From Lawfare: The Age of Open Assassination

Whether constitutional or not, the author argues that they are not a good idea.

- Click here for the article.

The terms “assassination” and “targeted killing” were once legally distinguishable. Until 2001, most people accepted a distinction between illegal assassinations of political figures during peacetime and lawful targeting of those who were an imminent threat in an armed conflict. Since 9/11, under the framework of global counterterrorism, these differences have become a matter of semantics. Any killing the president orders is now apparently lawful, at least under U.S. domestic law. However much we parse the finer legal points of the legitimacy of self-defense under Article II, or the Quds Force’s April 2019 designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, or the relevance or irrelevance of Executive Order 12333 banning assassinations, or even the unchecked growth of U.S. executive power, we are looking at the world through a straw. Whether or not it was technically a legal act, Soleimani’s killing will have a historic global influence.

To understand why this is so, we must start with the history of assassination. Assassination is one of the oldest tools of statecraft, a favorite tactic of weak states seeking leverage against strong powers. In “The Art of War” (5th century BCE), Ancient Chinese strategist Sun Zi wrote of assassination as a way to avoid costly warfare, using spies to gain “the identities of the defending commander, his retainers, counselors, gate officers, and sentries” so as to eliminate them. Indian statesman Kautilya also explained the benefits of assassinating enemy leaders to gain an advantage in “Arthashastra” (1st century BCE), his comprehensive guide to governance. The Iranians invented the term “assassins” in the 12th century. Rulers were commonly assassinated in 15th-century Italy: Niccolo Machiavelli spent much of The Prince discussing how to avoid it.

Banning assassination was not just the right thing to do; it was how modern nation-states consolidated their power. What the United States has done with the hit on Soleimani is undermine a pillar of support for stronger, status quo powers. With the development of international law in the 18th century, most states ruled out assassination precisely because it advantaged weaker states and nonstate actors. The Lieber Code, written during the American Civil War, expressly prohibited it. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 also banned assassination, and the Geneva Conventions forbade killing anyone not directly involved in hostilities. Assassination as statecraft declined during this period for normative reasons but also because major powers feared retaliation and got better at physically protecting their territory. In the century that followed (and influenced by the devastating global consequences of the 1914 killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand), the ban on assassinations was a practical way to prevent state leaders and senior officials from being killed and upending the international system. When major powers put certain people, such as political leaders and senior officials, off-limits for targeting by governments not engaged in a formal state of war, the act was a practical move that served their interests.

From the Washington Post: Trump to sign executive orders enabling construction of proposed border wall and targeting sanctuary cities

Today's executive actions.

These appear to be actual orders, not memorandums.

- Click here for the article.

President Trump plans to sign executive orders Wednesday enabling construction of his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and targeting cities where local leaders refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation, according to White House officials familiar with the decisions.

The actions, part of a multi-day focus on immigration, are among an array of sweeping and immediate changes to the nation’s immigration system under consideration by the new president. The moves represent Trump’s first effort to deliver on perhaps the signature issue that drove his presidential campaign: his belief that illegal immigration is out of control and threatening the country’s safety and security.

Trump’s immigration blitz this week is widely seen inside the White House as a victory for the self-described populist wing of his inner circle — which includes chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions and top policy adviser Stephen Miller.

But discussions were ongoing Tuesday about just how far to go on some policies, in particular the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. The 2012 initiative has given temporary protection from deportation to hundreds of thousands of people who arrived in the United States as children. Trump vowed during the campaign to reverse it.

It was not yet clear late Tuesday whether DACA would be addressed as part of Trump’s immigration actions, according to a White House official, because of differing views among Trump’s advisers and associates about the timing, scope and political benefits of ending the program or suspending it for new entries.

From the Guardian: Donald Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for author's credibility

If you like spy stories, you'll love this.

It describes the career of Christopher Steele - the British spy responsible for the dossier alleging that Russia has compromising information on Donald Trump. The facts are still in dispute, but the details about how spy agencies work is worth your time.

- Click here for the article.

Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles, but always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6’s Russia desk. When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko’s death was a Russian state “hit”.

As good as he was, Steele was unlikely to get the top MI6 job, perhaps because his specialisms were not a priority in that period – Russian espionage was taking a back seat to Islamic terrorism and non-state threats. And, of course, there is money to be made in the private sector – lots of it, particularly in the past two years. He decided to quit the service in 2009.

As the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, exerted influence in all kinds of spheres, so Steele’s background made him hot property. Though he could not travel to Russia, he appears to have maintained his contacts and made new ones, using old-school techniques: going out, meeting people, shaking hands, making friends – and paying for information.

With his business partner, Chris Burrows, he set up the London-based company Orbis Business Intelligence, which was busy and expanding. Their operation would have been a good choice for anyone trying to gather intelligence about Russia and Trump.

It is unlikely that Steele would have had direct contact with the unnamed Kremlin officials who allegedly gave sensitive information on the president-elect. In fact, it’s believed the former spy hasn’t been able to visit Russia for more than 20 years. Rather, Steele would have tapped up his network of sources deep inside the country, some of them dating from his time there and others cultivated later, British officials suggested.

In turn, these individuals will have had sources of their own. Steele would likely have subcontracted some of his Trump investigation to trusted intermediaries in Moscow, who will have reported back to him via secure channels.

For more: What we know – and what's true – about the Trump-Russia dossier.

Here's a key allegation:

It says Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years”. Moscow’s aim is “to encourage splits and divisions in the western alliance” and to upend the “ideals-based international order” set up after the second world war. Putin’s preference, according to the report, is for a return to the “Great Power” politics of the 19th century, where big states pursue their own interests.

On this day in History: Eisenhower proposes new Middle East policy

The year is 1957. This helps demonstrate how the ongoing conflict in the Middle East evolved over the past century. It also highlights the role president's have in shaping foreign policy.

- Click here for the article.

In response to the increasingly tense situation in the Middle East, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivers a proposal to Congress that calls for a new and more proactive U.S. policy in the region. The “Eisenhower Doctrine,” as the proposal soon came to be known, established the Middle East as a Cold War battlefield.

The United States believed that the situation in the Middle East degenerated badly during 1956, and Egypt leader Gamal Nasser was deemed largely responsible. The U.S. used Nasser’s anti-western nationalism and his increasingly close relations with the Soviet Union as justification for withdrawing U.S. support for the construction of the Aswan Dam on the Nile River in July 1956. Less than a month later, Nasser seized control of the Suez Canal. This action prompted, in late October, a coordinated attack by French, British, and Israeli military on Egypt. Suddenly, it appeared that the Middle East might be the site of World War III.

In response to these disturbing developments, President Eisenhower called for “joint action by the Congress and the Executive” in meeting the “increased danger from International Communism” in the Middle East. Specifically, he asked for authorization to begin new programs of economic and military cooperation with friendly nations in the region. He also requested authorization to use U.S. troops “to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations.”

Eisenhower did not ask for a specific appropriation of funds at the time; nevertheless, he indicated that he would seek $200 million for economic and military aid in each of the years 1958 and 1959. Only such action, he warned, would dissuade “power-hungry Communists” from interfering in the Middle East.

While some newspapers and critics were uneasy with the open-ended policy for U.S. action in the Middle East (the Chicago Tribune called the doctrine “goofy”), the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate responded with overwhelming votes in favor of Eisenhower’s proposal.

The “Eisenhower Doctrine” received its first call to action in the summer of 1958, when civil strife in Lebanon led that nation’s president to request U.S. assistance. Nearly 15,000 U.S. troops were sent to help quell the disturbances. With the Eisenhower Doctrine and the first action taken in its name, the United States demonstrated its interest in Middle East developments.

For more:

- The Eisenhower Doctrine.
- Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East.
- Suez Crisis.
- Cold War (1953-1962).

From Vox: How America became a superpower, explained in 8 minutes

A great, great video. Something here for both 2305 and 2306. Foreign policy for the former - westward expansion for the latter.

- Click here for it.

From the NYT: Bombing Case Points to Gaps in Trump’s and Clinton’s Antiterrorism Plans

- Click here for the article.

There is nothing in Donald J. Trump’s or Hillary Clinton’s antiterrorism plans that would have had much chance of stopping the bombings in New York and New Jersey that Ahmad Khan Rahami is accused of carrying out.

The subject of how to prevent terrorism will almost certainly be a major topic on Monday night, when the two presidential candidates face off in their first debate. But the truth is that cases like Mr. Rahami’s fit neatly into no categories.

And his journey from childhood immigrant to naturalized citizen to accused terrorist shows that the debate now underway on the campaign trail is too simplistic. It fails to address the hardest and most common cause of radicalization in the United States, when personal demons morph into ideologically driven violence.

Mr. Rahami came to the United States from Afghanistan as a 7-year-old, and later became a citizen. Mr. Trump’s insistence in recent days that he has no problem with ethnic profiling might have led to tougher interrogations of Mr. Rahami when he traveled to Quetta, Pakistan, the center of Taliban power, and returned, or when he came back from there with a Pakistani wife.

The strongest indication of his leanings came in 2014 when the local police and the F.B.I. investigated Mr. Rahami’s father’s claim that his son was a terrorist. But finding no evidence, the authorities did not act. Since Mr. Rahami is an American citizen, the only way he could have been locked up without being charged was with a detention system similar to the way Japanese-Americans were placed in Japanese “internment camps” during World War II.

That was a technique, Mr. Trump told Time magazine in December, that he might or might not have supported at the time. He added that as undesirable as it would be to revive such an arrangement, in an age of terrorism, “war is tough.”

Mrs. Clinton’s approach would be to rely on countermessaging to prevent radicalization and to try to recognize early signs of extremism. But no one seems quite certain how Mr. Rahami was radicalized — on the internet, during trips to Pakistan or perhaps by his new wife. And Mrs. Clinton’s approach, even its advocates acknowledge, is no guarantee — it tries to stem the tide, rather than reverse it.

Mr. Trump, in short, has described a policy of keeping potential terrorists out of the country altogether, even if that means suspending or violating America’s longstanding principles of taking in refugees and not discriminating against immigrants on the basis of their religion. Mrs. Clinton, in contrast, has argued for the vetting of immigrants — about their history or sympathy for radical ideology — but working to counter extremists messages or behavior.

From the NYT: Obama, Pressing Senators, Delays Veto of Bill Exposing Saudis to 9/11 Suits

Veto alert. It has to happen by Friday or the bill becomes law without a signature - as we know.

- Click here for the article.

President Obama is delaying a planned veto of a bill that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, hoping to tap into an unusual well of buyer’s remorse among senators who passed the measure unanimously in the spring.

The measure sailed through the House last week after a surprise last-minute vote, raising the prospect of the first veto showdown between Mr. Obama and a bipartisan coalition in Congress. But an intense lobbying campaign by the White House and Saudi Arabia, among others, has cast doubt on what had appeared to be an inevitable override of the president’s long-expected veto.

Officials have refused to say when Mr. Obama would veto the bill, and he has until next Friday to do so. His advisers are considering whether he should wait until then, after Congress is expected to recess on Thursday for the November elections, which could give him weeks to persuade lawmakers to drop their support for the measure before they return and consider the veto override.

Already, cracks are showing, even among Republicans who generally would love to exercise the first veto override against Mr. Obama.

“I have tremendous empathy for the victims,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, who, like the rest of his colleagues, agreed to the measure in May. “But at the same time, I have concerns about the precedent it would set,” fearing, as many lawmakers now do, that Americans could be sued by other nations in retaliation, or by the families of innocent people killed in drone attacks.

The trepidation about overriding a presidential veto is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Many lawmakers apparently had believed that the House would never pass the bill, as it hastily did after the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island.

From Vox: How America became the most powerful country on Earth, in 11 maps

For our look at foreign policy making. The US took specific - and highly aggressive - steps over the course of its history to become dominant.

- Click here for the article.

Here's one image:




And here's another:

From the Business Insider: Obama's chief of staff brought doughnuts to White House reporters amid tension over a top aide's comments

Apparently it was to make amends.

- Click here for the article.

Barack Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough on Wednesday apparently brought a box of doughnuts to White House reporters gathered in the West Wing to show them that "we appreciate what you do."

McDonough's gesture came after President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, characterized Washington reporters as "27-year-olds" who "literally know nothing" in an interview with the New York Times Magazine.

Rhodes' comments sparked a backlash among the reporters, as well as with Washington's foreign-policy establishment, which he referred to as "the Blob."

. . . “We appreciate what you do,” McDonough told the press, according toThe Hill.
But at least one reporter was apparently not satisfied with the donuts.

"You should have brought Ben Rhodes," he said.

From Foreign Policy: The Syria Dissent Channel Message Means The System Is Working The State Department Syria memo isn't some dangerous sign of insurrection. It's an essential instrument for sparking essential debate.

For out look at the media's relationship with government officials. The State Department has a process in place to allow administrative policy to be challenged by its rank and file. They don't always get leaked, but one did last week, and it points out conflict within the administration regarding Syria.

Here's an inside look at how this is done.

- Click here for the article.

The New York Times details the leak here:

More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.

The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

Such a step would represent a radical shift in the administration’s approach to the civil war in Syria, and there is little evidence thatPresident Obama has plans to change course. Mr. Obama has emphasized the military campaign against the Islamic State over efforts to dislodge Mr. Assad. Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, have all but collapsed.

But the memo, filed in the State Department’s “dissent channel,” underscores the deep rifts and lingering frustration within the administration over how to deal with a war that has killed more than 400,000 people.

The State Department set up the channel during the Vietnam War as a way for employees who had disagreements with policies to register their protest with the secretary of state and other top officials, without fear of reprisal. While dissent cables are not that unusual, the number of signatures on this document, 51, is extremely large, if not unprecedented.

For more:

- AFSA: The Dissent Channel.
- Cato Institute: The Dissent Channel Goes Public.

From Vox: The new era of great power competition Defense Secretary Ash Carter sees a world of heightened tension and even higher stakes.

The Secretary of Defense tries to make sense of the current geo-political landscape.

- Click here for it.

When Ashton Carter began his career at the Pentagon, in 1993, geopolitics was changing more rapidly than it had at any point since the Second World War. As the Cold War ended, a new world was taking its place, one dominated by American power.

Carter, at the time, expected that America's greatest challenge in that world — and, by extension, the focus of his own career — would be limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, he told me in a recent interview at the Pentagon. And the greatest threat, he thought, would be political instability within nuclear-armed Russia.

"That was the riveting challenge of that time. We look back now, and I remember how fearful that was," he said. "But it worked out extraordinarily well."

Twenty-some years later, Carter now runs the Pentagon as defense secretary. The world, and the challenges it presents for the United States, turned out somewhat differently than he, or anyone else, had expected.

What Carter has seen over the past two decades, and has often overseen, is the long and difficult process whereby the United States has tried, and at times struggled, to navigate those unexpected turns in the grand experiment that is the post–Cold War world.

The challenges of this era have only recently become clear: the failure and collapse of weak states, which can bring terrorism, civil war, and refugee influxes; rogue states that resist the American-led order and proliferate dangerous weapons; and now, according to Carter, a return to "great power competition."

In a lengthy and wide-ranging conversation, Carter expounded at length on those challenges: how they've changed, what the US has learned in its successes and stumbles with them, and what he sees coming. You can read the interview in full here.

From the Atlantic: The Obama Doctrine The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.

For our look in 2305 about foreign policy. Presidents tend to have their own unique approaches to foreign policy - Obama is no different.

- Click here for it.

Obama believes that the Manichaeanism, and eloquently rendered bellicosity, commonly associated with Churchill were justified by Hitler’s rise, and were at times defensible in the struggle against the Soviet Union. But he also thinks rhetoric should be weaponized sparingly, if at all, in today’s more ambiguous and complicated international arena. The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq. Obama entered the White House bent on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he was not seeking new dragons to slay. And he was particularly mindful of promising victory in conflicts he believed to be unwinnable. “If you were to say, for instance, that we’re going to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and build a prosperous democracy instead, the president is aware that someone, seven years later, is going to hold you to that promise,”

From the Council on Foreign Relations: Trends in U.S. Military Spending

This is simply offered to augment the section on budgeting - as well as foreign policy. I stumbled across it and it helps address issues associated with military spending, so I offer it as a general resource.

- Click here for the article.

Some handy charts from the article:

The Supreme Court on the president's foreign policy powers

This is from the majority decision in Hines v. Davidowitz.

That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article 6 of the Constitution provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. "For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

From the CRS: Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy

This seem to be as good as any place to find an outline of US refugee policy.

- Click here for the analysis.

Here's the summary:

A refugee is a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Typically, the annual number of refugees that can be admitted into the United States, known as the refugee ceiling, and the allocation of these numbers by region are set by the President after consultation with Congress at the start of each fiscal year. For FY2015, the worldwide refugee ceiling is 70,000, with 68,000 admissions numbers allocated among the regions of the world and 2,000 numbers comprising an unallocated reserve. An unallocated reserve is to be used if, and where, a need develops for refugee slots in excess of the allocated numbers. The FY2015 regional allocations are, as follows: Africa (17,000), East Asia (13,000), Europe and Central Asia (1,000), Latin America/Caribbean (4,000), and Near East/South Asia (33,000). 

Overseas processing of refugees is conducted through a system of three priorities for admission. Priority 1 comprises cases involving persons facing compelling security concerns. Priority 2 comprises cases involving persons from specific groups of special humanitarian concern to the United States (e.g., Iranian religious minorities). Priority 3 comprises family reunification cases involving close relatives of persons admitted as refugees or granted asylum.

Special legislative provisions make it easier for members of certain groups to obtain refugee status. The “Lautenberg Amendment,” which was first enacted in 1989, allows certain former Soviet and Indochinese nationals to qualify for refugee status based on their membership in a protected category with a credible fear of persecution. In 2004, Congress amended the Lautenberg Amendment to add the “Specter Amendment,” which requires the designation of categories of Iranian religious minorities whose cases are to be adjudicated under the Lautenberg Amendment’s reduced evidentiary standard. Subsequent laws extended the Lautenberg Amendment, as amended by the Specter Amendment. Most recently, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) extends the Lautenberg Amendment through September 30, 2015.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS/ORR) administers an initial transitional assistance program for temporarily dependent refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and others. The FY2015 appropriation for refugee and entrant assistance in P.L. 113-235 is $1,559,884,000.

Some random items related to the Paris attacks

For 2305 these come at a fortuitous moment since we're taking a look at foreign policy in class.

General info:

- Vox: Paris attacks: what we know.
- Vox: The 7 Biggest Myths about ISIS.
- Vox: 18 things about ISIS you need to know.

Here's some political background.

From NPR: U.S. Political Reaction To Paris Attacks Split Along Party Lines.

In the wake of controversy of any kind, even terrorist attacks, U.S. politics is never far behind. The American political response — from President Obama to the candidates vying to replace him — in the hours following the Paris attacks has been unsurprisingly split along party lines.

What is interesting, however, is that Democrats, who are set to debate Saturday night, have kept their responses generally to thoughts and prayers — with little in the way of policy prescriptions.

That's understandable, given that a Democrat currently controls the White House and the candidates wouldn't want to appear to undermine the current president of their own party, especially on matters of foreign affairs. But they will be pressed on foreign policy and national security as a result of the attacks at the outset of Saturday night's debate, according to a source with knowledge of debate preparations.

Republicans, on the other hand, are issuing lots of policy specifics and ratcheting up rhetoric, intimating that what's being done — and been done in the past seven years by President Obama — to keep the country safe is not enough. They are calling for an increased U.S. footprint in the Middle East, including "boots on the ground," a halting of plans to increase the numbers of Syrian refugees to the U.S., and an increase in the role of the National Security Agency in surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

The ______ Doctrine

As we will discuss in class, foreign policy is dominated by the executive branch far more that any other area of public policy. This has been the case since the beginning of the nation and was one of the factors leading to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Foreign policy was weak under the Articles of Confederation.

In a previous post - click here for it - I provided a list of the various "doctrines" that have been developed over history. This is likely incomplete, but it provides a look at how the nation's orientation towards the world has changed over time. Notice that these doctrines become common after WW2 and the positioning of the US as a major player in world affairs.

1823: Monroe Doctrine
1842: Tyler Doctrine.
1904: Roosevelt Corollary.
1932: Stimson Doctrine
1933: Good Neighbor policy.
1947: Truman Doctrine
1957: Eisenhower Doctrine
1961: Kennedy Doctrine
1965: Johnson Doctrine
1969: Nixon Doctrine
1980: Carter Doctrine
1981: Kirkpatrick Doctrine
1984: Weinberger Doctrine
1985: Reagan Doctrine
1990: Powell Doctrine
1999: Clinton Doctrine
2002: Bush Doctrine
2002: Rumsfeld Doctrine

Some highlights:

Monroe Doctrine: "The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the American continent in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention."

Roosevelt Corollary: ". . . the United States will intervene in conflicts between European countries and Latin American countries to enforce legitimate claims of the European powers, rather than having the Europeans press their claims directly."

Stimson Doctrine: ". . . a policy of the United States federal government, enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932, to Japan and China, of non-recognition of international territorial changes that were executed by force."

Good Neighbor policy: "The policy's main principle was that of non-intervention and non-interference in the domestic affairs of Latin America. It also reinforced the idea that the United States would be a “good neighbor” and engage in reciprocal exchanges with Latin American countries."

Truman Doctrine: ". . . an American foreign policy to stop Soviet imperialism during the Cold War. It was announced to Congress by President Harry S. Trumanon March 12, 1947 when he pledged to contain Soviet threats to Greece and Turkey. No American military force was involved; instead Congress appropriated a free gift of financial aid to support the economies and the militaries of Greece and Turkey.

Eisenhower Doctrine: ". . . a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state. Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine."

Kennedy Doctrine:  " . . . support for the containment of Communism and the reversal of Communist progress in the Western Hemisphere."

Johnson Doctrine: ". . . , domestic revolution in the Western Hemisphere would no longer be a local matter when "the object is the establishment of a Communist dictatorship"

Nixon Doctrine: ". . . the United States would assist in the defense and developments of allies and friends," but would not "undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world." This doctrine meant that each ally nation was in charge of its own security in general, but the United States would act as a nuclear umbrella when requested."

Carter Doctrine: ". . . the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf."

Kirkpatrick Doctrine: "The doctrine was used to justify the U.S. foreign policy of supporting Third World anti-communist dictatorships during the Cold War. . . . Kirkpatrick claimed that states in the Soviet bloc and other Communist states were totalitarian regimes, while pro-Western dictatorships were authoritarian ones. According to Kirkpatrick, totalitarian regimes were more stable and self-perpetuating than authoritarian regimes, and thus had a greater propensity to influence neighboring states."

Weinberger Doctrine: ". . . a list of points governing when the United States could commit troops in military engagements. The doctrine was . . . an outgrowth of the collective lessons learned from the Vietnam War and the desire of the U.S. government to avoid such quagmires in the future."

Reagan Doctrine: ". . . the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy."

Powell Doctrine: " . . . based in large part on the Weinberger Doctrine . . . The doctrine emphasizes U.S. national security interests, overwhelming strike capabilities with an emphasis on ground forces, and widespread public support."

Clinton Doctrine: It contains "three foreign policy priorities: "updating and restructuring American military and security capabilities, elevating the role of economics in international affairs, and promoting democracy abroad."

Bush Doctrine: " . . . a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles . . .  'unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol.' After 9/11 the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."

Rumsfeld Doctrine: " . . . seeks to increase force readiness and decrease the amount of supply required to maintain forces, by reducing the number in a theater. The basic tenets of this military strategy are: High-technology combat systems, Reliance on air forces, and Small, nimble ground forces."

Appraisals of the "Obama Doctrine" to follow.

From the Miller Center: John Tyler: Foreign Affairs

This gives us a glimpse at foreign policy in the 1840s.

Tyler's presidency is largely ignored, but he was in office during a period of time when the primary objective of the nation was to occupy North America as quickly as possible. This brief appraisal of his presidency argues that his foreign policy achievements were far more significant than his domestic policies. Not the attention he gives to China.

- Click here for the link.

In sharp contrast to his domestic policies, John Tyler's foreign policy decision making went much more smoothly. Recognizing the coming importance of the Asian Pacific region to trade, he sent a key diplomatic mission to China. This move resulted in commercial and consular relations with the country, giving the U.S. the same trading concessions as the British. Tyler also extended the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii, warned the British to stay away from the Hawaiian Islands, and began the process toward their eventual annexation by America.

Closer to home, the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842, negotiated by Secretary of State Daniel Webster, settled a longtime feud with England over where Maine ended and British-ruled Canada began. War had narrowly been averted between the two nations on several occasions over border and incursion issues, and the treaty was instrumental in bettering diplomatic relations.

With respect to his policies toward Native Americans, Tyler ended a costly and bloody war against the Seminole Indians. After defrauding the Indians of their remaining lands in 1833, the U.S. had waged a bloody but inconclusive war against Chief Osceloa. Tyler was able to announce the end of hostilities in 1842.

Tyler continued his predecessors' expansionist policies in the Northwest. He pushed for a chain of forts from Council Bluffs, Iowa, to the Pacific but was unable to conclude a treaty with the British to fix the Oregon boundaries. Overall, Tyler could claim an ambitious, successful foreign policy presidency, due largely to the efforts of Secretary of State Webster, who served from 1841 to 1843.

From the Federation of American Scientists: History of the National Security Council 1947-1997

In case you are into this level of detail, here's a look at the steps that the US government took after WW2 following the passage of the National Security Act to establish the security apparatus we have today.

- Click here for the report.

It's Veteran's Day

A little history - and a loot at Armistice Day and World War 1. Veteran's Day can be traced back to a celebration of the end of WW1 - the first major international military engagement the US was involved in. The US still had a string isolationist streak at that time - this would slowly ebb by the time WW2 ended.

- From the VA: History of Veterans Day.
- Wikipedia: Armistice Day.
- Wikipedia: United States in World War I.