Make no mistake about it, there is an Obama Doctrine—but you won’t hear about it from the man himself. That’s because it’s a “doctrine of silence,” writes Roger Cohen in the New York Times. “America has decided that conventional wars of uncertain outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan are a bad way to fight terrorists and that far cheaper, more precise tools for eliminating enemies”—like drones and cyberwarfare—“are preferable.” In choosing this approach, President Obama has picked the lesser of two evils, Cohen asserts.
Still, “no American can feel entirely comfortable” with Obama’s decision. That’s “because these legally borderline, undercover options invite repayment in kind, undermine the American commitment to the rule of law, and make allies uneasy.” It’s time for Obama to explain why America has “replaced fighting terror with killing terrorists,” Cohen notes. “Just because it’s impossible to talk about some operations undertaken within this doctrine does not mean the entire doctrine can remain cloaked in silence.” Click for the full column.