargaining model of war and surprising realist attitude brings forth the idea that perhaps America really should abandon the Middle East as such a top priority. It is essential to Obama that he avoid war at all costs after the hand that he was dealt when first taking office in 2008. This will most easily be achieved by avoiding Middle Eastern interests and avoiding boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS at all costs. On the other hand, Ignatius criticizes Obama rather harshly for his defensive attitude regarding this issue. Ignatius believes the crisis in Syria to be a problem worthy of more …show more content…
Originally the Germans placed the Tutsis in governmental positions and when the Belgians took over the colony, they switched this role to the Hutus in order to limit discrimination. This backfired and the Hutus wanted to exert dominance in the most brutal way possible: genocide. Belgium therefore had an interest in keeping the credibility of Belgium high and limit violence as much as possible in order to limit their own political costs. Strategically though, Belgium ran as soon as the Hutus targeted and killed ten of their citizens in the region. The UN Security Council and Peacekeepers had an interest in protecting human rights as well as preventing any form of genocide. However, the peacekeepers had a lack of strategy due to lack of information, response, resources, preparation, effectiveness, and radio signal blocking. The Security Council also had a lack of confidence in their intelligence and therefore limited action and