The purpose of military force and the Obama doctrine: no fighting for face

Abstract

The scholarly debate about the Obama doctrine has focused on the extent of military force in Obama’s foreign policy. Offering both a novel definition of presidential doctrines and a reinterpretation of the Obama doctrine, this article shifts the focus from the extent to the purpose of force. More specifically, it claims that the Obama doctrine is better described as a general unwillingness to fight for a reputation for resolve. Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama did not consider the US military as a tool for projecting firmness. Instead, his decisions concerning the use of force were dominated by material considerations, be it in limited or expansive military operations. To illustrate Obama’s refusal to fight for face, the article examines three prominent decision points during the Obama presidency – the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, the 2011 intervention in Libya, and Obama’s reaction to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons in 2013.