The red flags in Obama’s foreign policy

So is there such a thing as "light footprint doctrine?"  Should there be?

Is “leading from behind” an unfair monicker for this? Then call it the light footprint doctrine. It’s a strategy that supposes that patient multilateral diplomacy can solve problems like Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability; that drone strikes can do as well at preventing another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland as do ground forces in Afghanistan; that crises like that of Syria can be left to the U.N. Security Council.
…
At best, Libya will be a steady, low-grade headache for Obama in his second term. But the worst blowback from his policies will come in Syria. What began as a peaceful mass rebellion against another Arab dictator has turned, in the absence of U.S. leadership, into a brutal maelstrom of sectarian war in which al-Qaeda and allied jihadists are playing a growing role. Obama’s light footprint strategy did much to produce this mess; without a change of U.S. policy, it will become, like Bosnia for Bill Clinton or Iraq for George W. Bush, the second term’s “problem from hell.”

I think Mr. Diehl misunderstands and misapplies the concept of the light footprint.  He has broadened it to mean multilateral diplomacy to "solve problems like Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."  I think that is not a light footprint but simply as stated multilateral diplomacy.  At least from a military perspective I think a light footprint  means the use of the minimum amount  (or perhaps better stated the right level) of military capabilities and as an example might be employed to help friends, partners, and allies with their internal defense and development programs to help them defend themselves from lawlessness, subversion, insurgency, and terrorism.  The emphasis being on helping or advising and assisting and not in taking the lead and doing it for them.  This is simply the difference between operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and operations in Colombia, the Horn of Africa, the Trans Sahel, and the Philippines.   This is a way for the US to deal with security issues that are not existential threats to the US, but may of course be such to some friends, partners, and allies.  I do not think that this so-called 'light footprint doctrine" in terms of the military applies to such problems as Iran.  But we continue to expend a lot of intellectual effort since 9-11 on naming things and coming up with new terminology when we should be focusing more on trying to understand the nature of the problems we face.  Naming or understanding – that is the trade-off.  I choose trying to understand and then using plain language to describe the problem and solutions.
V/R
Dave  

The red flags in Obama’s foreign policy

By Jackson Diehl, Sunday, November 11, 7:54 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-the-red-flags-in-obamas-foreign-policy/2012/11/11/4bd56f3c-29cb-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_print.html

Barack Obama spent his first term undoing what he saw as the excesses of U.S. post-Cold War foreign policy, from land wars in the Middle East to insufficient attention to Asia. By his own account, he largely succeeded. But chances are he will spend his second term grappling with the flaws in his cure.

Contrary to the usual Republican narrative, Obama did not lead a U.S. retreat from the world. Instead he sought to pursue the same interests without the same means. He has tried to preserve America’s place as the “indispensable nation” while withdrawing ground troops from war zones, cutting the defense budget, scaling back “nation-building” projects and forswearing U.S.-led interventions.

Is “leading from behind” an unfair monicker for this? Then call it the light footprint doctrine. It’s a strategy that supposes that patient multilateral diplomacy can solve problems like Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability; that drone strikes can do as well at preventing another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland as do ground forces in Afghanistan; that crises like that of Syria can be left to the U.N. Security Council.

For the last couple of years, the light footprint worked well enough to allow Obama to turn foreign policy into a talking point for his reelection. But the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 should have been a red flag to all who believe this president has invented a successful new model for U.S. leadership. Far from being an aberration, Benghazi was a toxic byproduct of the light footprint approach — and very likely the first in a series of boomerangs.

(Continued at the link above)