Democrats may come and Democrats may go, but American idealism, or the projection of certain well-entrenched and mainstream and dogmatic American notions of idealism in the international arena, trudges on, well, kind of. We are talking about that term that has been used and abused by American and Western strategists and that carries a whiff of condescension for many discerning observers of the international scene - " nation-building ". While the neocons cool their heels and the United States goes through a reappraisal of its geopolitical capabilities after wars in the Middle East that seem to have done more harm than good for the United States and its future prospects, the Democratic administration under Obama has showed all signs of continuing the Clintonian new Democrat/ Neocon ( what's the difference between the two, really, outside of domestic economic policy ? ) paradigm in foreign affairs. " Nation-building " is in many ways a manifestation of American naivette when it comes to the question of morality in international affairs. At its worst, this term is an euphemism for new attempts at empire-building in the name of humanitarian intervention. Many of the same people who push for these policies in other nations while ignoring some very pertinent complexities like the unique socio-economic landscapes of nations argue against what they call " one-size-fits-all " policies in domestic economics.
Of course, no American administration in its right mind would pursue " nation-building " in any country without there being good national security justifications, or at the very least, without ensuring that there are no serious national security drawbacks. And if economic windfalls can be added to the mix, so much the better. The question of whether the United States should lead a NATO-led invasion of Syria or invade Syria alone given the Obama administration's negative views about the Bashar-al-Assad regime has
acquired a lot of significance with the violence continuing in Syria despite the Kofi Annan-led peace efforts. The Syrian problem is a domestic conflict and poses no direct security threat to the United States. As for the economics, getting embroiled in a Syrian civil war can lead to unpredictable amounts of defense expenditure which can be a contributing factor in pushing the United States over some kind of fiscal cliff. In this kind of economic environment, how willing will the US Congress and the US public be to support a " nation-building " kind of regime change operation ? And the Europeans in the NATO alliance have their own serious economic problems to deal with. How much public support will there be in Europe for a NATO-led intervention in a civil war while efforts are on to bring about peace and reconciliation by other means ? NATO did attack Libya to effect a regime change. However, the historical and geopolitical considerations are never exactly the same from country to country. As for the interventions in Eastern Europe during the Clinton administration, the news reports were of ethnic cleansing and of genocide. This is not the case in Syria. The Obama administration needs to explain why one side in a civil war should be supported over the other and why current diplomatic efforts are not enough. Also, is the Obama administration against the Alawites or against Mr. Assad alone ? Why should the American public take a side in a civil war when the picture is so murky ? What does the American public know about what kind of government the Obama administration wants to put in place in Syria if the US does decide to attack and if the US does succeed in toppling the Assad regime ? Does the American public know what kind of human rights safeguards can be obtained under a new government that has the support of the US administration ? And what is the guarantee that the US will not make the same kind of mistakes it did in Iraq when it comes to setting up an administrative framework and ensuring the objectives it publicizes ? Or that it will not encounter the same kind of logistical problems ? While the Obama team may want to use Syria to deflect attention from economic problems at home, doing so may smack too much of cynicism to many. Helping to bolster the frameworks already in place may be the best option for the administration.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )
Of course, no American administration in its right mind would pursue " nation-building " in any country without there being good national security justifications, or at the very least, without ensuring that there are no serious national security drawbacks. And if economic windfalls can be added to the mix, so much the better. The question of whether the United States should lead a NATO-led invasion of Syria or invade Syria alone given the Obama administration's negative views about the Bashar-al-Assad regime has
acquired a lot of significance with the violence continuing in Syria despite the Kofi Annan-led peace efforts. The Syrian problem is a domestic conflict and poses no direct security threat to the United States. As for the economics, getting embroiled in a Syrian civil war can lead to unpredictable amounts of defense expenditure which can be a contributing factor in pushing the United States over some kind of fiscal cliff. In this kind of economic environment, how willing will the US Congress and the US public be to support a " nation-building " kind of regime change operation ? And the Europeans in the NATO alliance have their own serious economic problems to deal with. How much public support will there be in Europe for a NATO-led intervention in a civil war while efforts are on to bring about peace and reconciliation by other means ? NATO did attack Libya to effect a regime change. However, the historical and geopolitical considerations are never exactly the same from country to country. As for the interventions in Eastern Europe during the Clinton administration, the news reports were of ethnic cleansing and of genocide. This is not the case in Syria. The Obama administration needs to explain why one side in a civil war should be supported over the other and why current diplomatic efforts are not enough. Also, is the Obama administration against the Alawites or against Mr. Assad alone ? Why should the American public take a side in a civil war when the picture is so murky ? What does the American public know about what kind of government the Obama administration wants to put in place in Syria if the US does decide to attack and if the US does succeed in toppling the Assad regime ? Does the American public know what kind of human rights safeguards can be obtained under a new government that has the support of the US administration ? And what is the guarantee that the US will not make the same kind of mistakes it did in Iraq when it comes to setting up an administrative framework and ensuring the objectives it publicizes ? Or that it will not encounter the same kind of logistical problems ? While the Obama team may want to use Syria to deflect attention from economic problems at home, doing so may smack too much of cynicism to many. Helping to bolster the frameworks already in place may be the best option for the administration.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )