Over at The Third Way, Bill Schneider takes a look at the middle ground staked by the Obama administration in Libya and how that approach has enraged the foreign policy establishment.
Here’s Schneider: “If the United States does not act, nothing happens. That’s been the main rule of international politics since World War II. It’s what President Clinton meant when he said, in his Second Inaugural Address in 1997, ‘America stands alone as the world’s indispensable nation.’
“What would have happened if the United States failed to act after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990? Most likely, nothing. Kuwait would now be part of Iraq. Having acted decisively in Kuwait, the first President Bush left the crisis in Bosnia to the Europeans. Bosnia was in Europe’s backyard. The U.S. had no vital interests there. So what happened? Nothing. The Europeans failed to act, and a new horror entered the world’s vocabulary: ‘ethnic cleansing.’ “Finally, the U.S. felt morally compelled to step in and lead a coalition to end the brutality.
“When atrocities occurred in Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo and Darfur, the whole world – including the United States – looked away. So nothing happened. President Clinton ended up apologizing for America’s failure to act in Africa.
“
The rule is still operative. It is unlikely that anything would have been done to stop Moammar Ghadafi’s murderous reprisals in Libya if the United States had not played a leading role. U.S. leadership gave political cover for the UN Security Council and NATO and even the Arab League to authorize military action.
The rule is still operative. It is unlikely that anything would have been done to stop Moammar Ghadafi’s murderous reprisals in Libya if the United States had not played a leading role. U.S. leadership gave political cover for the UN Security Council and NATO and even the Arab League to authorize military action.“France and Britain could not have done it without us.
President Obama has taken it upon himself to test a corollary to the rule. The corollary says: if the U.S. does act, it cannot be a limited commitment. It has to be total – or nothing.
“Does it? The Obama administration is testing the idea that, in situations where the U.S. has limited interests, it can make a limited commitment.”
To read the entire column, click here.
