liberal interventionism 2.0

Photo: Francois Mori/AP

The doctrine of liberal interventionism - military engagement with countries in which the population, or part of it, faces a mortal threat from its own rulers or fellow citizens - hasn't been very fashionable post-Iraq. The probable genocide that NATO averted in Libya may make it respectable again, especially if the Libyans succeed in a stable transition of power. But as per this interview with an Obama administration official, the Libyan example suggests at least one key refinement to the theory: there must be a viable indigenous resistance, capable of leading the effort:

"The fact that it is Libyans marching into Tripoli not only provides a basis of legitimacy for this but also will provide contrast to situations when the foreign government is the occupier," said Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for communications... "While there will be huge challenges ahead, one of the positive aspects here is that the Libyans are the ones who are undertaking the regime change and the ones leading the transition."

This is more than a question of military strategy, of course. As was noted by Emma Sky, a British adviser to General Odierno in Iraq, in her recent piece on that country, the psychological question of empowerment is key:

I sit with a good friend, a female member of Parliament, in a café in Baghdad. We reminisce about 2007 and how we worked together closely to help bring down the violence that ravaged the country. It seems such a long time ago... Iraq today is so far away from the vision that people had after the fall of Saddam. I describe to her my trips to Egypt and Tunisia and how people feel empowered because they removed their regimes themselves, with little bloodshed, are debating their constitutions, and new politicians are coming to the fore. She tells me that in Iraq people do not feel that same sense of empowerment. They did not remove Saddam themselves, many of the politicians who were put in power were Islamist exiles returning from abroad, there was little public debate over the constitution, and elections did not bring about change but kept the same dysfunctional arrangement in place.

Comments

[Rob Marchant]

Interesting points, Ian. What intrigues me at the moment is that it's not clear whether Obama really planned his "hands-off" approach from the start, or whether his lack of stomach for pushing through intervention against popular opinion made him make a virtue of necessity and cleverly invented this strategy in hindsight.

I'd say the jury's out.