Humanitarian Intervention is Back

With the international community authorized to use force to protect civilians in Yemen, the West is once again trying out humanitarian intervention. Andrew Sullivan is critical of this latest venture, and has criticized Barack Obama for not fully enunciating a rationale for using force in Libya. He asks pointedly, why are we getting involved in Libya and not in Yemen, Bahrain, or elsewhere? My first reaction to this was to imagine that a different sort of “mission creep” might occur when and if military action is used against Libya. Might the moral rationale used by Obama draw us deeper into the unrest occurring elsewhere in the Middle East? Could this be the beginning of a more forceful U.S. foreign policy in that area?

Generally speaking, though, Sullivan’s critique echoes critiques of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy that I have heard in school and in the media. Basically, Clinton was said to have a patchwork foreign policy that involved intervening in some states, but not others. The obvious example is Rwanda, the memory of which many suspect might be driving the Obama administrations decision today. But it seems to me that U.S. policy has long been that we will intervene when our moral and strategic interests coincide with one another. Moreover, most presidents’ foreign policies have notable exceptions. George W. Bush, for example, pushed for democracy in the Middle East, but gave legitimacy to Muammar Quaddafi when he gave up his nuclear ambitions. Still, Obama has not stated what our national interest is in Libya?

Only time will tell, but I suspect, given Obama’s assertion that our European allies will share the responsibility of a no-fly zone and acknowledgement of European leadership in this crisis, that the U.S. role might be somewhat small. I would like to see the U.S. provide logistical support and intelligence, but leave most of the actual fighting to the Europeans. Our military is already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and Europe knows this. They should bear the brunt of the costs. Dov Zakheim advocates this approach, too.

If that is indeed how this plays out, perhaps we should be more forgiving of Obama’s failure to name strategic interests in Libya. If civilians are being slaughtered and other countries are willing to intervene in order to save them, isn’t offering logistical and other types of support short of actually carrying out bombings a worthy expenditure of American resources when we have no hard interests involved?

Here’s hoping that we can act as the Good Samaritan without acting as the world’s policeman, and that we can protect human rights without negatively affecting our interests elsewhere.