President Obama’s Policy in Egypt and Libya

As political turmoil continues to spread in Muslim countries, it is clear that American foreign policy is also in turmoil. President Obama wants to lead and follow at the same time, leading by his words, but following by his actions. This is causing confusion around the world that watches America so closely. This confusion is compounded at home by the President’s commitment to seek legitimacy for combat operations through international resolutions rather than Congressional approval.

In the Egyptian uprising, this approach turned out all right. The White House produced mixed signals initially, but as the uprising gained momentum and seemed to become inevitable, the President followed suit, upping the ante in his statements. Mubarak eventually blinked under the glare of world scrutiny, perhaps mainly due to American influence in the training and equipping of the Egyptian army, which did not seem interested in using force to uphold Mubarak’s regime.

In Libya, however, the weakness of President Obama’s approach has been exposed. When it became clear that Gaddafi would shoot protestors, the President took a strong stand, insisting on March 3 that Gaddafi step down and leave. This was more leadership by words, but in a completely different context than Egypt, because there was no relationship with Libya or Gaddafi that could be used for leverage. Unfortunately, it appears that the President was not prepared for what to do next if the bully simply replied, “Make me.”

In essence, this is the position Gaddafi decided to take, having already taken the measure of the President. That Gaddafi would choose this course of action could not be surprising, so it raises the question of why the President would insist that Gaddafi step down if he was not prepared to back up his words with actions? Rather, it seems that President Obama’s eventual decision to begin military operations was completely contingent on the resolutions of the United Nations and the Arab League, along with the leadership of France and England. The President started out leading by his words, but ended up following by his actions.

President Obama’s reluctance to act, coupled with his commitment to following international opinion means that how things turn out in Libya is anyone’s guess. At present, there is confusion over leadership, objectives, and the means to achieve them. It appears that the President is willing for America to be the primary provider of firepower, while insisting that others take the primary responsibility for leadership. This is a recipe for confusion and division.

One of the major lessons of the past decade is that objectives and the means to achieve them should be clear prior to engaging in combat operations. By his words on March 3, President Obama was clearly calling for regime change, and yet at the outset of this military action he has already subordinated this objective to international consensus where regime change is not a stated objective. How this combat operation will proceed, for how long, and to what end is up in the air. In fact, the only thing that is really clear is that we are flying by the seat of someone else’s pants.

If there is a silver lining in this cloudy crisis, perhaps it will highlight the need we have as a nation to grapple with and try to resolve a few very basic questions. First, when and to what degree should the United States intervene in the internal conflicts of other nations? Second, by what authority do we claim legitimacy for such actions?

In the past, it has been generally understood that America undertakes combat operations only when and to the degree that they are commensurate with our national interests. When he was in the Senate, President Obama made just this point in opposing the war in Iraq. Over the past several decades, however, with the advent of 24/7 news coverage and the global information age, we have been challenged to also consider combat operations in support of humanitarian missions and political ideals.

Although these are noble-minded operations, and many would argue necessary at times, the problems with these types of combat operations are manifold, not the least of which is deciding which countries to intervene in. If we are intervening in Libya, why haven’t we intervened in Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Rwanda, etc., where outrageous genocide and political repression have been well documented? Does a moral mandate become operable only when a popular uprising is underway? Or is there a moral mandate? These are difficult questions that do not have easy answers.

One answer, however, must derive from the will of the American people, because they are supplying the blood and the money behind any combat intervention. If the President is seeking legitimacy to commit American troops to combat, it should come first from the American people through their elected representatives, not from international organizations such as the United Nations or the Arab League. Let the Congress debate and vote on the use of such force, where the issues can be laid bare for the people to consider and lobby their representatives accordingly.

A messy process, you say. Perhaps, but not nearly as messy as the international process that the President is so enamored by, with its ongoing confusion over leadership, objectives, and means. Seeking Congressional approval for such combat operations demonstrates commitment to the Constitution, trust in the American people and fidelity to the balance of power among the branches of government. It puts the President and the Congress on record, where they can be held accountable for their decisions by the American people.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray