We did it your way during the Clinton Administration Dayuhan.
Flush with Cold War and Gulf War victory, we didn't have to meddle in any of this messiness, we could down size our security forces, focus on domestic policies, and turn the "peace dividend" into a balanced budget.
Life was good, for us anyways. What we did not take into account was that the world had lost the tremendous balancing, and tempering effect of two superpowers waging a global competition for influence. One would wage a little UW, the other would counter. Most situations never got too out of control. Suddenly the Soviets weren't showing up, and then the Americans stopped showing up as well. Once everyone else realized this, those out of government who wanted power, or justice, or liberty started jockeying for position. Similarly those in government, many with no true writ of popular sovereignty, began ratcheting up the populace control measures. Rwanda? Not our problem, no national interests at stake. Only when the NGO/Media uproar became deafening did we respond a situation that had descended into genocide. The Balkans were the same. This is what too often happens when popular movements break the bonds of oppression. Old grudges get settled, little guys get crushed. Just ask the French about the late 1700s.
What you recommend is a return to the failed "hobby diplomacy" of the Clinton era, and it sounds good, but it isn't. I completely agree that we have no duty and no right to tell others what values to adopt, or what form of government, or any of a dozen other areas where too often we fail to mind our business. But I disagree adamantly that we have no duty to stand up for the little guy, to show up in such places and establish clear parameters as to the degree/nature of violence that is tolerable in such upheavals, to deter genocide rather than merely respond to the same. To actually be the nation we like to see ourselves as. Standing for broad concepts such as Self Determination, equality, Justice and Liberty. But that's just me.
Why have we not rushed a Marine Amphibious ship to the Med to simply sit, clearly visible on the horizon off of Tunis? If this were a flood in Bangladesh, or a Tsunami in Indonesia the Marines would rush to the scene as a sign of what great people the US is composed of. Or if this were an Embassy hostage situation, or a violent insurgent uprising. Nothing wrong with showing up for any of those things, but why not this?? A little bit of symbolism here and now could tip our entire GWOT effort toward victory. But only if one understands that CT and Capacity building aimed at the symptoms of GWOT, and that a clear sign of support to the oppressed populaces of the Arab world strikes directly at the heart of the problem.
We can not simply fall back into fortress America, plug our ears and cover our eyes to the sounds and sights of misery rising from those oppressed by state and non-state actors alike, and simply enjoy being #1. It's a model that history tells us fails every time. We must stay engaged, and the more moral and selfless our engagement is, the more influence we will build and the longer our status will endure. Protecting despots is equally as damaging as ignoring genocide. We need to find a balance point for the world we live in today, much as we had a balance point in the Cold War; and we are no where near that balance point yet.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks