The Obama Doctrine

Republicans savage Obama's foreign policy as feckless and without structure.  They are wrong.  Those lovers of business, fail to recognize the application of cost/benefit analysis.

Republicans derided Obama for "leading from behind" in Libya.  In b-school Libya would be a triumph.  The objectives of regime change and a more friendly government were  achieved at little cost and with almost no risk.  It is as if GM developed a best selling car with partners and subcontractors bearing all development costs.

Apply those same principles to Republican foreign policy.  When performing a cost benefit analysis it is not enough to look at the hoped for best case benefit.  The cost, particularly in a worst case scenario, must be quantified.  The difficulties experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan were well within the parameters of a worst cast scenario.  Under the Obama doctrine we would not have invaded Iraq, and perhaps, would have also avoided the quagmire in Afghanistan.

Syria presents a difficult case precisely because it is not like Libya.  Gaddafi had limited support within Libya, and fearing a coup, had weakened and hamstrung the military.  Some opposition elements had Western leanings.

Assad has solid support from a portion of the population, and from many in the elite class.  The military is modern.  Imposing a Libya style no fly zone could result in substantial loss of lives and planes.  The opposition is riddled with extremists.  The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.  Caution is prudent.  Some strike will be made to support the universal ban on the use of chemical weapons.  But beyond that, under the Obama doctrine,  limited resources will be committed until conditions warrant an  investment.