There is no consistency in American foreign policy—we pick and choose what we want to do and there never seems to be a good enough reason for it.
On March 10th, before the U.S. ordered the firing of over 110 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan air defense sites, fellow Chronicle columnist Julia Hahn argued how the United States should resist the meddling with Libya and other countries we are claiming to help democratize. I’m here to support her argument.
Our inconsistent record—which is still growing—sends a mixed message to authoritarian regimes worldwide. But do not dismiss America’s foreign activities under President Obama as the first. For years the United States has continued this trend of picking what we want to do, and mostly choosing the wrong foreign affairs to become involved with.
How can one forget Reagan’s anticommunism appetite and the Iran-Contra Affair? We ended up selling weapons to Iran and sent the money to the rebels in Honduras, only to exhibit evidence of the infamous secrets within the U.S. government.
Then Clinton sent men into the failed Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down), while he ignored the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in the Rwandan Genocide.
Most recently, there was Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, while ignoring Bin Laden’s presence in Afghanistan. How can anyone say that these were successful ideas when other, more important, events were occurring in the world?
Our promotion of democratic reform in the Mideast is a continuous failure. I hope that North Africa—a part of the continent reminiscent of the collapse of Eastern Europe in 1989—isn’t next. Obama claims he is committed to getting out of Iraq, although there is still a blurry and undefined point of time. Another problem is the lack of indication as to whether our presence in Afghanistan is affecting their country at all – or ours.
President Obama is foolishly continuing this inconsistent mess. I would argue that the true reasons for why we’re attacking Libya are currently—and perhaps forever will be—unexposed. However, my speculation is that Obama may be receiving pressure from England and France, as they care about their once-owned North African colonies and are concerned refugees fleeing Libya.
While our allied attack with Europe may be a warning for Libya to step down, Obama has realized that this course of action could have huge side effects. We cannot anger Libyans too much because of their oil, so he’s getting our butts out of the situation and handing it over to NATO’s control. He has shown to Europe that we are an reliable ally, but with some pretty risky actions.
In the end it’s an ideological issue with Obama, and a geopolitical issue concerning the stability in the Mediterranean with England and France. If Obama truly has an internal drive to save people from oppression (which should sound familiar) then we have a huge problem.
