We can all argue about what it means to be a progressive. I believe the president is a progressive in the areas that I care about most. Foreign policy would be at the top of that list. He isn’t trying to overturn the apple cart, and I have many criticisms of both his foreign policy and the way he has been waging the so-called “War on Terror.” So, this isn’t some seal of approval for everything that is going on. But a progressive take on foreign policy, for me, begins with a recognition that our foreign policy has historically been marred by a willingness…in some cases, an eagerness…to put our country’s business interests ahead of our moral interests. For most of the Cold War, we’d take a business-friendly autocrat over a populist elected leader any day of the week. Only in Europe did we seem to remain largely true to our rhetoric when it came to supporting human rights (including the right to have a say in how you are governed). In South America, our conduct has been shameful. In Africa, it has been cynical. In Southeast Asia it was criminal. In the Middle East it has been more tinged with legitimate national security (military/energy) concerns, but has also been most nearly the opposite of what we purport to stand for.
A progressive foreign policy doesn’t ignore our military requirements (although it would reduce them), nor does it automatically eschew relationships with unsavory foreign governments. But it stands for human rights and seeks to keep unsavory foreign governments at arm’s length, not dependent on our ongoing support. A progressive foreign policy seeks to lead more through soft power and a positive example than through coercion and brute force. Most of all, a progressive foreign policy is cognizant of the way most of the world views not only our current policies, but our history since the end of World War Two. And such a policy doesn’t want to perpetuate bad narratives. That’s why Obama’s take on Libya is an essentially progressive vision.
Despite Mr. Obama’s statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to American intervention in Libya.
Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region — as well as some leaders — have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.
“He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,” the senior official said, quoting the president.
There is a limit to how much we should worry about perceptions. Whether we meddle in Libya or not, we will surely continue to meddle elsewhere in the Middle East (see Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia). But it’s important that the president understands the problem with meddling. So many in Washington DC do not see any problem whatsoever. Sen. John Kerry is very casual when he talks about cratering Libya’s airfields. That’s an act of war that he is flippantly advocating. When you commit acts of war against foreign countries and cultures you have to expect some blowback. I don’t normally quote Rasmessen polls because I find them disreputable, but they can probably be believed when they say that 63% of Americans oppose intervention in Libya.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should get more directly involved in the Libyan crisis. Sixty-three percent (63%) say America should leave the situation alone. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.
Maybe the American people simply don’t want to take on the risk of blowback? Why would we? What’s in it for us? Libya is not one of our allies. We don’t buy much energy from them. We’ve lived with Gaddafi for decades and haven’t had a problem with him in the last twenty-four years. The situation could easily devolve into a Civil War. And, as John Carney notes, our No-Fly Zone in Iraq lasted twelve years and led us to invade, in part, to end the impasse. Why do we want that kind of headache?
John Kerry is at least looking to protect innocent civilians, and he’s only calling for us to be prepared to intervene. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, continue to demonstrate his lack of imagination.
Mr. Lieberman and others argue that the risks of waiting may be far greater than the risk of an early, decisive military intervention. He acknowledged that as in Iraq, the United States might unleash an uncertain future of tribal rivalry and chaos, in a country that has no institutions prepared to fill the vacuum if Colonel Qaddafi is driven from power.
Yet, he argued: “It’s hard to imagine any new government growing out of this opposition that is worse than Qaddafi.”
Maybe Lieberman should call his pal Silvio Berlusconi and ask him how Italy will do without access to their oil fields in Libya for a prolonged period as the country descends into tribal rivalry and chaos.
What disturbs me is the absolutely thoughtless way that so many Americans and American leaders are willing to commit our country to the use of violence and meddling in other countries. In some cases it is justifiable, but can someone do a week of research before they start sending in the 82nd Airborne?
I mean, Jesus, seriously…
You want to know how an adult thinks?
Tactical issues aside, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates is concerned, Pentagon officials say, about the political fallout of the United States’ attacking yet another Muslim country — even on behalf of a Muslim population. But he is cognizant of the No. 1 lesson of Iraq: That once the United States plays a major role in the ouster of a Middle Eastern leader, it bears responsibility for whatever state emerges in its place.
Exactly. Currently, we have no responsibility. It’s not our problem. And, Lord knows, we have our share problems and responsibilities right now. Gates’s view is wholly practical. When practical intersects with progressive, you get the Obama administration. I hope they continue to resist the pressure to add Libya to our list of endless hassles.
