Foreign Policy Issues Confronting Obama

In today’s Los Angeles Times, Niall Ferguson strongly attacks Barack Obama on his position regarding plans to withdraw from Iraq[1]. While acknowledging that the Iraq initiative was flawed from the beginning and compounded with time, his arguments will present a problem to Obama’s credibility: (1) withdrawal will put pressure on the government to achieve a political settlement, (2) Colin Powell’s edict that entry into Iraq carries with it the assumption that “if you break it, you own it”, and (3) Obama has indicated that the United States should intervene when genocide is at issue.

To summarize Professor Ferguson’s problems with Obama, he cites those who claim that US withdrawal will precipitate massive annihilation, as in genocide, which Obama claims that US should address. Leaving will create a situation that will demand re-entry!

And, one is hard pressed to argue with the need of addressing the horrendous situation created by our intervention. There is responsibility or accountability associated even if a very ill-conceived and poorly executed intervention.

While we wait for Obama’s reaction to these critical objections to his announced plan for withdrawal, every citizen has to come to terms with Ferguson’s cogent arguments.

All nations are held accountable to address genocide. But, no nation could independently address all situations. Without referencing Iraq, genocide appears to be more rampant than ever (Bosnia, Dafur, Liberia, Rwanda). It seems that only multinational coalitions could possibly be capable of meeting the demand. The institution designed to address such situations, viz., the United Nations, does seem incapable of rising above the international morass associated with the self-interests of member nations. If the United States adopted a policy that, in lieu of no UN action, we would be forced to intervene, we would be faced with the conundrum of determining the criteria to be used to differentiate which of the many conflicts warranted our action. Since the need to address genocide is high, efforts should be made to persuade “willing nations” to organize for the explicit purpose of intervening in unconscionable atrocities. In short, we would provide leadership for creating such an institution (theoretically, any existing institution could be modified if member nations agreed, e.g., NATO).

It is harder to address the issue of US responsibility to address the situation created by our intervention. How can we justify walking away from the mess? As in the past, my plan may be politically untenable, but it is clear to me that the following should, at least a moral perspective, be considered. I would recommend that vested nations involved, first by admitting that (a) we made a serious mistake, (b) we need the help of other nations, and (c) it is critical to their self-interest that all nations work together to achieve a level of security in Iraq.

---

1. http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-ferguson19feb19,1,2219316.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true