Publication: Bir hibrit üretim olarak Obama doktrini
Abstract
Soğuk Savaş Dönemi sonrası ABD dış politikasında önemli bir dönüşüm gerçekleştiren Obama, Müslüman isimli bir Hıristiyan olarak hem siyah hem de beyaz kökenli olması, Demokrat Parti adayı olarak başkan seçilse de Cumhuriyetçilere yakın durma çabası göstermesi ve söylemleriyle yaptıkları arasında azımsanmayacak sayıda çelişkiler bulunması nedeniyle tanımlanması en zor ABD başkanlarından biri olmuştur. Obama’nın başkan olarak seçilmesi, 11 Eylül olayları sonrası ABD Başkanı George W. Bush’un Irak ve Afganistan’ı işgal etmesi ve bu işgallerin vahim sonuçları üzerine gerçekleşmiştir. Irak’ta yüz binlerce insanın ölmesi, hapishanelerindeki işkence görüntüleri, Guantanamo’da illegal tecrit ve sorgulamalar ile mezhep savaşlarına kapı açılması bunlardan bazılarıdır. Savaşlara değil “aptalca olan savaşlara” karşı olduğunu söyleyen Obama, temelde Bush’un Irak’ı ve Afganistan’ı işgal etmesine karşı değildir; karşı olduğu şey, Bush’un bu kararı tek taraflı alması ve ABD’nin gücünü ülke içinde ve dışında zayıflatmasıdır. Obama aslında bir umut ve değişim rüzgarını arkasına almış, gerek ülke içinde bozulan ekonomiyi gerekse ülke dışında nefret edilen ABD imajını düzeltme vaadiyle başkanlığı kazanmıştır. Başkan olduğunda ise Guantanmo’yu kapatmamış, Afganistan savaşını bitirmediği gibi oradaki asker sayısını artırmış ve onun döneminde Irak’ta mezhep savaşlarının ivmesinin hızlanmasına ve DEAŞ’ın yükselişine tanık olunmuştur. Ayrıca Suriye politikalarında aşırı ihtiyatlı ve risk almaktan kaçınan bir strateji uygulamış olması, bölgede geri dönülmesi neredeyse imkânsız sonuçlara neden olmuştur. Obama’nın, tüm bu ikircikli tutumu ve söylem tutarsızlığı görüntüsü, onun hibrit doktrininin doğal bir sonucudur. Her ne kadar “Güç Azaltımı” grand stratejisini tercih ediyor gözükse de dron kullanımı, Libya müdahalesi ve Afganistan’da Amerikan askeri gücünü artırması gibi örneklere bakıldığında Obama’nın tek bir grand strateji ile tanımlanması mümkün görülmektedir. Karma bir kültürel arka plana sahip olması nedeniyle Obama, ihtiyatlı hareket eden ve risk almaktan kaçınan bir kişiliğe sahip olmuş, ayrıca bu durum onun, dış politika konularında karma tercihlere yönelmesine ve pragmatist bir yaklaşım benimsemesine yol açmıştır. Bu nedenle Obama’nın ürettiği doktrininin, bir hibrit üretim olduğu ve onun, gerek başkan olarak seçilirken kamuoyu beklentisine cevap vermek için gerekse kendisinin içselleştirdiği karma düşünsel eğilimleri nedeniyle hibrit dış politika grand stratejilerine yöneldiği sonucu ortaya çıkmıştır.
Obama, who made a great transformation in the US foreign policy after the Cold War Era, has been one of the most difficult US presidents to define. As a Christian with a Muslim name, he is of both black and white origin; he tried to stay close to the Republicans even though he was elected as the Democratic Party candidate; and there were considerable contradictions between his rhetoric and what he actually did. The election of Obama as president took place immediately after the dire consequences of US President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan after the events of September 11, such as the images of torture in Iraqi prisons, unlawful isolation and interrogations in Guantanamo, the death of hundreds of thousands of people and opening the door to the sectarian wars in Iraq. In fact, Obama won the presidential elections with a wind of hope and change, with the rhetoric of correcting both the deteriorating economy at home and the hated US image abroad. However, he did not end the war in Afghanistan, instead increased the number of soldiers, did not close Guantanamo and the momentum of the sectarian war in Iraq was accelerated and the rise of DAESH was observed in parallel. In addition, the fact that he has implemented a timid, overly cautious and risk-averse strategy in his Syrian policies has led to almost irreversible results in the region. The main reason for all this ambivalence and rhetorical inconsistency of Obama is a natural consequence of his hybrid doctrine. Although he seems to prefer the grand strategy of “Retrenchment”, when we look at examples such as the use of drones, the intervention in Libya and the increase in power in Afghanistan, it is seen that it is not possible to define Obama with a single grand strategy. This cultural background has created a structure that acts very prudently in every important event and avoids taking risks, and has led him to turn to mixed preferences in foreign policy issues and to adopt pragmatist approaches. Considering this point, it has been determined that the doctrine produced by Obama is a hybrid production and it has been concluded that he turned to hybrid foreign policy grand strategies both in order to respond to the expectations of the public when he was elected as president and because of the mixed intellectual tendencies he embraced.
Obama, who made a great transformation in the US foreign policy after the Cold War Era, has been one of the most difficult US presidents to define. As a Christian with a Muslim name, he is of both black and white origin; he tried to stay close to the Republicans even though he was elected as the Democratic Party candidate; and there were considerable contradictions between his rhetoric and what he actually did. The election of Obama as president took place immediately after the dire consequences of US President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan after the events of September 11, such as the images of torture in Iraqi prisons, unlawful isolation and interrogations in Guantanamo, the death of hundreds of thousands of people and opening the door to the sectarian wars in Iraq. In fact, Obama won the presidential elections with a wind of hope and change, with the rhetoric of correcting both the deteriorating economy at home and the hated US image abroad. However, he did not end the war in Afghanistan, instead increased the number of soldiers, did not close Guantanamo and the momentum of the sectarian war in Iraq was accelerated and the rise of DAESH was observed in parallel. In addition, the fact that he has implemented a timid, overly cautious and risk-averse strategy in his Syrian policies has led to almost irreversible results in the region. The main reason for all this ambivalence and rhetorical inconsistency of Obama is a natural consequence of his hybrid doctrine. Although he seems to prefer the grand strategy of “Retrenchment”, when we look at examples such as the use of drones, the intervention in Libya and the increase in power in Afghanistan, it is seen that it is not possible to define Obama with a single grand strategy. This cultural background has created a structure that acts very prudently in every important event and avoids taking risks, and has led him to turn to mixed preferences in foreign policy issues and to adopt pragmatist approaches. Considering this point, it has been determined that the doctrine produced by Obama is a hybrid production and it has been concluded that he turned to hybrid foreign policy grand strategies both in order to respond to the expectations of the public when he was elected as president and because of the mixed intellectual tendencies he embraced.