From Wikipedia: "The Obama Doctrine is a term frequently used to describe one or several unifying principles of the foreign policy of Barack Obama. Unlike the Monroe Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is not a specific foreign policy introduced by the executive, but rather a phrase used to describe Obama's general style of foreign policy. This has left journalists and political commentators to speculate on what the exact tenets of an Obama Doctrine might look like. Generally speaking, it is accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would be negotiation and collaboration over confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs."
From "The Fix": "Obama irritated both extremes by going into Libya (liberals disapproved) but not aiming for Moammar Gaddafi’s ouster (conservatives disapproved)."
Obama wants the United States to be involved in the Libyan civil war which may sweep another Arab strongman from power; yet he also wants "not be involved" in a meaningful way. How can the American military protect the Libyan people without targeting the source of their misery, Moammar Gadhafi?
Rather than confronting this glaring contradiction of policy, media analysts are attempting to cobble together the substance of Obama's policy into a coherent whole, which in fact does not exist. This incoherence betrays the political schizophrenia endemic to Obama's foreign policy, a pragmatist in practice who still wants to please his base, fend off taunts of international weakness, and attempt to bolster American stature in a growing, globalized world.
Foreign Policy requires a commitment to a clearly-articulated agenda, something which President Obama has still failed to do. One cannot invade a country with any force and then claim to have no interest in regime change. The United States is providing the bulk of the fire power in a conflict in which the President has insisted that the United States is playing only a supporting role. Furthermore, the outcome of this civil war will not present any meaningful changes or challenges, compared to the uprisings stirring up in Syria (a distant but innocuous adversary), Yemen (a consistent U.S. ally against Al Qaeda) and a nuclear, menacing Iran.
According to what principles does Presindent Obama wish to involve the United States in the blooming Jasmine Revolution engulfing the Arab World? Do we assist our allies? Do we end up contradicting our commitment to freedom and democracy for all people? If not, do we aid the oppressed peoples of every nation? Is there a strategic interest in encouraging regime change at all? In which nations? Or, do we stay out altogether?
These complex questions require diligent answers before the President commits anymore troops, blood, and treasure to another conflict in the Middle East.