In a speech Monday addressing America’s involvement in Libya, President Barack Obama sought to justify the United States’ role in the collaborative action that has taken place.
Before a crowd of critics, Obama defended our cooperation with a deft mixture of American idealism and strategic rationale
Many criticisms have arisen that predictably and sarcastically refer to America as the “world police,” wondering why intervention should occur at all when dictators deal with their subjects violently worldwide. Obama addressed these criticisms forthright, granting that America should obviously treat its “unique role as an anchor of global security” in a “naturally reluctant” manner.
These particular concepts, however, “cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right,” he said.
The most important, encompassing factor in Obama’s flavor of idealism is “standards.”
In his statement above, Obama introduced a case for America’s standards for action and support.
The standards for action culminated in Moammar Gadhafi’s intentions toward his people, which were boldly stated and frighteningly within the realm of possibilities. After outlining the myriad fruitless steps taken to diplomatically dissuade Gadhafi — including $33 billion in frozen accounts, sanctions and an arms embargo — Obama made a chilling promise: “As president, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
But even given the prospects for massacre under the orders of Gadhafi himself, Obama was wise to stress that America’s leadership no longer means “going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves.”
The standards for action include international support the likes of which were not seen in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Thankfully, international consent is not the only standard separating America’s interventions in Iraq and Libya.
Because of the eight years and “nearly” $1 trillion needed to commit a regime-change in Iraq, the military action in Libya, as promised by Obama, has nothing to do with Gadhafi’s ouster.
Our diplomacy certainly does, however, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is currently meeting with more than 30 nations alongside Libyan opposition leaders to discuss a diplomatic approach to a cease-fire and resignation.
Obama also compared the intervention in Libya to the war in Bosnia in the 1990s, which took a year to prompt action, whereas the response in Libya was enacted after a mere 31 days of unrest, following all protocol nonetheless.
The rationale behind action in Libya contains a strategic interest as well.
Impressive logic and foresight were demonstrated in Obama’s explanation of how a successful, murderous suppression of the rebels by Gadhafi would have hindered democratic movements about the Middle East.
Not only would it have encouraged various nations to persist in implementing lethal restraint, but it also would have shown the “writ of the United Nations Security Council … to be little more than empty words, crippling the institution’s future credibility.”
Furthermore, the violence that would have taken place without international intervention would have sent thousands of refugees into the fragile nations of Tunisia and Egypt, creating new problems for budding democracies.
Altogether, Monday’s speech marked what may have been Obama’s most critical day in office. In justifying American military action in another Arabic country after having condemned the invasion of Iraq, Obama detailed his own manifesto for the standards of intervention and interaction in American foreign policy.
While we certainly swing a big stick, we show leadership through restraint. Obama named 11 nations cooperating militarily for the brunt-work of the operation — two of which are members of the Arab League — while diplomats continue to negotiate Gadhafi’s surrender, and Obama said Monday night that NATO will assume control of all military actions in Libya by Wednesday.
The combination of strict adherence to protocol, strategic insight to the far-reaching implications of military action and an American idealism that supports core values such as freedom wherever they may arise displays an integrity in America’s foreign policy that has been lacking in recent presidential terms.
After following through on his goals and promises for the U.S.’ action in Libya thus far, Monday’s speech evidenced the thought behind the actions and should stand as a precedent for any call to arms in the future.
Clayton Crockett is a 19-year-old international studies freshman from Lafayette. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_ccrockett.
 
____
Contact Clayton Crockett at
[email protected]