Obama’s ‘internationalist’ approach has failed
Daniel Henninger at The Wall Street Journal writes a harsh obituary for the internationalist school of dealing with foreign crises. Time and place of death: March 2011, Libya:
Not the 28 members of NATO, not the 15-member U.N. Security Council, not the 22 nations of the Arab League could save Libya’s rebels from being obliterated by the mad and murderous Moammar Gadhafi. The world has just watched the collapse of internationalism.
The world’s self-professed keepers of international order, from Brussels to Turtle Bay, huffed and puffed, talked and threatened. And they failed. Utterly.
But what we’ve watched is not merely the failure of the gauzy notion of “internationalism.” It’s more specific than that. What has collapsed here is the modern Democratic Party’s new foreign-policy establishment.
Barack Obama is the first Democratic president to assemble a foreign-policy team made up entirely of intellectuals who for years have developed a counter-thesis to the policies of presidents extending back to John F. Kennedy. We are in a “post-American world,” they have argued, in which the U.S. is obliged to pursue its interests in concert with the rest of the world’s powers, never alone.
The uprisings against autocracies in 10 separate Middle Eastern countries, a crisis inherited from no one, was their real-world test. In Egypt, they fumbled. In Libya, they have failed.
The poster boy for this internationalist view is White House deputy Ben Rhodes, who told a reporter last week: “This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the world — to work through multilateral organizations and bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are taking are amplified.”
Days later, bemused Libyan rebel spokesman Essam Gheriani remarked in Benghazi: “Everyone here is puzzled as to how many casualties the international community judges to be enough for them to help. Maybe we should start committing suicide to reach the required number.”
The piece is for subscribers only, but the rest of it is well worth reading if you can access it.
There are no simple alternatives to President Obama’s approach — one can hardly call it a strategy — with Libya. A no-fly zone would not have been without some risk, although it’s hard to imagine that the Libyan air force could really mount a threat that would greatly outweigh the benefits such action would have brought the rebels.
But the point today is not so much that Obama took one action when he should have taken another; it’s a little late for that. It’s more about whether Obama’s alternative model for dealing with these crises works. As Henninger so starkly explains, it hasn’t.
And Libya is not the first failure. In the first Gulf War, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and in Afghanistan — the supposed “good” wars — the “international community” only stepped forward when America led. Henninger calls Libya the “first test” of the model when America doesn’t eventually step forward, but I’d disagree. In Darfur and in Congo, to name two places, we went along with the internationalist approach — while hundreds of thousands of people died.
This is not a plea for Team America: World Police, with U.S. soldiers going hither and yon every time some tinpot dictator gets cranky or worse. We have every right to expect our allies to commit and contribute along with us if they are going to lecture the world (and us) about peace and human rights. But evidently we cannot reasonably expect them to do so when we are noncommittal — if “noncommittal” is what you can really call it when the U.S. president says repeatedly that the leader of another country must step down and then does nothing of consequence to follow through.
As Henninger explains,
what we have seen [with Libya] is that a world in which the U.S. doesn’t unmistakably lead is a world that spins its wheels, and eventually the wheels start to come off. When the U.S. instructs the Saudis not to intervene in Bahrain, and the Saudi army does precisely the opposite, the wheels are coming off the international order.
America has been leading unmistakably for the better part of a century now. If you think we can’t afford the price of doing so anymore, whether in blood or treasure, fine. But no responsible leader, on his way out, can pretend that things will run smoothly on their own after he leaves. And no responsible leader drops the reins and merely hopes someone else will pick them up.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter
Or tweet this blog post: Tweet
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
200 comments Add your comment
MC
March 17th, 2011
12:41 pm
Not if the Kristols have their way @@.
MC
March 17th, 2011
12:43 pm
@@ you know it never ends with just the bombs. Now does it?
@@
March 17th, 2011
12:43 pm
MC:
Then I’m not yours or Kristol’s neo-con.
HDB
March 17th, 2011
12:44 pm
@@
March 17th, 2011
12:38 pm
Questions: Can this nation afford to escalate our use of military force when the military is ALREADY stretched thin as it is due to the two Bush excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan…and without a tax INCREASE to fund it?? Can we FINALLY admit that cuts in domestic spending are predicated upon further enrichening those of means while subtly destroying the middle class??
@@
March 17th, 2011
12:45 pm
MC:
@@ you know it never ends with just the bombs. Now does it?
But this could be a turning point.
Personally, I’d prefer we weren’t militarily engaged in Afghanistan. I’m giving Obama and Petraeus the benefit of a doubt on that one, although reluctantly.
jt
March 17th, 2011
12:45 pm
@@
March 17th, 2011
12:40 pm
Do “neo-cons” vote for Democrats?
Neo-cons vote for whoever or whatever will strengthen the State. Basically, Neo-cons are progressives but are too ashamed to admit it.The only big difference between progressives and neo-cons is how the loot is split up.
Neo-cons look to government for protection, money and retirement management, and oftentimes wealth.
See statism.
@@
March 17th, 2011
12:46 pm
HDB:
See my 12:45.
HDB
March 17th, 2011
12:48 pm
jt
March 17th, 2011
12:45 pm
Lest you forget….neo-cons will commit someone ELSE’S children to fight their battles under the guise of “American power” while not having served their country in wartime…..but profitting from the decision…….
@@
March 17th, 2011
12:48 pm
jt:
Neo-cons look to government for protection, money and retirement management, and oftentimes wealth.
That ain’t me.
You and I are probably in agreement on over 95% of the issues. I read you over at jay’s.
jt
March 17th, 2011
12:55 pm
HDB
I do not forget. I live it everytime I hear Chambliss or Isackson speak.
@@
“That ain’t me”
It IS you……..more so than you know.
In this coming election, you will vote for someone that has NEVER mentioned doing away with SS entirely, stopping the War on Drugs, and critizing the War on Terror.
Regardless, you are a cool and smart chick that maybe will get a clue one day.Vote Libertarian.
I am out. Happy St. Pat’s day.
MC
March 17th, 2011
12:58 pm
Come on @@. History doesn’t back that up. Maybe staying out of it totally will create the best result. I’d bet on it. At least we’d know exactly what the situation is and who we are dealing with as opposed to being already committed to something that might already be FUBAR and then have to keep plowing down the same row while trying to clean up the mess that results from being imprudent.
MC
March 17th, 2011
12:59 pm
The compulsion to do “something” gets us in more trouble than we can get out of or pay for.
HDB
March 17th, 2011
1:01 pm
MC
March 17th, 2011
12:59 pm
“The compulsion to do “something” gets us in more trouble than we can get out of or pay for.”
Is THAT an UNDERSTATEMENT or what??
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:04 pm
@@ while Afghanistan might be the most hopeless…and history illustrates the idiocy of engaging there, of the 3 it is probably the most justifiable. I will never criticize Bush for Afghanistan even though it is time to get out. But Iraq was totally uncalled for. Now people want to go that same route.
@@
March 17th, 2011
1:06 pm
O.K., so jt’s gone, but:
It IS you……..more so than you know.
In this coming election, you will vote for someone that has NEVER mentioned doing away with SS entirely
I think a phase out is fair. No need to make a bunch of trusting ol’ folks swallow the bitters when they’ve already made their contributions, socially, culturally and financially.
stopping the War on Drugs
That one’s a bit personal for me, but I’m willing to give it a go provided no one asks me to foot the bill for the weak willed addicts.
critizing the War on Terror
It do exist! Granted, there may be different ways to implement it, but give up on it altogether? Nope! Not willing to do THAT.
I’m flexible on one…concede on one…and am firm on one.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:06 pm
Yes probably greatly understated HDB. You can go back hundreds of years with the things we should have stayed out of. Things that have directly caused a lot of messes today.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 17th, 2011
1:06 pm
Dear Kyle, glad you magnified the Henninger article, it also struck me as apt (even in its harshness.) He’s usually pretty good.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:11 pm
@@ it doesn’t take the Department of Homeland Security and it’s bloated, budget busting cost to fight the war on terrorism. The war on drugs is another waste of money. But it makes money so we’re stuck with it.
@@
March 17th, 2011
1:14 pm
MC:
Bin Laden is NOT in Afghanistan. Hasn’t been since we forced him into no-man’s land. He’s pretty much lost support in the Arab world. The Taliban isn’t interested in influencing anything outside its’ own country.
If, thru satellite surveillance, we see where they’re harboring terrorist camps…we bomb ‘em…each and every time. I’m more in favor of what Gingrich proposed. Helping them build an infrastructure to the more rural areas and giving them alternatives to livelihood. Not the poppy fields that help fund the terrorists.
Oh, forgot. If we can’t convince them to let US manage their opiate fields for medicinal purposes (with pay), then torch them too.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:21 pm
No @@ but Afghanistan can be directly linked to terrorism. To hell with Osama. He died at Tora Bora most likely. Iraq was stupidity. And by the way @@. The Gingrich way was tried when the USAID tried to convince Thais in the Golden Triangle to grow potatos. THat’s been tried in Latin America too. LMAO! All Newt’s idea will do is give them a better infrastructure to move their product. You guys need to get over Newt. And anyway what did I say @@. It’s time to get the hell out of there too. But in the aftermath of 9/11 Afghanistan was 100% justified. It isn’t now.
Wyle Kingfield
March 17th, 2011
1:24 pm
A little dash of shock and awe will save the country and should get those oil revenues flowing.
Hey everybody! We’re rich!
@@
March 17th, 2011
1:25 pm
I’ve always thought a flamethrower would look good on me.
The jumpsuit? Naahhh.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:26 pm
And in the grand scheme of things @@ bin Laden is the fly on the elephants butt IF he’s alive. Nothing but a symbol. Killing him is like killing Pablo Escobar, El Chapo Guzman, et al. The organization always survives their demise.
@@
March 17th, 2011
1:29 pm
MC:
If, at first you fail, then nevah, EVAH try again? No tweaks? No corrections?
Admit it….you’re an isolationist, aren’t you?
No man is an island unto himself. No country either.
I’m out!
Aquagirl
March 17th, 2011
1:32 pm
Awesome. It’s not like 2 or 3 tours of duty is enough for our military members. Let’s go for the double digits! Hey, it’s not like any of you KeyBoard Warriors have to get out there!
Henninger reminds me of the old men in All Quiet On The Western Front, sitting on their butts discussing all the brilliant ways they would win the war, while the soldier on leave from the REAL war just sits and stares.
There are always plenty of boys conjuring up imaginary brigades and moving them all around on maps. Idiots.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:41 pm
Ok @@. Tell us how to tweak a no fly zone. The point is to not become involved until we know who and what we are dealing with when this all washes out. I know waiting until the facts are in and then making a plan based on facts is alien to some but it works rather well. If acknowledging that it is someone else country, someone else business, and the right of that country to conduct it’s affairs without interference, then I guess I might be isolationist leaning @@. Staying out of some things in our history would probably have served us well today.
Terd Fergesun
March 17th, 2011
1:41 pm
MC
March 17th, 2011
11:41 am
Chicken Hawk republicans are the real budget busters in this country. Wars cost.
Here is a perfect example of a dumba** liberal. How long has Obama kept us in a war? The title of this article sums up the idiots presidency, total failure. To make things worse, they continue to blame Bush for their failures. They are like little kids and act like total morons. The world disrespects us more now then they ever did under Bush. That speaks volumes.
Good Grief
March 17th, 2011
1:42 pm
Gm: “Thank God we have a smart not rush to judge ment President, and not trying to be macho and get our troops killed.”
It’s really easy not to rush to judgment when you have better things to do like going to concerts and playing golf. I’m really waiting for the day when enough of you Obamazombies wake up and realize just how bad Obama is for this country.
Do I think it’s America’s job to police the world? No, or at least it shouldn’t be. If the UN was worth a darn we might not have to. But as long as the UN issues unenforced resolutions, and desires to put countries like Libya on the Human Rights Council, then someone has to step up.
Sadly, Obama isn’t the man to step up, mainly because he seems to think that America is no longer exceptional, and that we shouldn’t have been in the first place. He has openly stated that his policies will force energy costs higher, that he plans to bankrupt the coal industry. He gave in to the liberal fear or risk after the Deepwater Horizon incident, proclaiming a moratorium on deepwater drilling. To me that was like having one of those massive car pileups like you see out west during sandstorms, and then shutting down the auto manufacturers as a result.
He is, without doubt, the most frustrating President of my lifetime.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 17th, 2011
1:42 pm
Dear @@ @ 1:25, I have often thought about you holding a flame-thrower and without a jumpsuit.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:43 pm
Does Dick Cheney come to mind Aquagirl?
JF McNamara
March 17th, 2011
1:43 pm
jconservative @ 11:36,
Thank You for saying it.
I think Obama has handled the “crisis” perfectly. Its not our problem. Its Libya’s problem. If the world wants to do something collectively, then fine. If not, we should do nothing. We aren’t the world’s nanny, and we’ve got our own problems to solve.
Not to mention that we don’t even know who the opposition is. They could be better or worse than Khadafi. Unless Republicans want us to be there 10 years in another quagmire, he’s done the sensible thing.
Roekest
March 17th, 2011
1:45 pm
Kyle,
Congrats for summarizing an article I already read this morning in the WSJ. Did I ever mention that I think AJC is nothing but a rag??? Sounds familiar……
Try something original.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:45 pm
Here we go again. According to the Terd somehow it is Obama’s fault that he has to clean up the mess from 2 wars that GWB started. It’s a hell of a lot harder to get out than in. Remember Vietnam Terd. But thanks for the great example illustrating what results when “terds” try to think.
Aquagirl
March 17th, 2011
1:46 pm
MC, nah, the old men in the movie were deluded and clueless, not actively evil b@stards.
TBone
March 17th, 2011
1:46 pm
History is replete with examples of allowing the people of various nations decide their own fate and it ain’t always a happy ending. Iran still hasn’t played itself out but it is a train wreck. There will always be leaders and followers and humans left to their devices do not always operate with their fellow mans’ best interest. So perhaps steering some of these things is not always a bad idea.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:46 pm
Or “terds” come with their FOX News talking points. Nice try Terd.
Sandra
March 17th, 2011
1:47 pm
Kyle and some of you others,
Face the truth about yourselves for a change. If the President said it was night you would say it was day even if you could clearly look out the window and see it was pitch dark.
You have no objectivity where he is concerned and therefore ANYTHING he does you and your ilk will disagree with. Therefore to with me and others who look at both sides you lost any credibility a long time ago. And no, I do not agree with everything he says and does. I take each situation as it comes.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:48 pm
But they have the right to that unhappy ending don’t they Tbone. I guess it’s ok with you when other nations meddle in our affairs too, huh?
Terd Fergesun
March 17th, 2011
1:49 pm
Hey JF McNamara, great he is going to solve our probelms. When? In between golf and concerts or how about this term since it will be his last. Nice rose colored glasses you have on. By the way, Clinton said he regrets everyday for not acting on the genocide that was going on in Africa during his time. Good thing bonehead regrets nothing he does because he thinks he thinks he is always right. Great leadership.
Terd Fergesun
March 17th, 2011
1:50 pm
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:46 pm
Or “terds” come with their FOX News talking points. Nice try Terd.
Oh, now FOX is to blame. Do you have a thought on your own or do you get your thoughts from Madcow or someone else on msnbc? Think on your own. And if you by chance are thinking on your own, God you are stupid!
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:53 pm
I haven’t heard GW or deadeye Dick admit their mistake with Iraq Terd. You want to talk about a pair that will never admit wrong or failure look no further than that crew. What didn’t they screw up for someone else to fix? I wish like hell that McCain and Palin had to “fix” this mess. Now that would be very very funny. Even though I do have to admit I like McCain.
Terd Fergesun
March 17th, 2011
1:54 pm
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:45 pm
Here we go again. According to the Terd somehow it is Obama’s fault that he has to clean up the mess from 2 wars that GWB started. It’s a hell of a lot harder to get out than in. Remember Vietnam Terd. But thanks for the great example illustrating what results when “terds” try to think
Like I said, think on your own. The blame Bush game only plays on libtards like yourself. In the meantime, someone is going to have to come in a clean up after Obama. That should be lots of fun for the poor soul and our country. Now, ask what Madcow would say and post it.
R is for Recession
March 17th, 2011
1:54 pm
What a crock. The conservatives are blaming Obama, blah blah. Gaddafi pulled the wool over George W’s and his administrations eyes (which as we now know, wasn’t difficult to do…) And now it is all Obama’s fault.
In September 2008, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice became the first Secretary of State to visited Libya since 1953 and said about the visit; “It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make strategic changes in direction, the United States is prepared to respond.” This happened even though we knew he was implicated in Lockerbie, and was forging closer and closer relationships with Venezuala and Chavez.
Good Grief
March 17th, 2011
1:55 pm
MC – Let me get the straight. It’s okay to blame Bush for today’s economy because of the wars. Is it okay to blame Clinton for the initial recession since it was under his watch that the tech bubble rose to the point of popping and subprime lending was pushed as a meas of realizing the American dream? Put someone in a house, even if they can’t afford it. How about this one: can we blame Clinton also for the continuation of the wars as a result of faulty intelligence? After all, it was under the Clinton administration that Jamie Gorelick made it far too difficult for intelligence agencies to communicate.
No, you’re right. Let’s just blame George Bush. Heck, I blame George Bush for the Civil War. Not Libya’s. Ours.
Junior Samples
March 17th, 2011
1:55 pm
So “less government” is immune our oil supply?
Let’s face the facts, we do not care about Libya in a human rights aspect. It’s only their oil we want. Stop kidding yourselves. The rest of the world is waiting for us to jump in and sacrifice our soldiers instead of theirs.
Since Nixon, EVERY President has stated we need to reduce and/or remove our dependancy of foreign oil.
How about we start now?
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:55 pm
More Terd logic, or lack thereof. Maybe you should try some real thought Terd. Tell us why we should get ourselves into another mess. Try hard Terd. It might not be as hard as you think.
TBone
March 17th, 2011
1:56 pm
It happens more often they we find out. I don’t agree with much anything you have to say, MC, and I am pretty sure that you won’t change my mind nor will I change yours on most issues but the name calling and personal attacks from primarily the left leaners is becoming old. I have to go teach some physics now.
Good Grief
March 17th, 2011
1:59 pm
Junior @ 1:55 – I agree with reducing and removing our dependence on foreign oil, I just don’t yet see any of the alternative methods working. I did hear someone say the other day that if we drilled for oil domestically that the oil had to go on the global market and I didn’t understand that. Is it not the right of a country to have “first dibs” on a natural resource occuring within the bounds of that country?
Terd Fergesun
March 17th, 2011
1:59 pm
Yeah your right MC, they should have left Saddam in and kill a few more thousands of people. You libtards are OK with genocide. I mean that is basically what you are telling people on here today. You are Ok with a dictator like Khadafi killing thousands because it is not our problem. Yet, you are all concerned about a prison in Cuba housing terrorists because it is American. You speak out of both sides of your a** and then tell us we are the idiots. You all prove that a college education means nothing today except that you live in a fantasy world. If you are not college educated then you make the case that our public education blows.
MC
March 17th, 2011
1:59 pm
No Good Grief. It’s about not repeating the mistakes of the past. Anything wrong with that?