Experts in many different fields, ranging from foreign relations to social sciences, vigorously discussed the doctrine of Barack Obama. Some of them supported the former president’s views and actions and argued that they would lead to many benefits. At the same time, others were concerned about the adverse consequences of his approach. Even though several years have passed after the end of his presidency, there is still no consensus on whether Obama’s doctrine was successful or not. It is essential to analyze the key elements before making any conclusions. In general, the approach adopted by the former president was practical; thus, it should be considered by the current president of the United States in order to lead the country to prosperity.
First, Obama questioned the necessity of the presence of the United States in the Middle East. He believed that the resources invested in the region were not worth the benefits gained from it. Trillions of dollars had been spent ineffectively, leading to minor positive outcomes or even negative consequences. Besides, Obama was convinced that human resources had been wasted in the Middle East inadequately. The role of the region for the growth of the United States was severely overestimated. Besides, the former president stated that Americans could do little to cause considerable changes in the area with significantly different cultures. Therefore, Obama claimed that it was more effective and reasonable to focus on other issues.
Second, Obama believed that if the United States got involved in many different conflicts across the planet, the country risked suffering from adverse results. For example, its positive image as a powerful and democratic state could be destroyed. The cases of citizens of various countries burning American flags and expressing their hatred were evident results of interventionism politics. Moreover, millions of Americans were unwilling to lose their close ones or risk their own lives in the conflicts taking place outside of the United States. Hence, the former president stated that the damaged public image and deaths of the U.S. citizens were unworthy of making small differences in other countries.
Without any doubt, Obama was a realist president since his doctrine appeared to be based on growing evidence. The former president knew that it was irrational to spend much time and effort trying to solve the conflicts produced by entirely different cultures, especially in the Middle East, instead of concentrating on local issues. Much evidence proved that Americans’ diligent and costly work in Eastern states caused mostly negative consequences for the country.
Focusing too much on other regions led to the United States’ significant loss of power throughout recent years. People with entirely different worldviews could not understand westerners endeavoring to spread their values and traditions, undermining local cultures. Obama realized that the United States would only prosper when paying more attention to local issues and avoiding unnecessary interventions in conflicts across the world.
In conclusion, Obama’s doctrine appears to be realistic and reasonable. The former president doubted the necessity of the U.S. presence in the Middle East due to its little impact and minor outcomes for the country itself. Furthermore, he was convinced that the damaged public image and wasted human resources are not worth the possible consequences. Obama objectively evaluated the issue and realized that Americans could not change the whole world and make it a better place. If they continued to believe in it, they would be defeated by other developed countries investing time and effort in dealing with local problems.