Which military interventions did the Obama administration authorize by country and year?
Executive summary
The Obama administration authorized U.S. military actions in at least seven countries during his presidency, principally via drone strikes, air campaigns, special-operations deployments, and support to partner militaries; prominent cases include Pakistan (2009 onward), Afghanistan (2009–2016), Libya , Syria (2014 onward against ISIS, and diplomatic/pressure actions earlier), Yemen (2015 logistical/intel support to Saudi operations), Somalia (drone/airstrikes), and Iraq (residual forces and later strikes against ISIS) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. These interventions were framed as counterterrorism, coalition humanitarian action, or partnership support, and they combined overt and covert authorities under the post‑9/11 AUMF and ad hoc executive approvals [8] [1].
1. Pakistan and the early drone campaign (2009 — ongoing under Obama)
Three days into his presidency President Obama authorized kinetic strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas—two drone strikes in Waziristan on January 23, 2009—marking the formal start of an expanded targeted‑killing campaign that continued throughout his two terms and drew increased scrutiny over civilian casualties and legal authority [2] [8].
2. Afghanistan: surge, expanded authorities, and “strategic effects” strikes (2009–2016)
In 2009 the administration increased U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan—briefly committing tens of thousands more troops to stabilize the country—and later shifted toward greater reliance on airpower and broadened rules allowing “strategic effects” strikes against the Taliban and ISIS affiliates as combat operations formally wound down but the campaign continued [3] [8].
3. Libya: NATO air campaign and multilateral intervention
Faced with Qaddafi’s violent repression of the 2011 uprising, the Obama administration joined U.S. and European air and cruise‑missile strikes beginning March 19, 2011, initially leading operations and subsequently transferring command to NATO to disable Libya’s air capabilities and enforce a no‑fly/humanitarian posture [4].
4. Iraq: drawdown, residual forces, and strikes against ISIS (2009–2016)
Obama engineered a drawdown of large‑scale combat forces in Iraq early in his presidency but later authorized residual troop presences and—as ISIS emerged—renewed strikes and support to Iraqi forces; the administration’s Iraq posture therefore shifted from withdrawal management to targeted counter‑ISIS military action in the mid‑2010s [3] [7].
5. Syria: diplomacy, the “red line,” and military action against ISIS (2011–2016)
The administration publicly challenged Assad from 2011 and in 2013 confronted a chemical‑weapons “red line,” ultimately refraining from unilateral missile strikes that year while later moving to use U.S. airpower against ISIS in Syria beginning in 2014; Obama’s responses combined diplomatic pressure, coalition building, and calibrated military strikes rather than large ground commitments [9] [7].
6. Yemen: intelligence, logistics, and support to the Saudi campaign
In March 2015 the administration authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen, establishing a Joint Planning Cell and participating in maritime blockade enforcement—an interventionary posture that was framed as support to a regional partner rather than a U.S. combat mission [5].
7. Somalia and other counterterror operations in Africa (under Obama, years varying)
Obama authorized strikes and special‑operations activities against al-Shabaab and affiliated militants in Somalia; the administration’s counterterror footprint in Africa expanded through airstrikes, training, and occasional direct action across multiple years of his presidency [6] [8].
8. Legal, political and scholarly framing of Obama’s interventions
Scholars and policy centers summarize Obama’s record as ending two large wars while engaging or authorizing force in multiple countries—often relying on the post‑9/11 AUMF, covert authorities, and a preference for airpower and special operations; critics point to covert drone escalation and the limits of bombing without stabilization [1] [10] [8]. Available reporting documents the countries and broad years of action but does not provide an exhaustive minute‑by‑minute authorization log in the sources provided here; detailed classification and some covert authorities remain beyond open documentation in these sources [1] [8].