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?
Civil Minded 