President Obama's speech yesterday night must go down in history as being one of the most "on the one hand... on the other hand" speeches in modern history. "Did the President set the proper tone and is this an introduction into what can be termed as the Obama Doctrine?" pundits are asking.
Well, on the one hand (!!!), there should be no question the US President is having to work within the confines of some difficult constraints- not least of which are the teetering US economy, the two wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, a war weary nation, and of course continuing to support friendly regional autocrats.
On the other hand, by their very definition, dictators rule with nothing but a FIRM hand, and any "other hand" presented to them is a gift of an opportunity to fight another day. Theirs is an existential fight and there is no other hand to consider. This gives them an implicit advantage over uncertainty. Their goal is one and one alone: survival, no matter how ugly it gets. Saddam preferred to remain in power notwithstanding the 500,000 Iraqi children deaths that resulted from the embargo slapped on his nation during the 1990's. The only hands he cared for were those assuring his and his regime's survival.
Long before him history had been littered with dictators and victims of their intransigence. Churchill warned of Hitler's sinister intentions at a time when the international community preferred to present the Fuhrer with "other hands". It resulted in the deaths of millions and incalculable destruction. The wily Brit proved to be equally prescient when he warned during the Potsdam conference of the impending Stalinist Iron Wall. Again a historic miscalculation resulted in a Cold War that lasted for half a century. Of course, Truman eventually realized the gravity of leaving the Soviets to their own devices and introduced the Truman doctrine which stood in support of every freedom seeking nation. Arguably it was this Doctrine and the clarity of its vision, goals, and indeed the resources placed at its disposal that would lead half a century later to Soviet disintegration.
This brings us back to the Obama speech. Knowing Libya's Gadhafi and what he and his brutal regime are capable of, any other hand dealt to him will likely result in more pain and suffering by his people and eventually higher costs to remove him. Recent events tend to prove this as experts state that had the international community moved three weeks earlier when the rebels were on the outskirts of Tripoli, Gadhafi would have been gone by now. Instead he was given the opportunity to regroup and push back the rebels almost wiping them out. Of course, when the No-Fly Zone finally came, it came at a cost in the hundreds of millions of Dollars and in itself was no guarantee to seeing him leave. This is leading some to question whether giving Gadhafi an ultimatum would not finally lead him to see the futility of his fight. It might very well. Unfortunately, an ultimatum such as this is not likely to come if the threat to his existence comes from the rebels whom he feels he can destroy. Rather, it has to come from the international community whom he fears. And it is here that Obama's speech and indeed his Doctrine, may fall short of the support needed prolonging the inevitable but causing more unnecessary pain, loss and desctruction and in the interim.
What was missing from Obama's speech was perhaps a more clear Peaceful Transition to Democracy Doctrine that promises to support any nation in the Middle East and North Africa who decide to overthrow their dictators. Nothing short of this will size up to the challenges and indeed opportunities an inevitably democratizing Arab world present to America and the world.
Well, on the one hand (!!!), there should be no question the US President is having to work within the confines of some difficult constraints- not least of which are the teetering US economy, the two wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, a war weary nation, and of course continuing to support friendly regional autocrats.
On the other hand, by their very definition, dictators rule with nothing but a FIRM hand, and any "other hand" presented to them is a gift of an opportunity to fight another day. Theirs is an existential fight and there is no other hand to consider. This gives them an implicit advantage over uncertainty. Their goal is one and one alone: survival, no matter how ugly it gets. Saddam preferred to remain in power notwithstanding the 500,000 Iraqi children deaths that resulted from the embargo slapped on his nation during the 1990's. The only hands he cared for were those assuring his and his regime's survival.
Long before him history had been littered with dictators and victims of their intransigence. Churchill warned of Hitler's sinister intentions at a time when the international community preferred to present the Fuhrer with "other hands". It resulted in the deaths of millions and incalculable destruction. The wily Brit proved to be equally prescient when he warned during the Potsdam conference of the impending Stalinist Iron Wall. Again a historic miscalculation resulted in a Cold War that lasted for half a century. Of course, Truman eventually realized the gravity of leaving the Soviets to their own devices and introduced the Truman doctrine which stood in support of every freedom seeking nation. Arguably it was this Doctrine and the clarity of its vision, goals, and indeed the resources placed at its disposal that would lead half a century later to Soviet disintegration.
This brings us back to the Obama speech. Knowing Libya's Gadhafi and what he and his brutal regime are capable of, any other hand dealt to him will likely result in more pain and suffering by his people and eventually higher costs to remove him. Recent events tend to prove this as experts state that had the international community moved three weeks earlier when the rebels were on the outskirts of Tripoli, Gadhafi would have been gone by now. Instead he was given the opportunity to regroup and push back the rebels almost wiping them out. Of course, when the No-Fly Zone finally came, it came at a cost in the hundreds of millions of Dollars and in itself was no guarantee to seeing him leave. This is leading some to question whether giving Gadhafi an ultimatum would not finally lead him to see the futility of his fight. It might very well. Unfortunately, an ultimatum such as this is not likely to come if the threat to his existence comes from the rebels whom he feels he can destroy. Rather, it has to come from the international community whom he fears. And it is here that Obama's speech and indeed his Doctrine, may fall short of the support needed prolonging the inevitable but causing more unnecessary pain, loss and desctruction and in the interim.
What was missing from Obama's speech was perhaps a more clear Peaceful Transition to Democracy Doctrine that promises to support any nation in the Middle East and North Africa who decide to overthrow their dictators. Nothing short of this will size up to the challenges and indeed opportunities an inevitably democratizing Arab world present to America and the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment