What happens to the foreign policy debate in the United States if 4 months from now Gaddafi is gone? If Libya is ruled by some transitional quasi republican government backed by western powers and overwhelmingly funded through European nations keeping America's economic obligations to a shocking minimum?
Will it vindicate those of us who have been arguing for a multilateral foreign policy?
Will it silence the alliance dismissing, American Imperialists or self described neo-conservatives?
For the past decade all "perceived" negative blow back of neo-conservative international policy has been dismissed as overblown concerns of naive idealists. 'Those flower children don't understand how the "real world" works. They don't have the steel nerves needed to make the tough, costly and sometimes even deadly, decisions that will protect us in the future.' (ok... I'm paraphrasing… a little) These short sighted naive concerns being (but not limited too), focusing on securing the whole of Afghanistan and installing one of the most corrupt and ineffective governments on the planet while allowing UBL escape justice for almost a decade. Let us not forget that the alienation of "Old Europe" was a SMALL price to pay to focus on the bigger picture that they simply couldn't understand. I mean who needs "friends" who try and talk us OUT of invading weak and stable regimes that have no WMDs and are a nominal enemy of our most recent attacker (UBL)
Seriously, What happens if Libya comes out of this more quickly, more stable and with a more grateful population then both Iraq and Afghanistan? If it costs us much less US blood and treasure not to mention local civilian casualties, will the methodical, circumstance specific, multilateral internationally sanctioned /supported military intervention be the new bipartisan foreign policy standard?
Could we "push the reset button" with NATO? Could we reopen plans that were being formed in early 2002?
I pray...
But seriously... wouldn't it be nice?
For the past 3 months we've heard the familiar cry of "ALL OR NOTHING!" when it comes to military intervention. 3 Months? hell? more like 10 years…. 'Sanctions do not work! Nothing short of 'invading their countries, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity.' will be a victory! (ok, obviously the Christianity part is a small minority... but still.. its there)America's prestige is on the line here! But what if we could go back to what many of us were thinking around the same time Ann Coulter and Donald Rumsfeld were formulating their (and much of RIGHT America's) opinions on how to respond to the new realities of the 21st century? Can we go back to a time when rhetorical propaganda was used to SUPPORT policy instead of create it?
Personally, I remember being a naive freshman in college arguing with my trigger happy friends that this was the perfect time to take 21st century international relations to the 80s cartoon level. The GI JOE strategy!!! I foolishly believed with the nature of the threat being an international military equipped crime syndicate some kind of Military Interpol would be the logical response. Our interests and those of our allies (especially NATO) were completely in sink (in many ways more then the cold war). These were international terrorists who's goal was nothing short of the destruction of western dominated global order. Soon proven, London, Madrid, Paris were all targets and as Article 5 of the NATO charter states "an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all"
What would have happened if we did what 18 year old me wanted to do? If the war on terror was guided by the combined intelligence, resources and political will of the entire free world? When thinking about writing up this article, I did a quick google search and found this speech given at the council on foreign relation by Dick Lugar (one of the highest ranking republicans in the Senate nun the less). It's amazing how similar (maybe not in rhetoric.. but most definitely in practice) a kid who watched cartoons and a statesman's strategies were after 911. Out of the mouth of well meaning and informed babes.
"We need the Europeans -- their political support, their police and intelligence cooperation, their economic assistance and, not least of all, the military support they can provide. Americans do not want to carry the entire burden of the war on terrorism by ourselves. Nor should we. The last attack may have been unique in that regard. We were shocked by attacks on our homeland. The U.S. was prepared to respond immediately and to do most of the work itself. But what if the next attack strikes European and American targets at the same time?"
How right was he?
With hindsight, I would add one more reason we "need" the Europeans. They're close and personal history with war. They have been both occupiers and occupied. They have had overseas empires and know there limitations. However In 2001 when our European allies suggested that the imminent Afghan war be a comprehensive NATO operation, (instead of just a partner in a US action) The Bush administration shut down the idea cold, insisting this was a US fight and we'd be making National security decisions alone. Of course the europeans were welcome to come along, but let there be no doubt who is really in charge. Bureaucratically organizing the war under NATO was sold to an angry and vengeful US populous as giving VETO power to europe in a United States fight. Of course there was no political push back in those early months. But lets say liberals (and conservatives who actually had foreign policy experience) actually called such cavalier and reckless policies what they were... cavalier and reckless.
What if we had taken them up on their offer? Much like NATO it self the bulk of money, troops, leadership etc. would have been U.S. but under the authority of NATO. Long term strategic goals would have been guided by international diplomacy with international support. As apposed to a few assholes in Washington who's long term strategic goals seemed to be finding targets their buddies could make a lot of money from and paying for it by robbing the middle class of medicare and social security.
But even with all the past blame aside the sober truth now is that fighting ANY enemy in the flatter more democratic and economically equal future will require allies. It will require huge amounts of resources and those countries that work together will be stronger than those who stand alone. With the rate of growth in the developing world while they are simultaneously joining the "free world" ONE nation will no longer be able to police the planet. Frankly, it shouldn't have to. Backing one despot over another is not the same as backing one over the freedom of a people screaming for it. With the way the information age as changed the whole game more, not less nations will demand what we have. Does anyone not think that the majority of human beings will be living under some kind of representative government in the next 50 years?
Again, this is all hypothetical. Who knows what the end game in Libya will be....or the rest of the world for that matter. But its interesting to ask what if? What happens if Libya comes out of this more quickly, more stable and with a more grateful population then both Iraq and Afghanistan?
More importantly due to Libya, can we hope to regain our footing and guide the planet through the 21st century as we did in the 20th?
PB