Exactly what is a presidential doctrine?

Not every president has had one, and U.S. efforts to contain communism in the latter part of the 20th century helped shaped the modern presidential doctrine. The media played a key role in coining these doctrines and it takes time, sometimes well into the second term, for a presidential doctrine to emerge.

Still, the abrupt shift of President Trump’s America First approach to strike a Syrian airbase raises the question of whether a new presidential doctrine could be emerging.

Most presidential doctrines are framed after a key State of the Union speech or foreign policy address. In total, 12 presidents and a few high-level political officials have been associated with these doctrines. Among the most notable ones are the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. The Monroe Doctrine set a precedent of stemming further European intervention into Latin America in 1823. Nearly a century later, the Roosevelt Corollary reinforced the Monroe Doctrine and further added that U.S. commercial interests would also include Latin America.

In essence, these early doctrines promoted protectionist and isolationist foreign policy approaches. In other words, the United States wanted to avoid excessive entanglements with Europe.

However, modern presidential doctrines reflect anything but an isolationist focus. The Truman Doctrine meant containment policy as framed by George Kennan. In short, the U.S. made a commitment to support fragile governments threatened by communist takeover. This meant financial and even military support. Initially meant for Greece and Turkey, containment policy would stretch the entire globe. The succeeding presidential doctrines of Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson all issued the clarion call that the U.S. would take the necessary steps to stem the development of communist dictatorships. The Nixon Doctrine veered slightly in that it called for a peace through a partnership approach. It meant Vietanamization, but also meant securing vital economic partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the Shah’s Iran.

The Carter Doctrine reinforced the U.S. commitment to the Middle East. Issued after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the doctrine essentially stated that the U.S. would use military force to keep the Persian Gulf oil shipping lanes open. About 20 percent of the world’s petroleum passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Reagan Doctrine continued to pledge support against Soviet client states even if it meant funding anti-communist guerillas. This was contradictory to the 1982 Boland Amendment, which limited U.S. governmental assistance to the Contras in Nicaragua.

The post-Cold War presidential doctrines clearly addressed a new set of circumstances, which included genocide, dictators and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In 1999, Bill Clinton addressed the urgency to stop genocide and stated, “If the United States could make a difference we must be prepared to do so.” The George W. Bush Ddoctrine of preemption was fast-tracked by the 9/11 tragedy, but is similar to Colin Powell’s perspective. The Powell Doctrine meant persuasion in the shadow of power. The U.S. would attempt to use diplomatic reasoning first, but if that did not work, then it would use overwhelming force. The Obama Doctrine parallels the use of force, but states it must be “tempered in terms of common security and common prosperity with other peoples and countries.”

Presidential doctrines are not law, but offer a glimpse — or, as some would say, zeitgeist (spirit of the times) — as to how a president responded to an area of concern. The Syrian crisis could serve as a fertile ground for a president to develop or maybe better sharpen an earlier doctrine. Either way, President Trump has sent a message to Russia, Syria and the global community of U.S. commitment to maintain a leadership role in safeguarding international peace and security.

This story was originally published April 13, 2017 at 5:15 PM with the headline "Exactly what is a presidential doctrine?."