Both Clinton speech on entering Kosovo and Barack Obama's on entering Libya have many similarities. For instance, they both repeatedly say that their reasons for entering Kosovo and Libya is because it's in America's best interest. Both speeches discuss that when there is a tyrant that is hurting civilians who are unable to defend themselves, the United States must act. But more importantly, the both emphasized that they did not enter this conflict alone. Obama made every effort to stress that the United States didn't actually put any military regimes on the ground in Libya and that our allies, Spain, Greece and Turkey. Obama emphasized that the international community asked the U.S. to get involved, and when we have the means and it's in our best interest, we should. In my opinion, one of Obama's strengths was that he stressed that the United States is playing a supporting role in the conflict. At the time of his speech, he said that the United States would be handing control of the no fly zone to NATO. He also stressed that because of NATO's strong involvement, the United States was able to limit the cost of the operation for our military and American tax payers. Obama also tried to make the country's involvement in Libya seem shortlived by saying that it only took 31 days to really get involved, when it took a year for the world to get involved in Bosnia. However, at the time of his speech, Obama admitted that Libya's president hadn't stepped down yet. I think that's important to not because as Obama tried to make this look like a quick operation that just needed a shot and a bandaide, in reality, it was more complicated than that and the conflict wasn't over at the time of his speech.
Clinton's speech was very similar to this. He also stressed NATO's involvement and how by acting when the United States did, it prevented a war. Clinton, like Obama, stressed that the people of Kosovo were helpless and that their government was going door-to-door trying to hurt them. He emphasized that the American people and our allies had a need to help. "Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative," Clinton said. He then stressed Kosovo's relationship to the rest of Europe geographically, and how acting now was essential to prevent a full out war. I found it interesting that Clinton compared Kosovo to Bosnia and how the United States and its allies didn't act fast enough in Bosnia. Clinton stressed that we learned lessons in Bosnia, and that by acting now in Kosovo, we will be saving more lives. Obama also made a comparison, but it was with Libya and Iraq. As Obama continued to stress that it only took the United States and its allies 31 days and not U.S. military was on the ground, he said that isn't the cause about Iraq. He said we learned a lesson in Iraq, which is once you put military on the ground and get really involved, it can take you up to eight years before you are able to switch the power in the country.
With Obama's speech, I think there was a doctrine. I think he made his doctrine clear when he said that it's not the United States role to police the world. He said that America can't be involved in everything, but that doesn't mean we should NEVER be involved with conflicts. He said that when innocent civilians are being harmed and it could cause a war if our allies don't get involved, then the United States must act. But Obama also stressed limited action. He said that we should not cause unnecessary costs to the American people and by not putting troops on the ground in Libya, we saved lives. I think Clinton also included a doctrine. He also emphasized that the conflict must be strong enough in which innocent civilians are being hurt, and if action is not taken soon, then a full war could begin. Clinton's doctrine also included that the United States and our allies must do everything in our power to first solve the problem peacefully before acting with our military.
However, if the United States is going to have high involvement in Bosnia and Libya, does the United States have a responsbility to help all countries that are being repressed by their leaders? Obama said no. Obama said that it is not the United States job to police the world. However, that shouldn't be a reason to NEVER get involved, he said. Obama's emphasis was once again two things. 1) That the attacks were becoming a mass massacre and that he wasn't going to wait until the horrific images came to him that showed the death of innocent people. 2) He also argued that America was in a unique position to help, but not become overwhelmingly involved. The country to work with our allies to help cause mass hurt to innocent people without putting troops on the ground, which was unlike Iraq. He said that when America can do that, then they NEED to act. I agree with Obama that the United States cannot police the world. However, I have a hard time understanding how Clinton and Obama can justify entering Libya and Kosovo, but not other conflicts. In Clinton's case, I give him credit. He didn't act on Rwanda and regretted it. So when he saw that he could help Bosnia and Kosovo, he had no hesitations when deciding to help. Obama, on the otherhand, stressed so much that Libya seemed like a quick and easy fix for the United States. They came in, established a no fly zone, never put a troop on the ground and then quickly left. At the end of Obama's speech, I was left thinking 'so if we could go into Yemen or other countries and help them quickly with our allies support and never put a troop on the ground, then we'd get involved?' I agree that the United States should get involved when we can feasibly do so with our allies and prevent a crisis from becoming an all out war. I believe it is our need to get involved. But if Obama and Clinton are going to argue this, then they need to be ready to get involved with their allies in more countries.
I agree that America cannot police the world and get involved in every conflict. However, with the recent uprisings in Egypt and Saudi role in Bahrain, Barack Obama said very little. He said that they are our allies, but he didn't strongly address the fact that innocent people are being hurt. I think for Obama, and Clinton as well, there is a fine line when a country needs to try to work out their problems on their own before the United States should get involved, because like Obama said, we can't be involved in everything. However, presidents need to follow their standard of when they get involved. Look at World War II. Innocent people were being suppressed and hurt and America didn't get involved until we were directly attacked. Look at Rwanda. I understand we can't be involved in everything, but we need to set a guideline that says here are examples in the past when we got involved and we should have and when we got involved and maybe we shouldn't have. Then today's current world conflicts should be compared to those when making a decision to enter or not. America's past proves that the careful decision is not always being made or that we've failed to act when we should have.
No comments:
Post a Comment