CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96International Relations and Foreign PolicyMiddle East Politics and SocietyMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Externalizing the burden of war: the Obama Doctrine and US foreign policy in the Middle East

Open access
KRIEG, ANDREAS·2016·International Affairs
DOI 10.1111/1468-2346.12506
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring the Middle East has plunged into a state of instability. The United States has responded to these rising insecurities in a region of strategic importance with hesitation or half-hearted commitments. The Obama administration, plagued by the increasingly difficult decision of defining America’s role in an apolar world while managing the political and economic legacy of the Bush administration, has relied on a policy of delegation. Obama neither refrained from military options nor showed any willingness to commit American ground troops to one of the strategically and operationally most complex environments of the world. Instead, Obama’s preferred way of war is one relying on surrogates— both human and technological—that allow the United States to externalize, partially or wholly, the strategic, operational and tactical burden of warfare. Unlike any other previous US administration surrogate warfare has become the principal means of protecting US interests in the Middle East that are perceived to be all but vital. The need for deniability and legitimacy, cost–benefit considerations as well as the lack of capability have made warfare by surrogate a preferred option in the Middle East. The consequences for US policy in the region are profound, as the lack of control and oversight have empowered surrogates whose long-term interests are not compatible with those of the United States. More severely, the US might have jeopardized its standing as the traditional guarantor of security in the Middle East— something that partners and adversaries alike have exploited.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-2346.12506

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 96

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
KRIEG, A.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
KRIEG, ANDREAS
ORCID
KRIEG, ANDREAS
Venue
International Affairs
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-01
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
97-113
ISSN
0020-5850 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/1468-2346.12506
OpenAlex
W2226810704
Cited by
96
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2
FWCI
55.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East Politics and Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Keywords
Obama Doctrine, US foreign policy, Middle East, Arab Spring, US security guarantees, US military commitment, deniability, legitimacy, cost-benefit analysis, US military capabilities, regional instability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review