Sunday, August 20th | 28 Av 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
April 1, 2011 5:37 pm

Irresponsible

avatar by John Bolton

Email a copy of "Irresponsible" to a friend

A protest in front of the White House in support of protesters and rebels throughout the Middle East. Photo: Phil Roeder

President Obama’s use of military force in Libya has come under intense criticism across the American political spectrum. There is widespread disagreement over what U.S. objectives should be, and many fault Obama for his initial hesitancy to act, his incoherence in defining our mission, and his ineptness in rallying domestic political support.

The best reason for using force is to secure the removal of Moammar Qaddafi. Even that objective has its complications, not least the question of what kind of regime will succeed him. But Qaddafi’s declared intention and demonstrated capacity to return to international terrorism, and the risk he would likewise resume his pursuit of nuclear weapons, fully justify removing him from the scene.

But this is not why our president ordered U.S. forces into action. His rationale, explicitly articulated in Security Council Resolution 1973, is protecting Libyan civilians. While that strikes many as praiseworthy, others ask how it can be fully realized without removing Qaddafi.

In fact, Obama is pursuing ideological, not geopolitical, objectives. He said in Chile on March 21 that “the core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community almost unanimously says that there’s a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words, that we have to take some sort of action.”

Related coverage

August 18, 2017 4:12 pm
1

Let’s Talk About Sex: The Aftermath of Charlottesville

JNS.org - The scene is Paris in the late 19th century. At a glittering ball, a handful of eligible gentilhommes eagerly circled the...

Obama’s comment is a paradigmatic statement of the beguilingly known “responsibility to protect,” a gauzy, limitless doctrine without any anchor in U.S. national interests. This putative responsibility emanates from the desire to divert American military power from protecting U.S. interests to achieving “humanitarian” objectives. The doctrine had its adherents even in the Bush administration, but they have reached measurable power only now under President Obama. The current U.S. military engagement in Libya, as he has defined it, is the jewel in their crown.

The “responsibility to protect,” of course, is limitless by its own terms. Why are we not using force to protect the North Koreans, who’ve suffered through decades of totalitarian rule? Why are we not using force to protect Zimbabweans from Robert Mugabe, whose abuses are easily on a par with Qaddafi’s? What about Syrians, Iranians, Tibetans, etc.?

The endlessness of the responsibility to protect is not a conceptual problem with the doctrine, but its essence. It cannot be “corrected,” because that is its core message. And its error lies not just in its unbounded vistas, but in its critical dirty secret among the international High-Minded: It requires using someone else’s troops, usually ours, to achieve moral satisfaction. President Obama revealed this acutely troublesome aspect when he said recently: “It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.” Having our military “volunteered” by others is easy for those doing the volunteering, but potentially fatal for the honorees. Having an American president willingly adopt this expansive view of our military’s legitimate purposes is no answer to the basic question of why their lives are being risked. These are unquestionably rationales disconnected from U.S. national interests, and a disconnected president does not bridge the fundamental disjunction.

Advocates of the doctrine respond that military force is only one aspect of a broader theory, but force is inevitably central to any debate about humanitarian intervention. Providing food to a war’s starving victims in a permissive environment is something Americans do instinctively; sending their sons and daughters into conflicts that do not affect their vital interests is something else altogether. Moreover, the “responsibility to protect” is not just another euphemism for U.N.-style peacekeeping. Successful peacekeeping operations rest on the consent of the parties to the conflict in question, which obviates any reason for the “protectors” to use force, and dramatically reduces any risks even in providing humanitarian assistance.

In addition, while the “responsibility to protect” seems to present an alluring moral clarity, it dangerously ignores competing moral claims. The highest moral duty of a U.S. president, for example, is protecting American lives, and casually sacrificing them to someone else’s interests is hardly justifiable. Imagining a future tragedy of Holocaust-sized dimensions and asking whether we would stand idle even in its face may tug at our heartstrings, but emotion is not a policy. And let us be clear: Even the real Holocaust did not motivate U.S. war planners from Franklin Roosevelt on down. They remained entirely focused on the military destruction of Nazi Germany.

Some “responsibility” advocates, conceding that their doctrine obviously cannot be applied universally, argue we should at least act in “easier” cases. Thus, they say, while the risks and costs of protecting the people of North Korea or Iran may be too great, instances such as Libya do not pose nearly such grave challenges. This analysis implicitly assumes that assessing the cost-benefit ratio prior to a humanitarian military mission is relatively straightforward. If only this were so.

Painful experience proves that what initially seems uncomplicated can quickly become mortally complicated. As Churchill put it, “Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy.” Once war is launched, a combatant “is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” This is as true of “protection” missions as it is of regime-change invasions.

Almost inevitably, a military intervention alters the balance of forces in a conflict, advantaging one set of combatants over another. Protecting some will likely mean death for others. In Libya, for example, we might prefer to think we are simply opposing Qaddafi and not “siding” with the opposition, but effectively we are doing just that. And are all Qaddafi’s adherents, and he has many, as guilty as he for his crimes and deserving of the same treatment? Equally invariably, the disadvantaged side will not take kindly to being intervened against. Terrorist and guerrilla tactics kill humanitarians just as dead as imperialists.

And, as in Somalia, there are no guarantees that the Libyan opposition will not turn out to be as brutal as the ruler it replaces. What do we do then? Police both sides? And what if there are more than two sides, and all of them come to oppose international intervention? At least where there are American interests at stake, there are metrics with which to do our analysis.

And the problems of withdrawal or “exit strategy” are not necessarily less complex in humanitarian interventions than in regime-change invasions such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan — the length and human cost of which have been criticized by many of the leading advocates of the responsibility to protect. Take Rwanda: When would a responsibility-to-protect force have known it was safe to leave Hutus and Tutsis alone together?

The Clinton administration experienced precisely this problem in Somalia, taking a limited Bush 41-administration effort to open humanitarian-relief channels, turning it into an exercise in nation building, and ending the operation in failure after the death of 18 service members in Mogadishu. Clinton-administration policy in Somalia is perhaps the closest parallel to the current situation in Libya: It looked easy, and it turned into a humiliating debacle for America and its president. Let’s be blunt. The question comes down to this in every case: How many dead Americans is it worth to you?

The doctrine’s political vagueness is as troubling as its limitlessness. Which nations, for example, constitute the “international community” that determines the existence of the responsibility to protect? While Obama said that, for Libya, this community was almost unanimous, five of 15 Security Council members abstained on Resolution 1973, which implemented the “duty.” The five abstainers included Russia and China — no surprises there. But they also included India, Brazil, and Germany, which at last report were all at least somewhat free and democratic. Moreover, by speaking of a “potential” humanitarian crisis, the president justified the preemptive use of force, a point worth noting given his criticism of prior administrations for precisely that.

Libya will be a most interesting test case, whether Qaddafi stays or goes, and, if he goes, whoever replaces him. In the happy event that Qaddafi either flees Libya or is killed, the doctrine’s advocates will claim success, foreshadowing subsequent missions. They will be wrong but lucky, which may, unfortunately, be more important in their impact on future U.S. foreign policy. If the international Lord Protectors remain in command at the White House, more Libyas will ensue.

The question now, therefore, is whether the American people agree. We should have a national debate on the “responsibility to protect.” Congress should discuss whether committing our young service members, at risk of life and limb, for purely “humanitarian” reasons, is legitimate national policy. We can admire the intentions of those who adhere to the doctrine, but we should ask respectfully whether they truly understand the consequences of their morality. And we should say to them unambiguously: If you want to engage in humanitarian intervention, do it with your own sons and daughters, not with ours.

Mr. Bolton, a former U.S. representative to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Bob

    I’m having trouble understanding U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. negotiated a deal with Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi’s government to renounce terrorism, allow entrance of U.N. inspectors for WMD and start normalization of U.S. relations and trade in 2003. In 2008 Libya settled a $1.5 billion claim for the 1988 Pan Am bombing.

    The U.S. helped negotiate a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had honored the peace treaty with Israel since 1979.

    President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia has maintained relations with Europe and especially France and was considered an intermediary in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

    Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh has a history of collaboration with the United States against violent extremist groups in his country.

    In each of the above cases our present administration, without consulting our Congress, has called for these presidents’ resignations or removal from office to be replaced by who knows what. Are we trying to tell the world we would rather have angry mobs running middle eastern countries than leaders who were willing to work with us? Obama is a smart man; do you think Obama is on our side?

  • Margelit J.

    Thank you, Mr. Bolton, for this article. People need to be educated about these issues and especially President Obama’s doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect”, a policy dressed up to look good, but is truly from “The Pit”…a real Pandora’s Box. Today Libya…tomorrow Israel! Why? To ‘protect’ the Palestinians, of course.

    I like your challenge at the end: “We should have a national debate on the “responsibility to protect.” Congress should discuss whether committing our young service members, at risk of life and limb, for purely “humanitarian” reasons, is legitimate national policy. We can admire the intentions of those who adhere to the doctrine, but we should ask respectfully whether they truly understand the consequences of their morality. And we should say to them unambiguously: If you want to engage in humanitarian intervention, do it with your own sons and daughters, not with ours.”

    Wake UP, America. Not only are our young people in the military fighting and dying for such shameless policies, but our Country is dying as well.

  • Monty

    Great Article! Mr. Bolton brings up a lot of good points for us to think about, but I would like to bring up one point that Mr. Bolton has failed to mention in his article that is I believe of great importance. And that is why are we allowing US Presidents and our Federal Government to make war on a country where we have no vital security interests without seeking the approval of our US Congress! I am sick and tired of our Country, that’s right, I said “Our Country” going to war without our US Congress standing up and voting on it! I say to our current US President (President Obama) and to all other presidents to come “Obey our US Constitution”! If you want to go to war or to go and intervene in the affairs of other nations in peace keeping missions(police the world type missions), then obey the US Constition which you have sworn to uphold, and go to Congress and ask for them to vote on your war or peace keeping mission. If the Congress says yes, then prosecute your mission with the knowledge that you have the Support of Congress and therefore the likely support of the people, BUT IF CONGRESS SAYS NO, THEN SIT YOUR BUTT DOWN and put away your ideas of intervening in the affairs of other nations because then the people of the USA through THEIR CONGRESS has said NO! Too simply demand that our own government follow our US Constitution is not a radical or unreasonable idea, but a common sense idea whose time has come. Enough Said.

    • Sean W

      Amen!

Algemeiner.com