Soft, medium and hard power

One place where I agree with Hillary Clinton is on the importance of "smart power."

That’s why I use the phrase “smart power.” I did it deliberately because I thought we had to have another way of talking about American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.

The problem is, she never indicated what she means by smart power. It strikes me that President Obama has actually defined three options: soft, medium and hard power.

1. The President has expanded the traditional definition of soft power beyond the idea that its mostly about foreign aid. In situations where international norms/ideals have been breeched, he has worked to develop partnerships to impose sanctions on the offending country (see Iran and Russia).
2. He has also used medium power in calling for targeted military strikes (no boots on the ground) to prevent mass killing/genocide (see Libya and Iraq) or the use of chemical weapons (Syria). 
3. Finally, he has reserved the power of full military response (hard power) to situations where the American people are directly threatened or our allies are in danger (warnings to Russia about incursions into NATO countries).

Much of the criticism of the President's foreign policy has focused on highlighting only one or two of the options he has laid out. I would suggest that having the full spectrum of responses available to deal with varying levels of challenges/threats is preferable. The trick is in accurately diagnosing the situation and matching it to the response that is most likely to reach the desired outcome. That would be my definition of smart power. IOW, the Obama Doctrine.