A Test for Interventionism in Libya

The most agonizing decision an officeholder could have to make must be whether or not to send one's nation to war. When, after all, is there truly a good time to wage war? Warfare can only possibly yield good results when humanity is considered in the aggregate. For the civilians caught in the crossfire, the fallen troops on both sides, and the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again, even the most virtuous war can be disastrous. The idea, then, that war should be waged only when absolutely necessary -- such as when the nation is directly attacked by another country -- is reasonable. The country whose foreign policy is guided by this fundamental idea will not fight petty wars of aggression. At the same time, however, this country will also not fight for "the greater good" and that can be a hard burden to bear in and of itself.

I tend to see America's hypervigilance and aggressive interventionism during and after the Cold War period as a direct result of our experiences in World War II, a war we were very reluctant to enter and ultimately only did enter after suffering a direct attack. Our reluctance, alas, did not spare hundreds of thousands of military lives. There is still a feeling among many people to this day that we were far too reluctant to act, having given the Axis powers precious time to strengthen their positions and consolidate territorial gains and allowing them to perpetrate massive crimes against humanity. Granted, both the government and the public were working from a position of limited information -- the disgusting details of the Holocaust became common knowledge only after the war, for instance. Having viewed the destruction and death of World War II, it was only natural that policymakers should ask themselves, "What can we do to stop this from happening again?" It may seem bizarre that the desire to prevent future madmen from trying to conquer the world or annihilate their own people could in any way lead to the US supporting such things as coups against elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, but fear and an obsession with protecting one's interests at any cost can lead you down some strange paths. Ultimately, I see the excessive interventionism of the Cold War era as resulting from American determination to not allow the Soviets to gain an upper hand as the Nazis did. We certainly saw bogeymen where they probably didn't really exist at times (and compromised our principles in the name of fighting Communism), but at least we were responding to a real threat. If criticism of interventionism has risen in the post Cold War era, I would say it's largely because the policy no longer resonates with much of the public...there may be individual brutal leaders, but there's no Axis (the "Axis of Evil" was merely a list of rogue states, not a true alliance of inimical powers) , no Soviet Union intent on spreading the revolution, and no one trying to conquer the world. The questions of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for have become much more difficult to answer.

This brings us to Libya, the conflict du jour. As a fan of representative government, I've been frankly excited to watch the revolutions in North Africa from afar. I've never really believed that free speech and democracy are only compatible with certain cultures (one explanation offered for the host of dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa) -- rather, I think the desire to have one's voice heard and influence one's society are fundamental aspects of human nature. It's too soon to tell what sort of government the Tunisians and Egyptians will end up with, but they've reminded the world that even corrupt and despotic governments can be called to account by their people. Alas, Colonel Qadaffi in Libya has reminded the world of a more bitter truth: the ruthless and well-armed have a distinct advantage in war. I fully understand why the UN backed intervention in Libya; when Qadaffi threatened to go "house by house" in Benghazi to crush the rebels, the specter of Nazi Germany is what appeared in my mind's eye. Thus, I tend to see Libya as a test: interventionists say that war can prevent bloodshed, genocide, and, ultimately, more war...Libya is another chance to prove it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overthrew brutal governments, but created tremendous instability and led to huge numbers of civilian casualties. Will Libya be any different?

I certainly see a difference in how the United States is approaching Libya as opposed to Iraq. It has studiously so far avoided taking a leadership role in the conflict past the initial stage in which Libya's anti-air capabilities were destroyed; it has appeared to be as much France's or the UK's war as it has America's. This may not last -- America has more military resources than its allies and the more it commits to the operation the more it will be blamed for when things go wrong. The coalition approach was attempted in Iraq as well, but ultimately the US was the driving force behind the war, so much so that it's extremely difficult to imagine that war being waged without US direction and involvement. For a purely "humanitarian war" (which Iraq of course was not...and in practice any successful war will yield certain strategic advantages for the victors, humanitarian or not), I think it's important that multiple countries agree it is the "right" thing to do, the more global consensus there is the better. It's all too easy to decide a war is just when it is in one's own perceived best interests that it be waged. Perhaps the great reluctance of the allies to put ground forces in Libya is also a result of lessons learned in Iraq -- in addition to avoiding military casualties, this policy also places responsibility on the rebels to win the ground war, a significant challenge but one that might help ease perceptions that Westerners are trying to take over Libya.

There is at least one distressing similarity between the actions in Iraq and Libya as well: the hypocrisy of the intervening powers. The "Bush doctrine" of preventive war sounded to me like a recipe for perpetual warfare -- it allowed for war not only against Afghanistan and Iraq but also Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any number of future threats that would emerge. In truth, I doubt President Bush had any interest in taking on an enemy with the military capabilities of a North Korea. This makes one wonder, then, if it's safe to engage in dialogue with a bigger threat like North Korea, why is there any imperative to do battle with a weaker threat like Iraq? There is perhaps even worse hypocrisy coming from those who advocate humanitarian wars. France's close ties with the former Tunisian regime were exposed in the wake of the Tunisian revolution just as America's ties with Mubarak's Egypt were placed under the microscope when the Egyptian people rose up. When France and the US can have friendly relationships with dictatorial regimes when it is convenient and fight them in other circumstances, it's hard to discern any firm ideological framework for conducting "just wars." Syria and Bahrain are killing protesters as the world watches...they don't seem to fear becoming another Libya. Better to do some good than none at all, surely, but one has to wonder about the hidden reasons behind any intervention when the choice concerning where to intervene appears arbitrary.

The debate as to whether it is right to intervene or not is perhaps not resolvable; people will always believe different things. The key debate may actually become whether or not the United States and other nations can afford to intervene. The US, UK, and France are all seriously indebted nations. The US is facing a political debate regarding raising the debt ceiling so it can continue to borrow. The UK is currently undergoing austerity measures to get its fiscal house in order. France recently raised the retirement age to protect its pension system. All three nations (and, indeed, all nations) limit their domestic spending in order to pay for their militaries, diplomats, and intelligence agencies. It seems doubtful that this course is sustainable indefinitely.

Are Donald Trump and Sarah Palin in the Same Boat?

On the surface, no two 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls could be more dissimilar than Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Palin is a former governor and mayor, a former candidate for vice president, a political commentator, and the honorary chair of one of the more influential political action committees of the 2010 midterm elections, SarahPAC. Trump, by contrast, has never held a political office in his life and his previous flirtations with politics in the past have been as confusing as they have been frequent: he donates to Democrats and Republicans alike, has changed his own political affiliation several times, and even publicly considered seeking the nomination of the Reform Party for president back in 2000. What this unlikely pair do have in common is their status as celebrities. Both are reality TV stars, authors, and in-demand speakers and talk show guests. Although many presidential candidates long to have the kind of name recognition that Palin and Trump have, celebrity status can be a two-edged sword. People may know who Trump and Palin are, but many don't take them seriously due to previous gaffes and well-publicized escapades...they are without a doubt overexposed and their dirty laundry has been aired all over America. It also goes without saying that the personal brands of Trump and Palin would be enhanced by their choosing to run for president; how can the public figure out if Trump and/or Palin are actually running to win or just trying to sell more books and merchandise or set themselves up to host a talk show?

All in all, I think Sarah Palin has the better chance to establish herself as a serious presidential candidate if she does ultimately opt to run in 2012. She has genuine political accomplishments, and she can probably overcome the poor public perception created by her past gaffes simply by avoiding future ones. Indeed, I think a strong performance by Palin in a debate or speech is to an extent magnified because the public always expects her to create a media firestorm with a poorly chosen phrase or two. Her biggest hurdle will be to explain away her decision to suddenly resign as Alaskan governor, especially when she will likely have to face other former governors in the race who didn't "quit on the job." I have serious doubts about whether Palin has the work ethic or even the desire to pursue the presidency at this point -- she's never been a policy wonk and may have discovered she enjoys politics better from the sidelines after all. Even if she is taken seriously as a candidate, Palin will have difficulty making any one issue all her own given that she hasn't managed to do this in the years she's been in the political spotlight. I don't think she can afford to be as cautious a "maverick" as she was in 2008; she'll need to take an energetic approach and get specific about policies she supports since she is no longer new to voters. Indeed, I'd even advise her to court a little controversy...how about adopting a pro-marijuana legalization stance, for instance? Given her past remarks about marijuana being a "minimal problem," that could mark a logical evolution of her views. It won't please some social conservatives -- not even a "leave it to the states" approach would -- but it would definitely differentiate her from the rest of the pack and probably prove an asset in a general election since many legalization advocates are disappointed Democrats.

Donald Trump has the harder road to hoe. He's been more visible than Palin in the past few months as an "unofficial" candidate for president. Despite his utter lack of political experience, he does bring a few things to the table besides name recognition: he's charismatic and an entertaining speaker, a successful businessman who has managed to look failure in the face multiple times and seemingly emerged stronger from it each time, and he is incredibly bold. He's already shown himself willing and able to touch issues no "serious" candidate wants to touch. What other candidate but Trump is talking about raising tariffs on China? Most politicians and economists would consider such a move disastrous even as they themselves decry Chinese currency manipulation, but I think protectionism has long been more popular among the general public than among the elite. There are plenty of people who, like Trump, think a tougher trade policy with China will both create American jobs and force China to ease its currency controls. If Trump keeps the pressure on China, he'll get votes because of it...I have no doubt about that Alas, Trump's boldness is perhaps not always an asset: Trump has also been daring in questioning whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States and thus whether or not he is actually eligible to be president. This could potentially attract another crowd of voters without a home to Trump's doorstep, but I have a feeling it will turn off a lot more people than it will attract in the long run. Unless Trump can deliver some solid evidence to support the so-called "birther" allegations, he's just peddling a conspiracy theory and unnecessarily angering a lot of people who might not dislike Obama the man but do dislike Obama the president. I think about it this way: if Obama had had two American citizen parents and had spent his whole life in the United States, would Republicans like Obamacare and the stimulus any better? Would they feel more confident about his approach to fiscal issues such as the debt and taxation? If there really is a genuine issue about Obama's citizenship, it's for the courts to handle...presidential candidates should talk politics and there's plenty of policy issues for Republicans to attack Obama on. Then again, perhaps Trump really does know what he's doing: according to a recent poll of the New Hampshire electorate, Trump is running second only to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination! Polls like that are exactly what conspiracy theories are made out of (could there be a "Trumper" movement to massage poll results in order to get Trump to actually run so that more newspapers will be sold, more ads will be clicked, and more debates will be watched? I have to admit it would make the race more entertaining to follow).

I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility that neither Palin nor Trump will run for president. Trump has already boosted his personal brand without making anything official, and even if he really does want to get into politics he could forgo a run for president and run for something in New York instead, building his credentials for a future presidential run. In truth, perhaps Palin and Trump have something else in common...perhaps neither of them actually want to be politicians! After all, you can be a star and a media sensation without a single person being willing to vote for you. It'll be interesting to see what they both ultimately decide to do.