We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick...
--Woodrow Wilson, Fourteen Points
Last week I was planning to write a post laying out a consistent set of foreign policy principles based around the ongoing events in the Arab world that would nonetheless attempt to be a departure from the well-intentioned but generally inept Bush years. But Obama just did that, at least most of it. What he has managed to do is to draw a line between political and military objectives, a line between air support and ground presence, and a line between protecting civilians from al-Gaddafi and directly forcing him out. In general, though, he emphasized the particular facts of the situation in Libya over generally applicable principles:
In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Whenever we undertake to help a people in their struggle against a dictator we cannot forget--at the risk of inciting the specter that is Iraq--that everything we do we must do for the people of that country and only with their support. Take heed of Nick Kristof when he notes:
I opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion because my reporting convinced me that most Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein but didn’t want American forces intruding on their soil. This time my reporting persuades me that most Libyans welcome outside intervention.
Is this policy idealist? Absolutely.
Is it realist? I respectfully submit that it is the only realist policy given our interests and those of the countries which matter to us. Realism is about actions which support your country's national interest because they lead other states to act in ways beneficial to yours. We can restore our standing in the Arab world--both among its leaders, who matter a great deal, and among its people, who matter even more--and it will bring us immense benefits as the region grows in influence.
But above all it is liberal. It is a policy that stands for the preservation, defense, and expansion of liberty all the way to the most oppressed patches of this earth in accordance with the desires of the oppressed people themselves.
