Libya Nails Obama As Wilsonian

[Kathianne]

Best argument I've seen:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/03/30/the-shores-of-tripoli-our-latest-wilsonian-war/

While the beginning builds up to the conclusion, as is right, the final paragraphs spell the folly out:


...

Liberal Wilsonians have a tough row to hoe in this wicked world. The kind of wars they support — humanitarian interventions blessed by the UN — are generally speaking deeply unpopular in the United States. Most non-Wilsonians (a substantial majority of the population) loathe the idea of American ground forces getting involved in these conflicts, and this political reality ties Wilsonians into knots.

Abroad, international support for these missions only rarely appears — like a January robin in Vermont. Even now Wilsonians can only get their way in Libya by stretching the meaning of the narrow UN resolution.

We have had Wilsonian wars before and I have no doubt we will have them again. You can, sometimes, wage Wilsonian war. What you cannot do, at least not yet and probably never, is build a Wilsonian peace.

Woodrow Wilson discovered this almost a century ago. He could fight a “war to end war” and make the world safe for democracy; but a fatal combination of American political resistance at home and the cold calculations of national self interest by leaders abroad thwarted his attempt at Versailles to create a new global order on Wilsonian lines.

Like Wilson, President Obama is going to find it easier to fight for humanitarian ideals than to make them prevail.

[fj1200]

Best argument I've seen:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/03/30/the-shores-of-tripoli-our-latest-wilsonian-war/


Like Wilson, President Obama is going to find it easier to fight for humanitarian ideals than to make them prevail.

But he doesn't even want to fight the wars. In Libya he just wants to follow the UN's proclamation and drop some bombs but then assert from the outset that "no ground troops will be involved" and we'll hand over command at the earliest convenience. Either get in the fight and support the rebels or don't, quit the dithering.

The problem in my book was committing "American" forces where our national interests are ambiguous. It's much more tenable to commit NATO (yes I know, semantic difference) involvement from the beginning in that case. I think national US interest would have been a fairly easy argument to make but he didn't even try and probably didn't make the right moves early enough.

[Kathianne]

But he doesn't even want to fight the wars. In Libya he just wants to follow the UN's proclamation and drop some bombs but then assert from the outset that "no ground troops will be involved" and we'll hand over command at the earliest convenience. Either get in the fight and support the rebels or don't, quit the dithering.

The problem in my book was committing "American" forces where our national interests are ambiguous. It's much more tenable to commit NATO (yes I know, semantic difference) involvement from the beginning in that case. I think national US interest would have been a fairly easy argument to make but he didn't even try and probably didn't make the right moves early enough.

Hmm, put it together with this, though you need to read the complete op-ed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-obama-doctrine-20110331,0,2265966.column


Obama flirts with a doctrine
President Obama and his aides insist the U.S.-led intervention in Libya isn't part of a grand doctrine for the Middle East. But his plans for democracy have the earmarks of one.

Doyle McManus

March 31, 2011
Advertisement

Is an Obama Doctrine in foreign policy developing before our eyes?

The president and his aides wave off the idea, at least if it means seeing the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya as a one-size-fits-all model.

"It's important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of Obama Doctrine that we're going to apply in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board," the president said in a television interview Tuesday. "Each country in this region is different."

But then Obama went ahead and sketched the outlines of something that looks, well, like a doctrine in the making. "We want to make sure that governments are not attacking their own citizens," he said. "We want governments that are responsive to their people. And so we'll use all our tools to try to accomplish that...

[fj1200]

Hmm, put it together with this, though you need to read the complete op-ed:


But then Obama went ahead and sketched the outlines of something that looks, well, like a doctrine in the making. "We want to make sure that governments are not attacking their own citizens," he said. "We want governments that are responsive to their people. And so we'll use all our tools to try to accomplish that...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-obama-doctrine-20110331,0,2265966.column

I guess I wasn't disagreeing with the original post, nor this one, and more expanding on it.

The "Obama Doctrine" as stated is naive IMO. It is contrary to the Bush Doctrine of supporting democracy; even militarily when necessary. In terms of the BD we are losing huge opportunities that have come along in the protests that have been popping up. The FJ Doctrine would state we will assist/be allies with countries that are committed to economic freedom, and democracy to a lesser extent, which I think would allow us to make overtures to the protesters and potential governments.

An economically advanced country doesn't want to attack us but democratically elected extremist countries still do.

[Kathianne]

I guess I wasn't disagreeing with the original post, nor this one, and more expanding on it.

The "Obama Doctrine" as stated is naive IMO. It is contrary to the Bush Doctrine of supporting democracy; even militarily when necessary. In terms of the BD we are losing huge opportunities that have come along in the protests that have been popping up. The FJ Doctrine would state we will assist/be allies with countries that are committed to economic freedom, and democracy to a lesser extent, which I think would allow us to make overtures to the protesters and potential governments.

An economically advanced country doesn't want to attack us but democratically elected extremist countries still do.

Installing democracy is a foolhardy endeavor unless the country in question has a history of self government OR the country or coalition attempting to install democracy is committed to ruling the 'democraticizing' country for the long haul, ie., Japan post WWII.

As for Obama's 'emerging doctrine'? That's even more pie in the sky than Bush's.

[fj1200]

Installing democracy is a foolhardy endeavor unless the country in question has a history of self government OR the country or coalition attempting to install democracy is committed to ruling the 'democraticizing' country for the long haul, ie., Japan post WWII.

Agreed which is why the FJ Doctrine focuses on expanding economic rights and freedoms prior to installing democracy. It's probably more appropriate as a basis for our aid to existing countries than an Iraq/Afghanistan type of scenario.


As for Obama's 'emerging doctrine'? That's even more pie in the sky than Bush's.

I don't know if I would declare Bush's pie in the sky because of the circumstances that bore it out. We had to do something in Afg and we can argue whether we did in Iraq or not but Bush was moving our foreign policy in a different direction; from a pure national interest policy to one where we were committed in a different manner, "boots on the ground" and the establishment of democratic countries.

I think BO is giving away opportunities to build on our record of supporting ME democracies for whatever his "doctrine" turns out to be. I compare it to the Czech?/Polish? uprising against the Soviets in the '50s? where we didn't act to support them.

And unless we're going to completely pull back from the world stage, or only act where it's convenient then we need to have a coherent basis for interacting with the world.

[Kathianne]

Agreed which is why the FJ Doctrine focuses on expanding economic rights and freedoms prior to installing democracy. It's probably more appropriate as a basis for our aid to existing countries than an Iraq/Afghanistan type of scenario.



I don't know if I would declare Bush's pie in the sky because of the circumstances that bore it out. We had to do something in Afg and we can argue whether we did in Iraq or not but Bush was moving our foreign policy in a different direction; from a pure national interest policy to one where we were committed in a different manner, "boots on the ground" and the establishment of democratic countries.

I think BO is giving away opportunities to build on our record of supporting ME democracies for whatever his "doctrine" turns out to be. I compare it to the Czech?/Polish? uprising against the Soviets in the '50s? where we didn't act to support them.

And unless we're going to completely pull back from the world stage, or only act where it's convenient then we need to have a coherent basis for interacting with the world.

The Bush policy will be judged down the road, I don't really see Afghanistan as a success. Iraq too is beginning to fall apart, which if the current administrations ideas are followed, will escalate.

Shockingly, :rolleyes: it appears that 'no boots on the ground' wasn't wholly truthful:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326&pt=print


CAMP LEJEUNE (WTVD) -- Twenty-two hundred Marines and sailors from Camp Lejeune are preparing to deploy off the coast of Libya in northern Africa. They said goodbye to their families Monday afternoon, and they'll be leaving in the days ahead.


"There's always in the back of your mind what if, what could happen," Marine wife Carrie Cochran said.

Cochran, like the other wives, is confident her Marine is prepared for the mission.

"As long as he knows how to do his job and he keeps his concentration going, he can take care of his Marines then he can bring everybody home," Cochran said.

The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit was set to deploy to the Mediterranean later this year but that got bumped up once NATO forces launched an air assault on Libya.

The unit is relieving the 26th MEU, which took part in some of the initial assaults. The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for aviation combat, others for ground combat. They can handle evacuations and humanitarian missions too...

[fj1200]

The Bush policy will be judged down the road...

True, but if abandoned then it has no chance to be a success.

[Kathianne]

True, but if abandoned then it has no chance to be a success.

I'd say that it already has been in Iraq, as far as staying with it until firmly established. I gave Japan as an example of commitment. That is the problem with war as a 'doctrine.' Monroe used a model that really wasn't invoked until much later, but really had to do with sphere of influence, outside of war.