Charles Krauthammer has an interesting piece in The Washington Post on the
contradictions of Democratic foreign policy and why they advocate sending US troops to Liberia and not Iraq. I believe that Mr. Krauthammer nails the reasoning head on:
The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America’s strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but also a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals, foreign policy is social work. National interest — i.e., national selfishness — is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those that are morally pristine, namely, those that are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest.
His theory seems to fit the facts. The recent history of US military interventions have mainly been cases of the US military doing missionary work in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia, all cases in which there were only tenous ties to any national interest. Liberia is the same – we have no interests in Liberia other than a vague sense that what’s going over there isn’t right.
Granted, there is a bloody civil war going on in Liberia, but there is little that we can do to stop it. The factional warfare in Liberia is the same that plagues much of sub-Saharan Africa, but the bloodshed in the Congo or Rwanda doesn’t recieve calls for US military action. If it is our moral duty to intercede in cases of genocide, then the US military needs to be deployed not only in Liberia, but North Korea, Burma, Congo, Rwanda, and a whole host of other nations. Clearly our military, as powerful as it is, cannot do this.
The argument that Liberia might be a base for al-Qaeda is also fatuous. The same could be said for the Congo, Burma, or any other nation experiencing a complex humanitarian emergency. Again, we have neither the ability to intercede in all those places, nor would our intercessions bring about any kind of peace without even more dead US soldiers and foreign civilians.
Krauthammer also deftly skewers the hypocrisy of the EU on the matter as well:
Should we then do nothing elsewhere? In principle, we should help others by economic and diplomatic means and with appropriate relief agencies. Regarding Liberia, it is rather odd for the Europeans, who rail against U.S. arrogance, to claim that all the armies of France and Germany, of Europe and Africa, are powerless in the face of Charles Taylor — unless the Americans ride to the rescue.
It seems that America is an "arrogant" and dangerous nation – until the UN needs our miltary, in which case our power once again can be used to save lives. If the UN thinks that a few lightly armed peacekeepers can save Liberia, they are welcome to send their own. We have our messes to clean up, and we cannot afford to get bogged down in an internal manner that we can do little to change.
Is this an admission that “liberation” was not a genuine goal of our involvement in Iraq? Seems as the “pro-liberation” crowd in Iraq should racing over to West Africa in response to the Liberians pleas for U.S. troop deployment rather than waving your middle finger in their face and coming up with newspaper columns worth of excuses why their lives are less worthy of saving than Iraqis.
The difference between Iraq and Liberia is one of utility. Our goals in Iraq were clear: remove the Hussein regime and start rebuilding the country. In Liberia, there is no central government and no clear exit strategy. Furthermore, in Iraq there was a confluence of interests. We needed to ensure that Iraqi WMDs could not be a threat, we needed to end Hussein’s support of terrorism, we needed to end the murderous status quo in the region, and we also had interests in liberating the Iraqi people.
In Liberia, our interests are far less clear. We simply cannot interfere in every conflict worldwide. If we interfere in Liberia, exactly what is the moral or policy difference between that situation and the one in the Congo? Why intervene in Liberia and not there?
The fact is, it’s also a matter of utility. In Iraq, there was a regime to be changed. In Liberia the power of the government doesn’t extend past the borders of Monrovia. While Iraq had a dictatorial, but functional, govenment Liberia has no government whatsoever. We could make significant difference in Iraq. In Liberia, there’s very little we can do.
I’m sympathetic to the idea of humanitarian interventions, but we simply don’t have the option of being the world’s policeman when our interests are not at stake. If the EU or UN wants to send troops, the US should offer logistical and humanitarian assistance. Outside of that, we should stay out of the situation.
“No clear exit strategy in Liberia.” Whew, sure glad we had that covered with Iraq. If we didn’t have this great exit strategy in place in Iraq, we’d be going through interim American leadership every six weeks, be powerless to stop looting and leaving a desert nation without power in the heat of summer, and have American soldiers being killed nearly every day. Oh wait….
There is an exit strategy: restore order and leave with a functioning democracy. It may be a difficult strategy to meet, but it’s still far different from going into a country in the midst of collapse with no clear mandate to do anything.
…be powerless to stop looting…
Uh. Looting is under control now. Recall that Saddam has issued a general amnesty and cleared out its jails right before the war. As for power its being restored. It has only been a few months.
Funny, how liberals were fine with waiting over a decade on Saddam’s empty promises (and were will to wait way longer), yet we’ve been there only for a few months and they grow impatient. Partisanship? No way..!
Elton at busy busy busy managed to perfectly summarize Krauthammer’s article in one sentence:
“All profitable wars are good, be they defensive or offensive, but it is immoral to intervene militarily solely to help others.”
http://www.busybusybusy.com/b3_arc_03_0707.shtml#July11020031130AM
Ah, so when Bush reminded us (when the WMD’s hadn’t showed up) that this had always been “a war about liberating the Iraqi people” he was admitting it had been an immoral war?
Neo-Cons just can’t seem to keep their rhetoric straight. 🙂
Krauthammer isn’t saying that wars of liberation are immoral, he’s saying that we have to be pragmatic. Yes, it would be nice to be the world’s policeman and go wherever there was conflict or turmoil – but we realistically can’t do that. Our government’s primary responsibility is protecting its own citizens, and our military is charged with that task, not acting as global service workers. If the UN wants to intervene, that’s their job. However, the US has other business to attend to, and we cannot enter ourselves into a conflict that we have no clear mandate to end, and that would put our soldiers in direct harm when there’s no pressing issue of US national security at stake.
Krauthammer isn’t saying that wars of liberation are immoral, he’s saying that we have to be pragmatic.
You must read English a lot different than I do.
“it is immoral to intervene militarily solely to help others.”
Seems pretty clear to me what he’s saying. I don’t see the word “pragmatic”. I do see the word “immoral”.
Our government’s primary responsibility is protecting its own citizens, and our military is charged with that task, not acting as global service workers.
I see, so you don’t agree with Bush’s justification for the Iraq war. Why, then, did we go to war? Are we any safer now? Aren’t we, by Rummy’s own admission, at greater risk from terrorist retaliation?
By your logic, the military is immoral on one hand, and incompetent on the other. Way to support the troops.
There were three main justifications for the war in Iraq, all of which were pragmatic:
1. Ensure that Hussein could not use or develop weapons of mass destruction.
2. Remove Hussein’s support of terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, Hizb’Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
3. Set the stage for further democratic transition in the region to put further pressure on other regimes in the region such as Iran and Syria. (The liberation aspect falls into this category)
Indeed, without the actions in Iraq, do you think that Syria would be closing down terrorist offices in their country? Would Abu Mazen currently be in power, or would Hussein’s blood money only exacerbated the conflict?
It is clear that the attack on Iraq has begun a titanic change in the Middle East. Regimes that sponsor terrorism such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are now slowly backing away. The terrorist training camp at Salman Pak is closed, as well as the Ansar-i-Islam bases in norther Iraq.
The past decade of history shows that the greatest way to increase risk to terrorism is through a weak or non-existent response to terrorist acts. Had we smashed al-Qaeda in 1993 after the first WTC bombing, we wouldn’t have seen the Khobar Towers bombing, the African Embassy bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole or the Sepetember 11 attacks.
Had we not eliminated the Hussein regime, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis would not have simmered down, and terrorists would know that the US is perfectly willing to back down if political pressure is applied. Such a lesson would only embolden terrorists and would have increased terrorism against the US and US interests dramatically.
Great, we protected our own interests. I’m sure that’s great consolation to the families of the dead.
1. Ensure that Hussein could not use or develop weapons of mass destruction.
2. Remove Hussein’s support of terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, Hizb’Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
3. Set the stage for further democratic transition in the region to put further pressure on other regimes in the region such as Iran and Syria. (The liberation aspect falls into this category)
And precisely what aspect of international law do you feel grants us the sweeping power to act on these interests?
Clearly, the war served national interests. That, unfortunately, is not enough to make it a legal war. Where was the actual act of aggression against the US that was required to justify the war? There was none, as far as I can see…
“If the UN wants to intervene, that’s their job. However, the US has other business to attend to”
Jay, when you write that, are you not forgetting that the U.S are part (and a big part:25%credit, set up in NY…) of the U.N??? The U.N is not a concurrent country: it means UNITED NATIONS!!!hello???
Why create the U.N if it wasn’t to prevent one country to act in its own interest only, to create a world community? reading the comments above, it seems like the U.N is not worth anymore(since it’s not subordinated anymore to U.S exclusiv interests)
if the U.S want to go on their own, they can, but don’t blame other countries when they don’t want to be your slaves.
…That, unfortunately, is not enough to make it a legal war…
What decides if a war is “legal” or not? In any case, we signed a conditional ceasefire with Hussein. He broke the conditions, even UN will admit to that. Will *you* deny that he did not abide by those conditions?
Where was the actual act of aggression against the US that was required to justify the war? There was none, as far as I can see…
Conditions of that the 1991 ceasefire were broken for over a decade. Apparently you are very selective with what you do or do not see.
The war was based on Iraq’s violation of UN Resolution 1441 which demanded that Iraq unilaterally disarm or conclusively prove that they had disarmed before or they would be in material breech and subject to military action. Resolution 1441 was passed by the UN Security Council, along with dozens of other resolutions demanding that Iraq disarm.
vincent: If this is nothing more than a grab at Iraq’s oil, then why the hell are US soldiers getting shot in Baghdad. The US government is spending nearly $1 billion per day maintaining order in Iraq. At this rate, it would take years for the amount of oil we’d get from Iraq to ever make up the cost. What you’re doing is spewing the propaganda coming from the radical left. Look at the facts of the case. If all we wanted was oil, there are a lot of ways to get it that don’t involve hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of US soldier’s lives. If this war were for nothing but oil, we’d be invading Mexico which is a lot closer and doesn’t have the ability to fight back. The oil argument is one that is transparently wrong, but the European press treats it as though it were true. It is nothing more than the kind of shameful anti-Americanism one would expect from a radical group like Reseau Voltaire – then again, there’s not much difference between them and al-Jazeera on the Seine anymore.
Why create the U.N if it wasn’t to prevent one country to act in its own interest only, to create a world community?
LOLOLOL. Are you saying that since the creation of UN everybody stopped acting in their own interests? What a joke. UN didn’t prevent anyone from acting their own interest – in fact it provided a platform for many to do so.
What decides if a war is “legal” or not?
That would be the precidents of international law – you know, that stuff that we said Saddam was in violation of. What else? Or don’t you think international law is valid? An interesting position, since you try to hold other countries to it.
Conditions of that the 1991 ceasefire were broken for over a decade.
The ceasefire was with the UN, not with us. Clearly the UN didn’t think that military action was appropriate. Since it’s their treaty, don’t you think they get to decide? Iraq’s actions were not an act of war against the US. So, again, what aspect of international law do you feel justifies a pre-emptive war by the US against Iraq?
hey Monkey,
(I don’t want to insult you, it’s the name you choosed!!!)
When you say the U.N is a platform for allowing countries to go their own way?
1-Doyou really mean it?
2-Do you think that’s a good thing?
Chet,
Or don’t you think international law is valid?
A law is only valid when its enforced.
An interesting position, since you try to hold other countries to it.
Well, now. Since nobody was in any hurry to enforce any treaties with Iraq, then why is there a fuss now about our actions?
Clearly the UN didn’t think that military action was appropriate.
Apparently, according to UN – nothing warrants military action. I think 13 years of not following the treat is a helluva grace period, don’t you? Very similar to Hitler/League of Nations, no?
Since it’s their treaty, don’t you think they get to decide?
Who’s they? Give that we are a party to that organization and voted is it not false advertisement (so to speak) to propose a treaty, have a vote on it, but then pretend that it does not exist? Or that it is not enforceable? We need to get out of UN *now*.
Vincent,
1) Yes. UN is basically a mouthpiece for third world dictatorships. Its an excellent way to obstruct and blackmail.
2) No. We need to get out of UN now. Look at the failure of the League of Nations to enforce Versailles Treaty. Not only did that lead to WW2, but it has also made USSR a world power.
you are burying democracy without knowing it:
the UN helps keeping a discussion platform so that the strongest doesn’t necessarily rules his own way.
granted, when you’re the strongest(the US today), it’s sometimes boring not to do whatever you want. you need to convince, not to force.
think 50 years from now: who will be the leading nation?
By doing what they did during the Irak crisis, the US have open the door to unilateral/preemptive action, and I really don’t want China to rule the world how they want it…
just another point: if it wasn’t for the UN, I think that planet Earth would look like the Moon by now (cf.Cold war…)
you are burying democracy without knowing it:
LOL! Good one. Look, a democratically elected leader represents his people. So a president reperesents hundreds of millions of people, potentially. A dictator represents himself (or a dozen if its a junta). How are you going to equate hundreds of millions of people with 1-12 persons by giving them the same vote in the UN? How can UN be a democratic body if not all of its members are democratically elected?
think 50 years from now: who will be the leading nation?
I can assure you that it would not be Iraq if Hussein was left in power.
I really don’t want China to rule the world how they want it…
Another good one. You think China adheres to UN? UN’s power comes from USA. In fact, nothing gets done without us. Can you name anything that required power where UN did not get us involved? *ANYTHING*?
if it wasn’t for the UN, I think that planet Earth would look like the Moon by now (cf.Cold war…)
You must be a comedian. UN is a big time communist enabler. I was born in the USSR, and I spent a good part of my childhood there. I know what I am talking about. I credit Regan with defeating the Evil Empire, not the UN.
I assume that you must really enjoy the US coming from USSR, but that’s not a reason to see jokes everywhere, nor to fall into the opposite propaganda: “the evil empire”? what are you talking about? let the “axis of evil” expression type to the person with a binary IQ (0 or 1 😉
everyone thinks he’s right(ben Laden really thinks he’s doing good)
nobody’s perfect (the most powerful man on earth almost died of a nasty bretzel)
anyway, I still would like to achieve the goal of multilateralism, because it means peace on a large scale: only the UN can do that, even if it is far from being perfect(or totally democratic). No population is ever to accept to be under foreign influence, be it the US, if they feel that their own culture is neglected.
I mostly credit russian leaders (among others:UN;US;Vatican…) with defeating USSR.
I assume that you must really enjoy the US coming from USSR,
Sure am. It’s rather interesting how people who have it good and have never experienced communism – flirt with it, while those who actually experienced what living under communism is like are against it. Communism is dying in the eastern europe – while on the rise in the western…
“the evil empire”? what are you talking about?
I am using Regan’s term for the Soviet empire.
I mostly credit russian leaders (among others:UN;US;Vatican…)
I’ll give Gorbachev credit for having guts to go forth with glasnot, perestroika, etc. However, even ex-KGB gives credit to Regan for dismanlting USSR.
As for UN/Vatican. Give me a break. Vatican couldn’t even name things for what they were when terrorists broke down the doors and took hostages in the Church of Nativity. UN/EU won’t label Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Why?
You still haven’t named a thing that UN did militeraly without our involvement.