Alwaght- Taking office as the US president in 2009, Barack Obama promised a major shift in the country’s foreign policy. During the eight years of George W. Bush's administration at the White House, a wide range of the US interventions in the West Asia and the Far East happened, causing massive discontent globally with the US actions. But Obama as a Democratic candidate picked “change” as his campaign slogan, promising the American citizens and the world to review Washington’s foreign policy. First Obama effort was a struggle to review his approach to the political Islam. For example, in his speech at the Cairo University on June 4, 2009, he emphasized a full disassociation from Bush administration's version of counterterrorism war which in the eyes of the Muslims was a fight against Islam. The former US president in his speech highlighted that his government put a premium on finding a settlement to the Israeli-Arab struggles, as besides he maintained that he struggled to generate new relations between the US and the Muslim world.
In general, four essential principles are significant in bringing in spotlight the doctrine that governed Obama’s foreign policy in West Asia region.
1. Fighting international terrorism (as Obama’s defense strategy)
2. Emphasizing on the shared global management instead of unilateralism (collective action diplomacy)
3. Scaling down the military role in the US major strategies and using soft diplomacy instead.
4. Returning to democracy promotion strategy after the eruption of the Islamic awakening in West Asia following 2011 uprisings.
With a look at these principles, we can easily understand that Obama’s doctrine of West Asia was built on a commitment to avoid direct engagement in the regional crises and using proxy wars instead. In fact, the US military was not to enter any battle in West Asia directly rather Washington sought to support its allies in the region through sending military advisors. But the result of the president’s policy was failures and paradoxes, which in turn prepared the ground for rise to power of Donald J. Trump. The most noticeable signs of failure of President Obama's West Asian foreign policy can be highlighted in three basic points:
1. Defeat of his counterterrorism defensive strategy
One of the overarching principles of Obama’s West Asian policy was an emphasis on fighting terrorism by use of proxies. This strategy required Washington to support its allies wherever there were footprints of the terrorist forces in West Asia. But in practice Obama's strategy proved to be a total fiasco. Even in several cases, it was noticed that Washington did not back its allies against terrorism. Take US withdrawal from Iraq and the subsequent developments for instance. The American forces' exit from Iraq and eruption of a series of popular uprisings in West Asia paved the way for emergence of terrorism and expansion of influence of the radical groups in the region. The most significant one– among many– was ISIS terrorist group which initially flexed muscles in Iraq and moved to seize vast parts of Iraq’s territories. While ISIS fighters even advanced to 10 kilometers from the capital Baghdad, Obama’s paradoxical and insidious policy in West Asia declined to move the US air force to provide air cover for the Iraqi army.
Furthermore, in Syria Obama administration adopted a miscalculated policy, providing the anti-Damascus terrorists with arms as part of the efforts to remove the government of President Bashar al-Assad from power. Generally, this string of developments showed that Obama administration’s counterterrorism-based defense strategy not only failed to yield any results but also changed face to a pro-terrorism strategy. This gave Trump a public-convincing excuse during his presidential campaign, helping him win presidential race.
2. Invalidity of the collective global management as a replacement for unilateralism
Seemingly, Obama in the beginning of his presidency believed that on the earth with seven billion people, the US cannot pose as a global police. He, furthermore, possibly thought that pursing the policy of support for anti-despot dissent groups and drawing red lines were no longer working. He rejected the generally-accepted belief that by toppling the decorators, the human conscience, which innately leans to good, will build tolerant nations. So, the US administration under Obama put aside the unilateralist approach in dealing with the West Asia issues and steered clear of intervention in the 2011 revolutionary developments of the Arab world.
As the developments continued rolling on, Obama government called for an international coalition to address the events. For example, the US intervened in the Libyan crisis as part of an international coalition. Obama called the international alliance’s anti-Gaddafi campaign a “humanitarian action.” The international coalition intervened in Libya after the United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from pro-Gaddafi forces. This Obama policy meant that his administration would no longer act alone, rather, it seought allying with other countries under a bloc for action. This new policy and actually new form of the US leadership was developed under “collective action” with support from the international community. But in practice, this policy failed, and faced a big paradox. Although Obama took the US to Libya war as a nation in the international coalition, he had no idea what to do next, after conclusion of the bombing campaign against Gaddafi's forces. Although Gaddafi’s dictatorship was overthrown, Libya became a safe haven for the terrorist forces. This was a weak point Trump highlighted during his campaign for presidency. Trump blasted Obama and the Democrats for removing Gaddafi and letting raising the terrorists and essential “adversaries” of the US to rise to power in Libya. Also in Syria, the paradoxes of this American approach appeared. Washington and Obama did not reach any international agreement or build any consensus to settle the Syrian crisis
3. Strategy to reduce military interventions and use of soft diplomacy makes crisis
Barack Obama upon his winning the presidential race in 2008 put high on his agenda the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq as he pledged during his election campaign to maneuver against his rivals. This action created a notion that Obama in his foreign policy doctrine focused on scaling down the American militarism and shifted to diplomacy as a soft foreign policy tool. But what everybody saw in practice went against what Obama promised for in his campaign. After taking the power, Obama raised the number of the US troops in Afghanistan from 30,000 to over 100,000. He then intensified combat missions of the military in Afghanistan, and consequently a bigger number of the civilians were killed. This reality showcased Obama doctrine’s paradoxes as he withdrew 30,000 troops from Iraq but deployed additional 70,000 to Afghanistan. Just contrary to the common notions, not only Obama did not reduce the US' militaristic policy but also he somehow expanded it as he boosted presence in East Asia and Afghanistan.
Obama’s sham reduction of military intervention made for his administration a pretext to avoid fighting terrorism and even oppose the forces that battled terrorism in West Asia. A combination of imbalances in foreign policy doctrine of Obama prepared the ground for rise of Donald Trump to power. A person who is promoting the idea of changing the world order and restoring American superiority afresh.