In response to a post by The Ten Bells, entitled “An Escalating Situation,” the United States should not base its foreign policy decision-making on anecdotal conjecture, i.e. Iraq or Vietnam, but base it on a nuanced and appreciated understanding of the problem at hand. That the situation of Muammar al-Qaddafi is similar to that of Sudaam Hussein in 1991 following the invasion of Kuwait, is of no use to decision-makers today beyond the simplistic assumption that all dictators in the Middle East are created equal. In their view, we should propose similar policy prescriptions to foreign policy problems at hand, e.g. a no-fly zone. These conjectures tell us nothing of the events Libyans face under the retrenchment of Qaddafi’s forces in Libya, they simply offer a short-cut avenue to come up with solutions to problems.
An even easier short-cut is to look at the man who Colonel Muammar al-Qaffafi has become, a megalomaniac. Beyond the ludicrousness that is Qaddafi, insisting on traveling in Bedoin tents to the UN meetings, proposing the excommunication of Switzerland from the International Community, hosting talks on the role of women in Islam to Italian supermodels or hiring between 50 to 200 “virgin, Amazonian” bodyguards for his protection, ultimately the question at hand to policy makers in the United States is not whether advocating the ouster of Qaddafi is functionally equivalent to the military entanglements of recent memory (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam), but a more salient question of whether or not our foreign policy should reflect our values?
And if our values, as the case in Libya demonstrates, are securing a market for EU arms exporters, assuring access to oil and natural gas for Italy and preventing African refugees from crossing the Mediterranean, then we should not question the rapprochement of Libya with the West since Libya gave up its WMD program earlier last decade.
However, if we are to stand by our convictions in democracy and freedom not only as Americans but as human beings, can we tolerate Qaddafi to remain in power beyond a hypothetical eradication of the “Free Libya” rebel movement? Can we tolerate the continual destruction of the the LIbyan countryside? Can we tolerate the “Escalating Situation,” as The Ten Bells phrases it, of civilian causalities? Or, are our values and foreign policy apparatus irreconcilable? If then, we should advocate isolationism do what scholars have ascribed to our generation (The Millennials), nothing.
As The Ten Bells noted, this is not a new discussion in American public discourse. Over forty years ago, former Senator Ted Kennedy responded to this debate in the eulogy he gave for his brother Robert F. Kennedy. His words address the fear of action in the face of adversity much better than mine.
An even easier short-cut is to look at the man who Colonel Muammar al-Qaffafi has become, a megalomaniac. Beyond the ludicrousness that is Qaddafi, insisting on traveling in Bedoin tents to the UN meetings, proposing the excommunication of Switzerland from the International Community, hosting talks on the role of women in Islam to Italian supermodels or hiring between 50 to 200 “virgin, Amazonian” bodyguards for his protection, ultimately the question at hand to policy makers in the United States is not whether advocating the ouster of Qaddafi is functionally equivalent to the military entanglements of recent memory (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam), but a more salient question of whether or not our foreign policy should reflect our values?
And if our values, as the case in Libya demonstrates, are securing a market for EU arms exporters, assuring access to oil and natural gas for Italy and preventing African refugees from crossing the Mediterranean, then we should not question the rapprochement of Libya with the West since Libya gave up its WMD program earlier last decade.
However, if we are to stand by our convictions in democracy and freedom not only as Americans but as human beings, can we tolerate Qaddafi to remain in power beyond a hypothetical eradication of the “Free Libya” rebel movement? Can we tolerate the continual destruction of the the LIbyan countryside? Can we tolerate the “Escalating Situation,” as The Ten Bells phrases it, of civilian causalities? Or, are our values and foreign policy apparatus irreconcilable? If then, we should advocate isolationism do what scholars have ascribed to our generation (The Millennials), nothing.
As The Ten Bells noted, this is not a new discussion in American public discourse. Over forty years ago, former Senator Ted Kennedy responded to this debate in the eulogy he gave for his brother Robert F. Kennedy. His words address the fear of action in the face of adversity much better than mine.
"There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows. But we can perhaps remember -- even if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek -- as we do -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.”
“That is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.”
"For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event."
"The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society. Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."
No comments:
Post a Comment