EDITORIAL

 The World after Obama

The period of President Barack Obama in office is positively can be described as the absent of Pre-Emptive Strike Policy. Pre-Emptive Strike Policy often used falsely by some emerging countries as strategy to detain suspect without trial. Pre-Emptive strike as strategy is more than deterrent, because it gets involved more actively than deterrent even the aim is the same to deter enemy from achieving their goal. Some strategists might define Pre-Emptive Strike as deterrent if so than deterrent come in many ways either military weapon or strategy, tangible or intangible. What interestingly to perceive is when people outside the US more likely welcome Obama’s strategy in handling issues, the local tends to be objection by saying the strategy is coming from ‘lame duck’.    

Many American public think that the US foreign policy is less responsive enough to the countries chaotic regime. There are two major issues should be addressed and as always achieved unsatisfied result during negotiation. First is Iran nuclear plant and the second is Iraq and Syria regime upheaval. However, recently unprecedented astounding moment was taken place when US negotiators successfully convinced government of Iran to reduce to some extent of nuclear enrichment. While in Iraq and Syria, US involvement is limited to send military advisers to train Iraqis soldiers with slightly risk of being trapped in war and as alternative instead of sending ground force. Those two major issues would be perceived with different view by candidate of presidential election for the next round whom since early opposed the way Obama administration handling international issues. As a consequence the world may experience open new chapter if not seeing US sending ground force.