A New Look at American Foreign Policy

In President Clinton's speech about the Kosovo conflict, he references a few reasons for reacting with military action. First off, he believed that a unified and stable European region was important to American political and economic interests. Furthermore, Kosovo is too close to other countries with similar problems. This invasion will help prevent a big war in the future and prevent democracies from falling in the region. Most importantly, our alliance with NATO brought us into action. He explained that NATO agreed to defend Kosovo and we needed to keep this commitment for the sake of the credibility of NATO. Most importantly (and most similar to Obama) is the fact that it isn't "American" troops going into Kosovo; instead we are sending NATO troops, so there is  a shared responsibility between all the NATO members for his war. IT won't be directly traced back to America's interests and the blame won't fall solely on the US.

In Obama's speech, he references many similar reasons for deploying American troops to Libya. He explains that our American values and interests are at stake due to Gaddafi's unjust use of his power. He cites Gadaffi's wrong-doings as a major reason why we had to take military action. He explains that innocent people were targeted and killed by Gaddafi's regime without any means to defend themselves. Obama goes on to list nations that are also involved in resolving this conflict. We are acting with them (like Clinton and NATO) and not by ourself. Instead we are acting altogether to bring out Gaddafi's regime. He also brings up NATO and explains that we are handing over our operations to NATO and we will take more of a supporting role in the efforts.

When looking at the possibility of a new doctrine of American foreign policy, it is important to understand the reasons we are going to war. In my opinion, Obama and Clinton have started a new doctrine for US foreign policy. Their main reasons for going to war are, like always, to protect American interests. However, during both of their presidencies, there have been other conflicts that have arose that we didn't get involved in. They were conflicts that had American interests and also threaten global security and human freedom. Obama references human freedoms as a reason for entering the conflict against Libya. So, then how come we haven't been involved in these other conflicts? If they have threatened American interests (like the Egyptian Revolution) and violated human freedom and rights, shouldn't we have acted with military force in these situations too?

Well, in my opinion, there is a new doctrine that has led American foreign policy. Obama and Clinton both adopted this policy. Within this doctrine, America has stepped down in our role as "world police." Acting alone against these conflicts without world support won't work anymore. We need the support of the international community and most importantly NATO if we want to seek out successful operations. We can't act alone. By acting along with the international community's efforts, we are taking a backseat. We are no longer the first-mover. We are no longer taking full responsibility for these conflicts. If we act together, we can split the responsibilities, split the costs, split the losses, and split the victories. So, the new doctrine is based on acting in the interest of the international community by engaging in conflicts that we have back up from NATO or other strong nations. We can't fight our wars alone anymore. The power of the international community is much more threatening and much stronger than that of the US alone.

I like this new doctrine. We are stronger when we act together and it takes the burden off a single country and spreads it across all the nations involved. It is a more economically efficient way of handling conflicts. We can all act together and contribute in some way that we have a competitive advantage in. We've wasted billions of dollars and man hours in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have much support around us. We tried to do everything ourself and we took the burden of all the costs. In this conflict, Obama explained that we are supporting the efforts by providing a few key resources. The main efforts of supporting the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to the larger bodies like NATO (where responsibilities can be split). We will be supplying resources in things we are good at like military intelligence and logistics, search and rescue assistance, and our ability to jam communications within the regime. This new doctrine of American foreign policy has even proven successful in its short life. Gaddafi and the rebels just recently agreed to a cease-fire in negotiations with the African Union. Gaddafi can't handle the pressure of the international community as a whole. Sure, American won't take full credit for stopping Gaddafi and the rebels, but we were a part of the solution. America helped promote peace in the area, along with many other nations, and we should be pleased that we finally reached peace.

In my opinion, we can take action in Libya without taking action in other conflicts like in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria (to name a few). If we don't have the support of the international community, our efforts are going to be seriously hindered. We acted in Libya because we had the support of NATO and other important countries. And so far our efforts in Libya have been able to strip some land and power away from the rebels. However, if we acted alone in these efforts, we would have to fund the war by ourself, use all our resources to fight the war (instead of contributing a few key resources) and still carry out wars in other nations like IRaq and Afghanistan. It is too much to balance. we can't get involved in all the conflicts. We need to choose our engagement strategically and we have done so in supporting the opposition in Libya.