President Obama delivered a prime-time address to the nation about U.S. military action in Libya on Monday, explaining his decision-making and offering his justification for the American intervention. This intervention would not be about seeking weapons of mass destruction, or about oil, or even about regime change, it would be about protecting civilians.
I have to admit that I was surprised at how explicitly President Obama tied this military action to his conception of the U.S. role in the world. He suggested that there were other reasons for the intervention, including the desire to protect civilians, to protect the democratic wave sweeping the region, and to act in concert with our allies and multilateral organizations like the U.N. and the Arab League, but my reading of his speech suggests to me that the primary reason for the intervention is that it reflects his view of the U.S. role to such an extent that not acting would have been a betrayal of that historic role. President Obama blended classic American exceptionalsm with our traditional support for democratic freedom fighters using rhetoric that would have been at home in a speech by Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War. Obama said:
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom […] To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. […] There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. […] Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith — those ideals — that are the true measure of American leadership.
I don’t see any new “Obama Doctrine” here, I see a continuation and a revival of an assertive American leadership that in the past supported dissidents suffering in gulags and now supports rebels seeking to overthrow dictators. I don’t for a minute buy the narrative, spun by Obama himself and parroted by the media, that the American role is limited. He speaks of enforcing the Security Council resolution as if that resolution wasn’t written by American diplomats. He says the U.S. is turning over command of the air campaign to NATO, as if NATO didn’t have an American admiral in charge or that the U.S. contributes more to the NATO budget than any other member state. And he says that there will be no American ground forces in Libya, as if American agents are not already on the ground assessing the situation. There is, I think, something a bit disingenuous about saying that the American role in the Libyan intervention will be limited.
What bothers me the most about all of this is the way we seem to now be in the business of deciding which world leaders are fit to serve and which are not. As President Obama put it:
I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
This comes weeks after longtime American ally Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down from power in Egypt. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not expressing support for dictators, but I’m troubled by the idea that we used to accept the world more or less as we found it (and dealt with some pretty horrible dictators in the process) and now we seem to be acting as if these world leaders serve at the pleasure of the president and he can invite them to step down at any time. This is not the action of a president but of an emperor. I’m not sure we have really thought through the implications of this. Limited role, indeed.
Image Credit: The White House
