Obama to lay out foreign policy goals

WASHINGTON — After months of running his foreign policy like a firefighter responding to alarms around the globe, President Barack Obama is worried that Americans don’t understand his overall approach and plans to launch a campaign to explain it over the coming months.

In a commencement speech thisweek at theU.S. Military Academy, Obama plans to lay out a broad vision for his second-term foreign policy that is “interventionist and internationalist, but not isolationist or unilateral,” a senior adviser familiar with the plans said Saturday.

“The United States is the only nation capable of galvanizing action,” said the adviser, who asked for anonymity to discuss White House plans in advance of the Wednesday address.

Obama believes that “we need to put that to use in an international system that is sustainable and enduring,” the adviser said, “and that can address challenges from traditional ones, like maritime and trade issues, to emerging ones, like climate change.”

With the Iraq War over and the Afghan engagement drawing to an end, Obamasees theU.S. moving out of a period of war and entering a new one in which its global priorities are different, advisers say.

But while the administration has been focused on crises in Syria and Ukraine, and on fighting for equilibrium in thewake of massive leaks about its own national security and intelligence practices, the U.S. response has come across as more ad hoc than comprehensive.

Obama advisers realize this, said the senior official, acknowledging that they have “had to respond to a series of big events rather than talking about our overarching policy.”

The White House has signaled for weeks that it wanted to use the West Point remarks to articulate its doctrine — and push back against the mounting criticism from once-friendly corners that Obama’s foreign policy is adrift.

On his recent tour through Asia, Obama repeatedly and bluntly defended his policies, arguing that he’s successfully rallied the internationalcommunity, made good on U.S. commitments President Barack Obama has lost support in some once-reliable corners for his international approach. officials have described the working label for Obama’s doctrine as “Don’tdo stupid stuff.” The shorthand captured Obama’s resistance to a rigid catchall doctrine, as well as his aversion to what he once called the “dumb war.”

One adviser to the president said he wants Americans to understand what that overall approach means for “hot spots” like Ukraine, Iran and Syria.

Indeed, his advisers agree that the president’s challenge will be not just to explain a doctrine but also its application. When, for instance, does he think the U.S. should intervene in regional conflicts? What role will the U.S. play in establishing peace?

“The thing that concerns me the most is that we are kind of bouncing fromissue to issue without a clear articulation of what the national security interest of the United States actually is,” former Democratic Sen. JimWebb said last week in a radio interview.

The White House often fends off critics by suggesting their prescriptions would start a newwar.

For some that argument has beenwearing thin.

“They define themselves in contrast to their predecessors and the enormous sins of commission there,” said Barry Pavel, a former Obama adviser. “I think they’ve swung way too far in the direction of sins of omission.”

“Interventionist and internationalist, but not isolationist or unilateral.”

and, perhaps most importantly, avoided new conflicts Americans say they don’twant.

While Obama seemed irked that he needed to mount such a defense, aides in the White House acknowledged they needed to better communicate the president’s thinking, particularly to diplomats, foreign policy analysts and world leaders, a group Obama once easily courted and seems to have lost.

They parted ways with the president’s thinking after he backed off plans for an airstrike on Syria in retaliation for an alleged Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack on rebel areas, choosing to seek congressional approval first.

That episode has helped to create a credibility gap that increasingly has allies questioning whether Obama would remain committed to their interests if it meant using not just his State Department but also his Pentagon.

Privately, White House