Natalie Gonnella
After weeks of dithering on a decision, last Friday President Obama finally announced that the US would support the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, stressing that "American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone -– it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together.”
However, considering current confusion including the divide between crucial participants over who is actually “in charge” of multilateral efforts (an argument which has seen little input from the US although American taxpayers have provided a majority of the initial artillery needed to commence operations), the continued perplexity over the campaign’s objectives, the dwindling support of allies like Germany, Turkey and the Arab League, and the Administration’s dawdled and timid response to the situation in general (labelled by Bill Kristol as nothing short of pathetic), both leadership and cooperation appear to be in short supply.
While uncertainty over the situation continues to grow, America’s vague role in Libya provides yet another reminder of President Obama’s obstinate retreat from the nation's legacy as a leading defender of freedom and democracy across the globe.
In contrast to the Administration’s view, ConservativeHome believes that (as noted in the shield atop the website):
The United States has a role to play as a global leader. We are the world’s most powerful nation by just about any meaningful measure, which in turn means that we can hardly do anything as a nation without affecting things elsewhere in the world. Instead of apologizing for this reality, conservatives have been more likely to embrace it and utilize American strength to promote trade as a tool of development, free enterprise as the system of liberty in emerging economies, and the rule of law and democratic institutions as the expected political economy of developing countries.
As the White House continues to pull back on the country's global role, a number of conservatives have weighed in this week on the situation in Libya, advocating the view that there is still a significant need for American leadership and that "by virtue of strength and prosperity" (as Miles Taylor describes today on Platform) the US has a responsibility to lead in the promotion of democracy and stability worldwide. Here's a look at what they had to say:
David Brooks in his latest column this week in the New York Times offered his views on the need for US leadership in his critique of multilateralism, noting that:
These days we are all co-religionists in the church of multilateralism. The Iraq war reminded everybody not to embark on an international effort without a broad coalition. Yet today, as an impeccably crafted multilateral force intervenes in Libya, certain old feelings are coming back to the surface. These feelings have been buried since the 1990s, when multilateral efforts failed in Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq. They concern the structural weaknesses that bedevil multilateral efforts. They remind us that unilateralism may be no walk in the park, but multilateralism has its own characteristic problems, which are showing up already in Libya.
Brooks adds that:
This is not to say the world should do nothing while Qaddafi unleashes his demonic fury. Nor is this a defense of unilateralism. But we should not pretend we have found a superior way to fight a war. Multilateralism works best as a garment clothing American leadership. Besides, the legitimacy of a war is not established by how it is organized but by what it achieves.
Herb London in a recent ConHome piece commented that:
Winston Churchill warned that when democracies triumphed in World War II they “were able to resume the follies which has so nearly cost them their life.” It seems we are at it yet again.
We watch with horror as power hungry barbarians kill their own people. But we generally tolerate these actions. We are overcome by the magnitude of evil and the inversion of certitudes, but are helpless in their wake. We seek fresh creeds, but do not know how to deal with the revulsion in our collective gut. And all the while our leaders tell us this will pass and, after all, there is nothing we can do.
Is the world turning to savagery? Is the 1930’s a scenario for the new century? Are we to allow shamefacedly the death and horror we have the capability to prevent? The derision of death lurks in our imagination, but the will to reverse it has not emerged. America cannot police the world, but the U.S. is still the only anchor that can assure international stability. It seems to me that role must be recognized and given the attention history has placed on it.
Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly wrote in The Weekly Standard:
The crisis in Libya provides a useful reminder that the world’s demand for American power is rising. This is clearly the case in the Muslim world, which was in turmoil long before the current “Arab spring.” As Senator Richard Lugar recently fretted, “Libya might not be the last of these cases.” Just so…No one can predict with any precision when or where the “next case” might be. But it is folly to presume—and for our government to plan—that there won’t be further conflicts, that revolutionary change will be, as the president has put it, “organic,” that what happens overseas stays overseas. In short, the world hasn’t stopped, and we can’t get off.
Kori Schake said via Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government:
This is what comes from a lack of leadership by the United States. The medium powers squabble, and we do most of the work. Building a coalition requires a much more solid understanding of objectives, roles and responsibilities than President Obama launched this war having. The time of American leverage to work out these details was before we undertook the work France wanted to take credit for us doing and the Arab League was willing to support. Unfortunately, at that time the Obama administration remained opposed to the military operations they are now engaged in.
Will Inboden, also on Shadow Government, commented that:
Yes, a wise global superpower attends to the views of others. But from the presidential campaign up through the present day, the Obama team elevated this insight from a prudential consideration to a dogmatic article of faith. Related, this White House seems to have bought into an assumption of American decline that risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet as the Arab Spring has shown, and in particular the crisis in Libya, the world still wants and needs American leadership. Witness the palpable frustrations of the French and British over American dithering on Libya, or the desperate pleas of the Libyan rebels for American assistance, or the demands last month of Egyptian democracy protestors for American support. The world needs an America that listens and leads.
