Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-12-2011, 12:50 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,171,543 times
Reputation: 3696

Advertisements

In yet another brilliantly articulated and eloquently stated piece, Andrew Bacevich offers us another example of the continuation of US foreign policy of interventionism. Like his predecessors before him, the expectations of Barack Obama fall gravely short on his prosecution of foreign policy, and like those before him, Obama resorts to the us of military force to progress American policy.

At what point do we ask ourselves, are we winning, are we gaining anything remotely equivalent to our exertions? If viewed through the lens of a business model and cost benefit analysis we would be considered not only mad, but on the fastest train to ruin possible. So why do we persist?


With full permission to reprint given by Andrew Bacevich for the purpose of discussion on our forum, and with attributing link to originating site, I offer you a great piece that cuts across partisan lines and asks the most simple of questions. For those interested in further reading, check out the American Empire Project, as it is a great repository of US foreign policy material.


Not Why, But How

To the Shores of (and Skies Above) Tripoli

By Andrew J. Bacevich

It is a commonplace of American politics: when the moving van pulls up to the White House on Inauguration Day, it delivers not only a closetful of gray suits and power ties, but a boatload of expectations.

A president, being the most powerful man in the world, begins history anew -- so at least Americans believe, or pretend to believe. Out with the old, sordid, and disappointing; in with the fresh, unsullied, and hopeful. Why, with the stroke of a pen, a new president can order the closing of an embarrassing and controversial off-shore prison for accused terrorists held for years on end without trial! Just like that: done.

For all sorts of reasons, the expectations raised by Barack Obama’s arrival in the Oval Office were especially high. Americans weren’t the only ones affected. How else to explain the Nobel Committee’s decision to honor the new president by transforming its Peace Prize into a Prize Anticipating Peace -- more or less the equivalent of designating the winner of the Heisman Trophy during week one of the college football season.

Of course, if the political mood immediately prior to and following a presidential inauguration emphasizes promise and discovery (the First Lady has biceps!), it doesn’t take long for the novelty to start wearing off. Then the narrative arc takes a nosedive: he’s breaking his promises, he’s letting us down, he’s not so different after all.

The words of H.L. Mencken apply. “When I hear a man applauded by the mob,” the Sage of Baltimore wrote, “I always feel a pang of pity for him. All he has to do to be hissed is to live long enough.” Barack Obama has now lived long enough to attract his fair share of hisses, boos, and catcalls.

Along with prolonging and expanding one war in Afghanistan, the Nobel Peace laureate has played a leading role in starting another war in Libya. Laboring to distinguish between this administration and its predecessor, Obama’s defenders emphasize the purity of his motives. Contemptuous of George W. Bush’s claim that U.S. forces invaded oil-rich Iraq to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, they readily accept this president’s insistence that the United States intervened in oil-rich Libya to prevent genocidal slaughter. Besides, testifying to our virtuous intent, this time we’ve got the French with us rather than against us.

Explaining Why Is a Mug’s Game

In truth, to ascribe a single governing purpose or rationale to any large-scale foreign policy initiative is to engage in willful distortion. In any administration, action grows out of consensus. The existence of consensus among any president’s advisers -- LBJ’s inner circle supporting escalation in South Vietnam back in 1965, George W.’s pressing for regime change in Baghdad -- does not imply across-the-board agreement as to intent.

Motive is slippery. As Paul Wolfowitz famously noted regarding Iraq, weapons of mass destruction merely provided the agreed upon public rationale for war. In reality, a mix of motives probably shaped the decision to invade. For some administration officials, there was the prospect of eliminating a perceived source of mischief while providing an object lesson to other would-be troublemakers. For others, there was the promise of reasserting U.S. hegemony over the world’s energy heartland. For others still (including Wolfowitz himself), there were alluring visions of a region transformed, democratized, and pacified, the very sources of Islamist terror thereby eliminated once and for all.

At least on the margins, expanding the powers of the presidency at the expense of Congress, bolstering the security of Israel, and finishing what daddy had left undone also likely figured in the equation. Within this mix, policymakers could pick and choose.

In the face of changing circumstances, they even claimed the prerogative of revising their choices. Who can doubt that President Bush, faced with the Big Oops -- the weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist -- genuinely persuaded himself that America’s true and abiding purpose for invading Iraq had been to liberate the Iraqi people from brutal oppression? After all, right from day one wasn’t the campaign called Operation Iraqi Freedom?

So even as journalists and historians preoccupy themselves with trying to explain why something happened, they are playing a mug’s game. However creative or well-sourced, their answers are necessarily speculative, partial, and ambiguous. It can’t be otherwise.

Rather than why, what deserves far more attention than it generally receives is the question of how. Here is where we find Barack Obama and George W. Bush (not to mention Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter) joined at the hip. When it comes to the Islamic world, for more than three decades now Washington’s answer to how has been remarkably consistent: through the determined application of hard power wielded by the United States. Simply put, Washington’s how implies a concerted emphasis on girding for and engaging in war.

Presidents may not agree on exactly what we are trying to achieve in the Greater Middle East (Obama wouldn’t be caught dead reciting lines from Bush’s Freedom Agenda, for example), but for the past several decades, they have agreed on means: whatever it is we want done, military might holds the key to doing it. So today, we have the extraordinary spectacle of Obama embracing and expanding Bush’s Global War on Terror even after having permanently banished that phrase to the Guantanamo of politically incorrect speech.


The Big How -- By Force


Efforts to divine this administration’s intent in Libya have centered on the purported influence of the Three Harpies: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and National Security Council Human Rights Director Samantha Power, women in positions of influence ostensibly burdened with regret that the United States failed back in 1994 to respond effectively to the Rwandan genocide and determined this time to get it right. Yet this is insider stuff, which necessarily remains subject to considerable speculation. What we can say for sure is this: by seeing the Greater Middle East as a region of loose nails badly in need of being hammered, the current commander-in-chief has claimed his place in the ranks of a long list of his warrior-predecessors.

The key point is this: like those who preceded them, neither Obama nor his Harpies (nor anyone else in a position of influence) could evidently be bothered to assess whether the hammer actually works as advertised -- notwithstanding abundant evidence showing that it doesn’t.

The sequence of military adventures set in motion when Jimmy Carter promulgated his Carter Doctrine back in 1980 makes for an interesting story but not a very pretty one. Ronald Reagan’s effort to bring peace to Lebanon ended in 1983 in a bloody catastrophe. The nominal victory of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which pushed Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, produced little except woeful complications, which Bill Clinton’s penchant for flinging bombs and missiles about during the 1990s did little to resolve or conceal. The blowback stemming from our first Afghanistan intervention against the Soviets helped create the conditions leading to 9/11 and another Afghanistan War, now approaching its tenth anniversary with no clear end in sight. As for George W. Bush’s second go at Iraq, the less said the better. Now, there is Libya.

The question demands to be asked: Are we winning yet? And if not, why persist in an effort for which great pain is repaid with such little gain?
Perhaps Barack Obama found his political soul mate in Samantha Power, making her determination to alleviate evil around the world his own. Or perhaps he is just another calculating politician who speaks the language of ideals while pursuing less exalted purposes. In either case, the immediate relevance of the question is limited. The how rather than the why is determinant.

Whatever his motives, by conforming to a pre-existing American penchant for using force in the Greater Middle East, this president has chosen the wrong tool. In doing so, he condemns himself and the country to persisting in the folly of his predecessors. The failure is one of imagination, but also of courage. He promised, and we deserve something better.

- Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations.

American Empire Project: Not Why, But How

Last edited by TnHilltopper; 04-12-2011 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:37 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,081,959 times
Reputation: 8527
We cannot keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. Enough already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:43 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,171,543 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
We cannot keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. Enough already.
I concur!

Of course I'm sure the argument can be made that America no longer has to worry about the Al Qaeda 6th fleet controlling the high seas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:54 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,978,939 times
Reputation: 15038
I know that you would like to think that all interventions are one and the same, unfortunately they aren't. The fact that you believe that every action derives from the same cookie cutter is truly unfortunate and not in keeping with your level of intelligence.

Now before accusing me of taking this stance because Obama is the president, consider that despite my liberal biases, I was totally in favor of the U.S. led war in Kuwait, as I am totally in favor of the recent French actions in Ivory Coast, and this Anglo-French intervention in Libya (sorry but this whole idea for supporting the rebels in Libya originated in "Quai d'Orsay" not Foggy Bottom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 02:23 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,171,543 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I know that you would like to think that all interventions are one and the same, unfortunately they aren't. The fact that you believe that every action derives from the same cookie cutter is truly unfortunate and not in keeping with your level of intelligence.

Now before accusing me of taking this stance because Obama is the president, consider that despite my liberal biases, I was totally in favor of the U.S. led war in Kuwait, as I am totally in favor of the recent French actions in Ivory Coast, and this Anglo-French intervention in Libya (sorry but this whole idea for supporting the rebels in Libya originated in "Quai d'Orsay" not Foggy Bottom.
I obviously do not think that all interventions are the same, far from it. Our intervention in Darfur or Rwanda or Uzbekistan have been nothing like our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and now Libya.

I am not even an isolationist, far from it as well. I am however in favor of using reason and logic to formulate both short term and long term goals that are most beneficial to the United States, and considering America's history of military intervention in the past several decades, it has been a dismal one at best.

Why Libya and not Uzbekistan or Bahrain? Why Yemen and not the Ivory Coast? What prompts the United States to intervene in one nation under the guise of altruism but not another? We wouldn't look kindly at the parent who gives one of their children a candy bar and tells the other one, tough chit, better luck next time, but in foreign policy it is standard modus operandi.

The United States acting under the premise of "humanitarian" reasoning lends itself to the same reasoning George Bush gushed at "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the liberation of the Iraqi people, it sounds great on paper, but if humanitarian reasons are why, then what about Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere?

It rings hollow but it sure is easy to swallow and allows us to feeeeeeel good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 05:22 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,171,543 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I know that you would like to think that all interventions are one and the same, unfortunately they aren't. The fact that you believe that every action derives from the same cookie cutter is truly unfortunate and not in keeping with your level of intelligence.

Now before accusing me of taking this stance because Obama is the president, consider that despite my liberal biases, I was totally in favor of the U.S. led war in Kuwait, as I am totally in favor of the recent French actions in Ivory Coast, and this Anglo-French intervention in Libya (sorry but this whole idea for supporting the rebels in Libya originated in "Quai d'Orsay" not Foggy Bottom.
To add in light of the following passage from the article.

Quote:
The sequence of military adventures set in motion when Jimmy Carter promulgated his Carter Doctrine back in 1980 makes for an interesting story but not a very pretty one. Ronald Reagan’s effort to bring peace to Lebanon ended in 1983 in a bloody catastrophe. The nominal victory of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which pushed Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, produced little except woeful complications, which Bill Clinton’s penchant for flinging bombs and missiles about during the 1990s did little to resolve or conceal. The blowback stemming from our first Afghanistan intervention against the Soviets helped create the conditions leading to 9/11 and another Afghanistan War, now approaching its tenth anniversary with no clear end in sight. As for George W. Bush’s second go at Iraq, the less said the better. Now, there is Libya.

In light of our history over the past several decades of intervention in the Middle East, do you predict a favorable outcome? If so, what is the form of this favorable outcome and what assurances might there be that we do not end up setting a precedence of 'no fly zones' whenever any rebel force decides to attack the government in power?

How Obama turned on a dime toward war
Quote:
In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention - instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.
How Obama turned on a dime toward war | The Cable

Why do you believe that Obama has chosen to intervene militarily in Libya but not in the countless other places where oppressive governments reign down terror upon their populations?

Granted, Libya does has a tidy sum of petroleum, but surely this couldn't be the reason. If for humanitarian reasons, then surely the US will intervene at least 30 or more nations on behalf of suffering populations, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top