Opinion: The Death of Internationalism
xmacro
Posts: 3,402 ✭
As anyone who's been watching the news lately can tell see, Gaddafi has been laying waste to Libya. The mad colonel has promised a sea of blood, and his planes have been bombing rebel-held cities to the point that they've been pushed back and lost just about every town, village, and city they took. Gaddafi's now only 1 town away from the Libyan HQ, Benghazi, and still the Obama administration says they won't take a step.
When all this started, Obama said he wouldn't do anything unless the Libyans themselves asked for a no-fly-zone - so the Libyans asked for one. Then Obama said he wouldn't do anything unless NATO supported it - NATO then said they supported it. Finally Obama said he wouldn't do anything unless the other arab countries supported it, probably knowing that anti-americanism in the region would prohibit them from doing so - miracle of miracles, the Arab Leauge said they voted and wanted a no-fly-zone as well.
I'm trying very hard not to call the President of the United States a coward, but watching the news day in and day out, and watching Libyans pleading for help as they're being bombed, I don't know what else to say about Obama.
Anyway, here's an interesting article from the WSJ - turns out Obama is following, to a tee, a plan his team cooked up way back on how the US shouldn't take the lead
When all this started, Obama said he wouldn't do anything unless the Libyans themselves asked for a no-fly-zone - so the Libyans asked for one. Then Obama said he wouldn't do anything unless NATO supported it - NATO then said they supported it. Finally Obama said he wouldn't do anything unless the other arab countries supported it, probably knowing that anti-americanism in the region would prohibit them from doing so - miracle of miracles, the Arab Leauge said they voted and wanted a no-fly-zone as well.
I'm trying very hard not to call the President of the United States a coward, but watching the news day in and day out, and watching Libyans pleading for help as they're being bombed, I don't know what else to say about Obama.
Anyway, here's an interesting article from the WSJ - turns out Obama is following, to a tee, a plan his team cooked up way back on how the US shouldn't take the lead
Not the 28 members of NATO, not the 15-member U.N. Security Council, not the 22 nations of the Arab League could save Libya's rebels from being obliterated by the mad and murderous Moammar Gadhafi. The world has just watched the collapse of internationalism.
The world's self-professed keepers of international order, from Brussels to Turtle Bay, huffed and puffed, talked and threatened. And they failed. Utterly.
But what we've watched is not merely the failure of the gauzy notion of "internationalism." It's more specific than that. What has collapsed here is the modern Democratic Party's new foreign-policy establishment.
Barack Obama is the first Democratic president to assemble a foreign-policy team made up entirely of intellectuals who for years have developed a counter-thesis to the policies of presidents extending back to John F. Kennedy. We are in a "post-American world," they have argued, in which the U.S. is obliged to pursue its interests in concert with the rest of the world's powers, never alone.
The uprisings against autocracies in 10 separate Middle Eastern countries, a crisis inherited from no one, was their real-world test. In Egypt, they fumbled. In Libya, they have failed.
The poster boy for this internationalist view is White House deputy Ben Rhodes, who told a reporter last week: "This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the worldto work through multilateral organizations and bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are taking are amplified."
Days later, bemused Libyan rebel spokesman Essam Gheriani remarked in Benghazi: "Everyone here is puzzled as to how many casualties the international community judges to be enough for them to help. Maybe we should start committing suicide to reach the required number."
Mr. Rhodes' view isn't just briefingspeak. The new Democratic theory of the proper U.S. role in the world was articulated in a July 2008 document, "Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy." It described itself as "an intellectual and policy blueprint for the next administration."
Its authors included James B. Steinberg, who is now Mr. Obama's deputy secretary of state; Ivo Daalder, now U.S. ambassador to NATO; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, until a month ago the State Department's director of policy planning. Susan Rice, who is now our ambassador to the United Nations, wrote the preface.
Their blueprint, a tour of the world's regions, counsels constant multilateral cooperation, institution-building and consultation. While it admits U.S. preeminence, it is largely a meditation on the limits of American power and authority. This is the document's final, summarizing sentence: "And such [U.S.] leadership recognizes that in a world in which power has diffused, our interests are best protected and advanced when others step up and at times lead alongside or even ahead of us."
In the Middle East, no one has stepped up, no one is leading alongside and our allies are in the rear, accomplishing nothing while they wait for . . . America.
This was a test case, and what we have seen is that a world in which the U.S. doesn't unmistakably lead is a world that spins its wheels, and eventually the wheels start to come off. When the U.S. instructs the Saudis not to intervene in Bahrain, and the Saudi army does precisely the opposite, the wheels are coming off the international order.
In an op-ed piece for the New York Times this week, "Fiddling While Libya Burns," the recently departed State Department planner Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote a cri de coeur on behalf of doing something for Libya. "The United States and Europe are temporizing on a no-flight zone," she wrote. It was a remarkable call to actionuntil the final two paragraphs. She concludes that the U.S. "should ask the Security Council to authorize a no-flight zone," (by asking Russia and China to abstain). If that works, then with the Arab League, we "should assemble an international coalition to impose the no-flight zone." Finally, failing all that, we should work with the Arab League to give the Libyan opposition "any assistance it requests."
But Benghazi will be dead by the time this calibration grinds down to Ms. Slaughter's bottom line. After Mr. Obama met with his national security team Tuesday, with Gadhafi one demolished town from Benghazi, the White House said, "The President instructed his team to continue to fully engage in the discussions at the United Nations, NATO and with partners and organizations in the region." Barack Obama is following their blueprint to a tee.
In a better world, James Steinberg, Ivo Daalder and Susan Rice would join Ms. Slaughter in resigning and calling for action to save Benghazi from outside the government. Being inside is manifestly useless. They are defaulting the U.S. into a dangerous irrelevance.
Libyan rebel commander Mohammed Abdallah, in bombed-out Ajdabiya, put the spike into them Tuesday: "The hands of the international community are covered in blood." But the "international community" was never much more than a academic abstraction, and blood, as always, can be washed off.
0
Comments
I for one say let the Libyan's handle their own. We get invovled in too much overseas, and now we want to take sides again. Isnt our side taking what put leaders like Mubarek and Hussein in power many years ago? I think our track record with dictators shows that perhaps staying the hell out for once is the most courageous thing a leader for the U.S. can do.
To be fair, a lot of the people who supported the war suddenly have a change of heart when they realized things weren't going their way and that Baghdad wouldn't be throwing roses at our feet; these same people suddenly found out that Afghanistan wasn't a cake walk, so they changed again and turned against that war as well - so hypocrisy and cowardice is found on both sides of the aisles
But at any rate, the situation in Libya shouldn't be decided among party lines - have you watched the news recently? Ghaddafi is rolling through prior rebel-held towns, and there are reports of his forces entering hospitals and just killing everyone - men, women, and children, because they lived in a rebel-controlled city. His forces are bombing everything they can, he's rolling in tanks to level anything that stands against him, and he's killing everyone his forces meet. How is it courageous to stand by and watch people be slaughtered?
Wasn't it too long ago that people in the US were holding protests about Rwanda and Darfur, holding signs saying "Never again"? What happened to that? It's easy to talk a big game after a genocide is over, but when one is about to begin or going on, suddenly those same people are nowhere to be seen.
But even now, there's bipartisan support for a no-fly-zone, and maybe more - hell, even John Kerry has come out alongside John McCain in support of helping Libya - how is it courageous to just stand by and watch people be slaughtered? Obama says "Ghaddafi must go", but then never lifts a finger to help that happen - how is that leadership?
I disagree with you in that I think the US ought to be more willing to go it alone, at least with a no-fly-zone and not risk any personnel, but I agree with you about everything else. Everyone, the US, Canada, French, Brits, etc - they all talk a big game, but then they stand by as people are slaughtered and don't lift a finger to help. Even as there are Libyans on the news, telling camera crews "we don't have the weapons to fight them, they're killing us, please help", the world just sits by and watches.
As Libyans are being killed in their hospital beds, it's supposed to be breaking news that the UN just agreed to start talking about a draft resolution. It's just sheer cowardice - after the danger is passed, and there's no one left to defend, then we'll start seeing the cheap talk and the Darfur-like protests. Countries promising "never again" only when there's no one left to help.
Which brings me back to the article I posted - the argument that the international community can handle emergencies, as opposed to a few countries (unfairly, I might add) footing the bill, is discredited with Libya. It's total bullsh1t that the US should have to foot the bill, with blood or treasure, to help the Libyans, but in the end, the US is the only one with the Will or ability to do anything to help - the international community is feckless and useless; despite their protests for the need for coalitions, they never do anything when the time to act is at hand
If you can, you are morally obligated to do so. Of course we can. Period.
He's promised retaliation on any nation who steps in. I don't think he's bluffing. Whether or not we jump into this thing is a 50/50 debate for me. Either way, if we go in, it's gonna be another long war, for sure.
To play devil's advocate, is this not what the international community was screaming it wanted in the not-so-distant past? An America who wasnt an "international bully" and didnt "unilatereally advance its own agenda" on nations and who allowed them their own right to self determination?
Methinks perhaps the international community (then) forgot that its the law of the jungle out there - the strongest rule, and prey on the weak. Now that they're starting to remember, all of a sudden a benevolent super power who intercedes on behalf of the weak doesnt seem like such a horrible ideal anymore.
Let the roasting of my comments & I begin! :-D
I AGREE! It is Morally reprehensable.
So... I think that we need to go back to the original way of doing things. Our way!
Look at it this way: if there was a country invading America (far fetched I know...), say China for instance. NO ONE comes to our aid, we won't loose, but we'd take some massive caualties. Men, women and children died becuase nobody wants to stick their neck out to help their neighbor. Better yet go with the neighborhood version. If someone was shooting people three houses down and you knew about it... Would you sit in front of the picture window in your house? Because I know dam good and well that I'd go kick in the back door. The least you can do is call the cops (ie. No fly zone)! Never hurts to have friends that feel like they owe you one.
The Snipers assessment of the world view is correct in my estimation. I am a self professed ultra conservative (fiscal) and I am more and more thinking we need to stay out of anything that does not pose a direct threat to our national security. I know all the arguments about why we are where we are now but it is time to pull back some, regroup, retool our economy, rearm our military complex, and be the superpower that no one will mess with and chart our own course of what we want this nation and our allies who choose to engage with us, to be. We don not need to get into every fight that breaks out in the world. We do need to keep stability in our part of the globe and project our protection to our known and demonstrated friends whoever they may be. We need to secure our own hemisphere and create an economy that does not depend on unstable and unfriendly nations. This would start with seriously persuing a greater independence with our energy needs through developing better and more predictable sources of energy.
We don't have to send troops into every conflict around the world - I agree with you there, but there's a reason we have aircraft carriers stationed around the world, why we have troops in Germany and South Korea, why the US maintains bases in the middle east - it's to project power and let America's enemies know we can respond quickly if provoked. That's something we can't do if we just circle the wagons and say "screw the world, we're only out for ourselves".
EDIT - UN security counsel just voted, 10-0 to impose a no-fly-zone and take other actions - but I wonder what Obama would've done if the UN security resolution had failed? Would he have mustered the leadership to intervene and stop the slaughter of women and children in their hospital beds, or would he have deferred to the "international" community and let Ghaddafi move into the very last rebel-held city tonight? Another thing I wonder about - since the resolution just passed, it's said it'll take "days" to impose a no-fly-zone - what happens if, when a no-fly-zone is put up, there's no one left to defend?
I think (and its only my opinion) that we need to get closer to that. With our economy in the shape its in, enemies of our nation owning crippling amounts of our debt, and the shambles our government is in, can we even consider ourselves a superpower at this point?
We need to clean our own house up first, then worry about the rest of the world. You know - the way the rest of the world does it.
Maybe it would be kind of like seeing a group of bullies beating up some kid on the schoolground, and we knock down the bullies and make it a fair fight, without settling the final outcome ourselves. We cannot afford to continue to be the worlds only Sheriff, nor can I stomach the idea of standing idly by while these kind of atrocities take place. If we're to intervene, we need some palpable concrete assistance and financial support from a whole lot of other entities, who also have their own futures at stake. Ante up, boys, the game is on.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The issues with the Saudis is an excellent example xmacro. The first thing Obama did with them after taking office was BOW before their king instead of acting as an equal. Why in the world would Saudi possibly worry about what we think? If we move against them, we get no more oil and are crippled within 6 months. They know it. We know it. And they are finally tired of playing the game with us.
As is the rest of the world. America now is largely a toothless tiger, and everyone knows it. Not because we lack the teeth (although that is true to a point too - our military is stretched beyond the breaking point as it is), but because we lack the resolve to bite.
EXACTLY! But it is the corporate we, and I hate that.
Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I have to believe that there was a covert operation behind this that halted Ghaddafi in his tracks. If so, then kudos Obama. I think we should use secret-squirrel special forces whenever possible.
On the off chance that this was just good 'ol fashioned diplomacy at it's finest, then we got very very lucky.
I agree Libya shouldnt be among party lines...neither should the other 2 you mentioned. However, you did post this article and opinion on Obama and his decision, so if not party lines, you at least made it president vs the world lines it seems. If you dont want party lines, then I wont even respond to the part about the left vs the right (although I do think there were some generalizations in your statements that were false)
This cannot be compared to Rawanda/Darfur. In size, scale, and reliable information this is not even close. Not saying what Gadaffi is doing is right, or that I would like it to stop. Just saying Im tired of it being our "responsibility". We are in debt, we spend to much, and the #1 area we do is in military. We dont need more undertakings at this time, and CERTAINLY not in what appears to be somewhere between a slaughter (at worst) to an uprising or civil war (at best).
Afghanistan is still in progress, and as most generals will tell you, it can go either way at this point. On the one hand Obama went with a small surge, but less than what Petraeus recommended, so the juries still out on that one.
As for Libya - yeah, a coalition is fine, but this one is probably too little, too late. If we had instituted a no-fly-zone 2 weeks ago, when the rebels were surrounding Tripoli, Ghaddafi would probably be dead - instead we waited for the "international community" (read: the french, brits, arabs, etc), and now the rebels are holed up inside Benghazi, having lost almost every town they previously took and horribly weakend from how they were 2 weeks ago. That's the price of fiddling and waiting for consensus.
As to Rwanda/Darfur, I agree - it's not like that - yet. If Ghaddafi crushes the rebels, the mad colonel is going to go on a purge of the entire country - he's going to seek out every man, woman, and child who isn't a loyalist and kill them. There's already reports of his mercenaries entering hospitals and killing everyone in a hospital bed, men/women/children all.
Lastly, I agree with you that we spend too much and are overstretched - but the problem is, who else is going to do anything? Is it morally right to let people be killed by a dictator because our Congress refuses to do anything about it's addiction to spending? Do we let dictators run free because Repubs/Dems are too cowardly to cut into entitlements? I'm just wondering where the line is - how much killing can we as a nation tolerate?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain