There are many interesting aspects to the conflict in Libya and the decision of the United States and now NATO to intervene. Lost in the rain of tomahawks and declarations of opposition is the evolution of Barack Obama’s choice and what it tells us about American leadership abroad.
A vision of Obama as interventionist is a study in contradictions. This is a man who won a Nobel Peace prize while the commander-in-chief of a country involved in two wars. This is a man who gave an inspirational speech on democracy at Cairo University a year and a half before the first protesters gathered in Tahrir Square. This is a man who may be unintentionally adding a third war to the collection he found waiting in the Oval Office when he arrived there two years ago.
Senator Obama was an adept critic of the Iraq war; in ordering the bombing of Gaddafi strongholds in Libya, President Obama departed from his previously stated preference to avoid using force without congressional approval. This is somewhat surprising given Obama’s notoriously thoughtful decision making process, but ultimately unsurprising given the headache that the Republican Congress is determined to be ahead of the 2012 elections.
I had the privilege of talking to former Nixon-list journalist and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Emeritus Marvin Kalb about the military intervention.
[President Obama] did not want to have on his watch— and be seen to be passive in the face of— a humanitarian disaster, which this definitely had the potential to turn into. He genuinely believed and perhaps still believes that he will be able to extract the US from a leadership role and other allies will come forward and do the heavy lifting. To me, that is a dream. There is no way that a major military operation can occur without the US. Now, when we look back we have to say that is something he believed when he made that decision. It may not work out that way. It is possible that no matter how many bombs are dropped on Libya, Gaddafi will remain in power in at least some part of the country. This would suggest a split in the country and civil war and a terrible long-term mess: essentially what he opposed in Iraq. And in back of it all is the shadow of the Vietnam War. No US president since the Vietnam War wants to be committed to sending troops, without an exit strategy, without congressional approval, without popular support. The President doesn’t want that to happen, but it may be what he is accidentally getting sucked into.
Kalb articulates everyone’s worst fears about Libya, fears that Obama attempted to address tonight by asserting that American boots will not hit the sand in North Africa. Still, if Gaddafi is able to entrench himself further and a civil war ensues, the possibility that it devolves into a stalemate that can not be broken without US troops on the ground looms. So the question becomes, are the potential costs worth it?
Many Tea Partiers and even some liberals seem to think not. Last Thursday, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank gave a lecture at Pforzheimer House that called for the drastic reduction of US military expenditures. Frank played to a considerably more convivial crowd than at past Harvard appearances, and the characteristic Frank wit was on full display. At one point the Congressman suggested the military “choose two of the three methods we currently have for winning a nuclear war with the Soviet Union,” and use the extra money for programs like Americorps. In the process of advocating for military downsizing, he called into question the necessity of US leadership in the world.
So in assessing the costs and benefits of interventionist foreign policy, we need to ask a second question: does it matter if the US is a world leader?
I would argue that it does. If we genuinely care about our ideals, it is perfectly rational to ensure that America is in a position of leadership. Among those ideals may very well be respect for the sovereignty of governments deemed legitimate by the international community. Among those ideals is certainly the moral value of each individual human being. If we seek a world where people are free from government coercion both foreign and domestic, the benefits of being able to influence world events are significant.
If we take a materialist rather than an idealist point of view, or if we prioritize ideals such as universal healthcare and improved education at home over ideals like freedom, democracy, and peace abroad, then it makes sense to shun global leadership. I would place Congressman Frank in this latter category. He very explicitly frames his desire for military cuts in terms of social justice. Every penny we spend on a missile is a penny we’re not spending on entitlement programs. Frank also tries to tie his argument to deficit reduction, although anyone at the lecture had to find this comedic given his obvious distaste for the deficit’s prominence in current political discussions. Frank was unable to give a satisfactory answer to a question that pointed out the impossibility of remedying the deficit with military cuts alone. One can only assume he would fall back on his classic tax-the-rich-people solution.
Regardless of the details of a military cutting plan (which will probably prove fiscally necessary even with the new military obligation in Libya), Frank’s stance on American leadership is most interesting when juxtaposed with the president’s speech.
Obama frequently made reference to the responsibilities of leadership, and the responsibility of protecting American interests and values. He did an excellent job of outlining the threats to American strategic interests that would be resultant of the house-to-house killing that Gaddafi promised rebels, among them a destabilization of the fragile infant democracies of the Arab world, the emboldening of other dictators, and the loss of whatever shreds of legitimacy the UN still possesses (Obama may have been a little kinder to the UN in his phraseology than I am here).
But Obama’s most striking point was the firm assertion that America is different. That America is special. That America is the leader of the world.
Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. As president I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
The effort might work. Gaddafi has few friends and innumerable enemies. A campaign to bleed his forces might be practicable, albeit with significant loss of life along the way. It is possible that none of that life will be American.
However, the situation in Libya may very well evolve into an Iraq-sized nightmare. The Obama Administration made the decision, as much moral as political, to intervene. The United States is now committed to preventing the Libyan rebels from losing. What steps will be necessary for that to occur are unknown. Whatever steps need to be taken, though, they will be taken by the US, with or without the French and Canadians.
What Representative Frank fails to understand when he suggests that other powers can “police the world,” and what President Obama fails to acknowledge when he insists that NATO taking the lead means the US will move into a “supporting role,” is that the US is and will continue to be the world’s lone military superpower. That means responsibility falls to the US. In this case, the president has claimed that responsibility, no matter how many times he repeats the word “coalition.”
This responsibility is a frightening one. In the past we have sometimes taken our responsibility to prevent humanitarian disasters too far. In some cases we have shirked that responsibility. But despite the uncertainty and the burdens that go along with it, the responsibility of leadership is something to be proud of.
It was impossible not to detect a tinge of pride in the president’s voice tonight when he articulated exactly what that leadership meant.
“Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.”
We can only hope that we are up to the challenge.
