Obama's Monday night presentation on Libya was one of the best speeches ever given by a secretary general of the United Nations. Given the primacy of his global humanitarian orientation in international relations, one might reasonably conclude that Secretary General is the job our president really wants. Indeed, based on his approach to Libya, he may think he already holds that position. President Obama clearly laid out his approach to the Libyan crisis on Monday night. He presented a cogent argument, powerfully delivered. On its surface, it was one of his most persuasive speeches since taking office. As an explanation of a military policy, certainly it was far superior to his West Point speech on Afghanistan in December 2009, in which he simultaneously announced a troop surge and a withdrawal date. This time he did not make the mistake of announcing an arbitrary timeframe for the end of American military involvement in Libya. How well did he succeed in addressing the concern of many Americans of the Left, Right, and Center who wonder why the United States should intervene in Libya? In speaking to this issue, the President seemed much more comfortable in arguing morality than practicality, though he made a stab at doing both in his talk. The calculus of war-making, however, should not be overlooked. In this era of belt-tightening, when confronted by the prospects of another war, even a justifiable one, Americans tend to ask that question of ultimate practicality: Can we afford it? Neither George Bush nor Barack Obama paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan out of their own pockets. Presidents pay for wars they launch or prosecute out of American taxpayers' pockets. That fact should not be considered irrelevant to the conduct of foreign policy. (A revealing exercise would be to ask American taxpayers to check a box on their 1040 form if they are willing to increase their tax burden to support military operations in Libya.) One does not have to be a member of the realist school of foreign policy to recognize that, in weighing whether to intervene in another country, asking how we will benefit is a legitimate and responsible question for the United States to ask as a nation. Will there be a return on our investment of time and treasure spent abroad? Perhaps ROI plays no role in Libya. Instead we should simply think of our intervention in Talmudic terms: “The reward of a good deed is the deed itself.” But that is not the case that the President made on Monday. One word in Obama's lexicon continues to puzzle me – his usage of the word “interest”. (The day before the President's big speech, Defense Secretary Gates said that Libya is “not a vital national interest to the United States” though it is “an interest”.) In his speech, Obama spoke of our “interest” six times. The first and sixth times he used it as part of the phrase “our interests and values.” First use: “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.” Here Obama is likely connecting, as an equation or an example, “anchor of global security” with “our interests” and “advocate for human freedom” with “our values”. The slippery phrase in this paragraph is “at stake”. In any matter of consequence in the world, our national interests, our national values, or a combination of the two are in question, at issue, at risk, i.e., at stake. To contend that every time our interests or values are at stake “we have a responsibility to act” is to make a false claim. As a nation, we have a choice of whether to act or not, and if so, how. To refrain from acting is at times the most responsible practice, even when that means not pressing our interests or championing our values. As a great power, a superpower, America must carefully pick its battles, select what provocations it chooses to respond to, which crises it decides to address, and when it will allow those age-old cycles of war and peace, oppression and rebellion to play themselves out minus American involvement. The second time Obama used the word “interest” came after he claimed that a massacre would likely have occurred in Benghazi “if we waited one more day.” “It was not in our national interest to let that happen,” he said. That is not an argument. It is not even a conclusion. It is a free-standing assertion, the validity of which is not self-evident. The President presents no evidence that our national interest is at stake when Libyans fight and kill other Libyans. Obama may claim that a particular action is or is not in our national interest, but his saying so does not make it so. The national interest is not whatever the President says it is. He needs to show us how our actions in Libya serve America. Here is the third occurrence of the term “interests”: “It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right.” Unfortunately, Obama never does measure our interests or even state what they are. He glosses over the question of our interests. I suggest that is because what really interests him and motivates him is the desire to take moral action in the name of all humanity, as distinct from taking those moral actions which serve the citizens of the United States. Obama went on to say that “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States is different.” Really? I would like to think that it is different, and I believe that sometimes it is different. But not consistently so in the past or the present, and I predict, not in the future either. For all the talk of “never again”, is there any reason to be confident that if Hutus began massacring Tutsis once again in Rwanda, the international community would stop it – not just pass a resolution deploring it but actually stop it? If the introduction of ground troops were required to separate the two populations, would France, the UK, or the US put their soldiers in danger to accomplish that mission? I hope the answer would be yes, but absent compelling national interest, I doubt it. The fourth instance: “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…” This sounds good, but it's a stretch to argue that we should intervene in Libya in order to prevent more refugees from destabilizing her neighbors. There are far more critical political and economic issues facing Tunisia and Egypt than refugees streaming out of Libya, many of whom are Tunisians and Egyptians returning home. Regarding the argument that we must intervene lest “repressive leaders conclude that violence is the best strategy to cling to power,” they have already figured out that their options include reforms, reshuffling their cabinets, and violence. Each country is unique. Even though some level of popular turbulence is predictable all across the region, the outcome in each country is not predictable. Whether Gaddafi stays or goes will not ultimately determine the fate of Assad in Syria, al-Khalifa in Bahrain, or Saleh in Yemen. Five: “I will never hesitate to use our military…when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests.” But what are those “core interests”? Obama never says. It's as if EVERYONE KNOWS AND AGREES on what our “core interests” or “vital national interests” are, so they need never be mentioned. I would find it refreshing for the President to actually enumerate what are America's core interests. Sixth and final mention: “There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce.” Finally there comes a solitary reference to one of America's economic interests: “maintaining the flow of commerce.” Clearly Obama prefers to present The Necessary (“our interests”) and The Good (“our values”) as one and inseparable. He doesn't want to admit the possibility that at times they may be de-linked. Yet that is precisely the question raised by Libya. Should we militarily intervene when “our common humanity” is threatened but our “common security” is not? Should the U.S. act, preferably in concert with other nations but unilaterally if international agreement is not available, when the lives and livelihood of Americans and American allies are not threatened but those of other people are? This is the question that the President skillfully sidestepped in his speech. Although Obama does mention ‘our interests”, that is not where his interest lies. The national interest argument he presents is much weaker than is his global humanitarian commitment. He encourages us to act in Libya based on “our values”. That emotional appeal is far more attractive than his half-hearted attempt to justify intervention as promoting “our interests” in the Middle East. ** Read more from Michael Lame on his rethinkme.org blog BM
