EDITORIALS

Libya’s lesson points toward US ‘smart’ power

A Libyan rebel gestures in Abu Salim district in Tripoli, Libya, Thursday, Aug. 25, 2011.
Francois Mori | AP
A Libyan rebel gestures in Abu Salim district in Tripoli, Libya, Thursday, Aug. 25, 2011.
Posted Aug. 25, 2011, at 3:37 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

Even if rebels can hold Libya’s capital city of Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi leaves the country he has led for 40-plus years, U.S. and NATO military involvement cannot necessarily be declared a success. That chapter will be written only after — and only if — Libyans can form a strong but open government.

President Barack Obama’s decision to join with NATO in aiding the Libyan rebels was a risky step. And even if that risk ultimately pays off with the ouster of the Gadhafi government, the new nation may not embrace an alliance with the U.S. Or worse, the populist principles ruling the day in Libya now may morph into a religious nationalism that is unfriendly to the U.S.

Military intervention, limited or not, must remain in the U.S. arsenal. But a shift toward the use of what diplomats call “smart power” or “soft power” makes more sense for the coming decades. Relying on smart power would mean shifting resources away from expensive military hardware and hundreds of thousands of troops and instead focusing on intelligence, covert operations and constructive engagement in nations which are at risk of becoming spawning grounds for terrorism.

It would save money, but that is only an ancillary benefit. Using military and economic might in the “smart” sense has the potential to achieve stability in some of the world’s hot spots.

The Libya intervention was itself an example of a decidedly limited military involvement. The president pledged that U.S. troops would not be used. But that “one foot in” approach has been used before, and it has led to thousands of American boots on the ground.

In fact, the story of overt U.S. military intervention around the world since World War II makes the case for a new approach. It is a story of lessons not learned.

Defending South Korea from North Korea from 1950 to 1953 may be seen as a success in that South Korea remains independent and secure. But defending South Vietnam from North Vietnam from the mid-1960s through the early 1970s must be seen as a failure, given that South Vietnam fell shortly after U.S. forces left.

Both Korea and Vietnam were divided as an outcome of World War II. Japan occupied both, but they were split when the war ended. The lesson is that lines drawn arbitrarily on a map by outsiders are likely to lead to conflict later. The same dynamic was seen in the former Yugoslavia, where the fall of the Soviet Union led to a return to conflict between ethnic groups. It also is seen in Iraq, whose borders were drawn in the post-World War I era by British occupiers.

Using military force to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991 was successful because the mission was limited. U.S. troops routed the Iraqis, but did not follow them into the heart of Iraq. Yet even that mission left dictator Saddam Hussein weakened but not deposed, interpreted by President George W. Bush as a threat and leading to the U.S. invasion in 2003 and occupation that continues to today.

Covert action always is at risk for abuse. But it must be an option for U.S. policy, as long as there are sufficient checks and balances with congressional leaders. Intelligence must be well-funded and credible.

And constructive engagement — investing in infrastructure in emerging nations — yields important returns for both the U.S. and other nations.

When thousands of young men are unemployed, when utilities are intermittently supplied and when there is little hope for improving one’s lot in life, radical politics take root. U.S. funds spent building water and electric systems would create jobs in these countries, engender some loyalty and, ultimately, create markets for U.S. products and services.

It’s a much better bang for the buck than — pardon the pun — building more bombs.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    If the various countries that we seem to be sending our young soldiers to want democracy, they will form it on their own. We can not shove it down their throats.
    We as a country would do better to stand as an example of what a nation should be like. With laws that everyone agrees are fair to all. With a free press and open courts.
    Let us stand as an example for the world to follow. Lead by example.

  • Anonymous

    A U.S. non-interventionist foreign policy is undoubtedly the dominant position, and therefore the conservative position regarding historical American traditions, if one evaluates the entirety of U.S. history from the founding to WWII.

  • Anonymous

    This statement was interesting in the editorial: “… investing in infrastructure in emerging nations – yields important returns for both the U.S. and other nations.”  Exactly what “returns” has the U.S. received?  I’m not talking about in history, but right here and now. 

    Secondly, when liberals spout about “investing” (that means taking money from you and giving it to someone else), it’s important to remember that because of liberal “investing” in the past, this country is bankrupt.  By 2018 we are projected to have a $17,000,000,000,000 deficit. 

    So, when you hear a liberal use the word “invest,” run for hills and make sure you have a firm grip on anything of value you own.

  • Anonymous

    How does this strategy help the starving citizens of North Korea?

  • Anonymous

    I fear another target for the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Anonymous

    There seems to be a number of couple of countries using those terms Smart power -soft power to describe their military capabilities lately. The US and the The People Republic of China.  Sec Def Gates and some very smart folks thought that future conflicts would resemble low-intensity type conflicts and has built our military towards dealing with them. (Smart Power) They may prove to be in error.
    China Launched their first Aircraft carrier this month and in the next two years will launch two more. There are rumblings that as many as three additional in the next decade are planned.  This is not a move toward “soft power”. Carriers are used to project power in distant places.
    China has been pushing its neighbors around quite a bit lately with incidents involving at least 6 countries. Transit & economic rights in the  South China Sea being the epicenter of potential conflict.
    The soft power approach we are building for may be our undoing as others are preparing for larger conflicts. Weakness invites conflict. Especially when it is known it took NATO months to put Khadffi in his hideyhole and he still lives to rant daily on his radio.

  • Anonymous

    There seems to be a number of couple of countries using those terms Smart power -soft power to describe their military capabilities lately. The US and the The People Republic of China.  Sec Def Gates and some very smart folks thought that future conflicts would resemble low-intensity type conflicts and has built our military towards dealing with them. (Smart Power) They may prove to be in error.
    China Launched their first Aircraft carrier this month and in the next two years will launch two more. There are rumblings that as many as three additional in the next decade are planned.  This is not a move toward “soft power”. Carriers are used to project power in distant places.
    China has been pushing its neighbors around quite a bit lately with incidents involving at least 6 countries. Transit & economic rights in the  South China Sea being the epicenter of potential conflict.
    The soft power approach we are building for may be our undoing as others are preparing for larger conflicts. Weakness invites conflict. Especially when it is known it took NATO months to put Khadffi in his hideyhole and he still lives to rant daily on his radio.

  • Anonymous

    There seems to be a number of couple of countries using those terms Smart power -soft power to describe their military capabilities lately. The US and the The People Republic of China.  Sec Def Gates and some very smart folks thought that future conflicts would resemble low-intensity type conflicts and has built our military towards dealing with them. (Smart Power) They may prove to be in error.
    China Launched their first Aircraft carrier this month and in the next two years will launch two more. There are rumblings that as many as three additional in the next decade are planned.  This is not a move toward “soft power”. Carriers are used to project power in distant places.
    China has been pushing its neighbors around quite a bit lately with incidents involving at least 6 countries. Transit & economic rights in the  South China Sea being the epicenter of potential conflict.
    The soft power approach we are building for may be our undoing as others are preparing for larger conflicts. Weakness invites conflict. Especially when it is known it took NATO months to put Khadffi in his hideyhole and he still lives to rant daily on his radio.

  • Anonymous

    There seems to be a number of couple of countries using those terms Smart power -soft power to describe their military capabilities lately. The US and the The People Republic of China.  Sec Def Gates and some very smart folks thought that future conflicts would resemble low-intensity type conflicts and has built our military towards dealing with them. (Smart Power) They may prove to be in error.
    China Launched their first Aircraft carrier this month and in the next two years will launch two more. There are rumblings that as many as three additional in the next decade are planned.  This is not a move toward “soft power”. Carriers are used to project power in distant places.
    China has been pushing its neighbors around quite a bit lately with incidents involving at least 6 countries. Transit & economic rights in the  South China Sea being the epicenter of potential conflict.
    The soft power approach we are building for may be our undoing as others are preparing for larger conflicts. Weakness invites conflict. Especially when it is known it took NATO months to put Khadffi in his hideyhole and he still lives to rant daily on his radio.

  • Anonymous

    do you understand the concept of investment? It’s putting money into something looking for larger return then what you put in. We took tons of everyone’s money and built a highway system and in turn, in made our country much wealthier. The government invests in (or backs) nuclear power, drilling etc.. knowing the return of energy produces more capital. We ‘invested’ money in Libya because of stability in the region and oil. Do you really think we would be there otherwise?
     
    Now who the investment benefits  is debatable. It seems like in the past 30 years our national investments have been made to benefit a few and not the majority. Your question is right: “what returns has the US received?”  There is a huge return on investment for some in the US, just ask the folks who profit off of defense, oil or building infrastructure.
     
    We would be a third world country without government investment in private enterprise. Railroads, highways, damns, food, energy and so on.  Look at any 3rd world country and see how much public investment is made then compare it to a modern country. Look at emerging markets like India and China and see how much government investment is going on. Government investment is not the problem, who it seeks to benefit is. The whole liberal/conservative spin you put on this really dumbs down the arguement. Neither side is concerned for you.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I understand investment, but I’m not sure you do.  Investment
    involves putting YOUR money at risk for the prospect of a profit/benefit.  I invest in the stock market.  I invest the purchase of a new car.  The government SPENDS my money (and yours too… if you are in the 50% that still pay income taxes). 

    No one is saying that the government shouldn’t spend money.  The problem
    with government spending is that it isn’t constrained like our
    investments are.  That’s how we got a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.  We
    have greedy, selfish, and dishonest politicians buying votes through the
    wasteful spending of OUR money.  

    And, btw, this is a liberal/conservative issue because it is the liberals that are responsible for most of the entitlements that brought us to this point.  It is an ultra-liberal President that proposed a budget that would have added TRILLIONS to the deficit in more entitlements and social spending.

  • Anonymous

    Every indication is that is true. There are Muslim Fundamentalist Militias that refuse to submit to and join the the new central Army. Many of Al-queda in Iraq came from those groups.

    “This is a case of an enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    At least until Gadaffi is dealt with. Then there are new enemies. Sometimes the folks you fought along side of just a few month before.

  • Anonymous

    i am aware that individuals invest. some of MY money is in the market just like YOURS. I tend to stay away from stocks though, i have done much better since I have. However, the government spends our money as an investment also. i am glad they do. we have a steady food supply, roads and bridges (although crumbling) and extremely cheap energy ( if you look at the unsubsadized price).

    You are confusing deficit and debt, we’re not running 14 trillion yearly deficits. The deficit is an easy problem to fix, spend what you take in. We just have a broken political system. Blaming the large debt on wastful spending is a half-truth though. The large debt is due to politicans giving us what we want without asking us to pay for it. Let’s not forget either that much of the debt we owe is to ourselves through public accounts and private investments.

    Yes the libreal party is responsible for entitlement spending. I’ll let you know why. It’s because we live in a democracy and that is what people wanted and still want. Look at any poll about cutting social security or medicare. You are in a small minority if you want to hit those programs. So here’s the situation. There are these expensive social programs that the overwhelming majority of people in this country want. The responsible thing to do is fund them. Cutting taxes to starve the programs (and borrowing from them) and then claiming they are unsustainable is kind of circumventing the democratic process (since a majority of people want them). It is also causing us to run huge deficits every year.

    So please, take off the political blinders. Blaming one party over the other on this is missing the bigger picture.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_66ZAIIT2G52RMJ2WGCIFREBVZ4 Joe

    Logic…..this one speaks. Hmmmmmmm? I like the no finger pointing.  The “Party is Over” I agree.  We must mend our ways or go the way of the Dodo?  You’re right, we did create this and quite frankly we need to fix this.

  • Anonymous

    If the United States only did good things to other countries why would anyone be our enemies? Romans 12:21 is “smart power”.

  • Anonymous

    The starving people of North Korea will have to do it on their own. Their regime can’t keep them in the dark forever. They have examples of better run governments all around them. In due time they will free themselves to the degree they can be comfortable with. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Show him how to fish and he will feed himself forever.

  • Anonymous

    The starving people of North Korea will have to do it on their own. Their regime can’t keep them in the dark forever. They have examples of better run governments all around them. In due time they will free themselves to the degree they can be comfortable with. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Show him how to fish and he will feed himself forever.

  • Anonymous

    My sincere thanks for pointing out my misuse of the word deficit.

    However, I can’t take off the political blinders because to so would obliterate any chance of resolving the problem.  Before we can solve a problem we need to identify its cause.  The cause of the debt (see how smart I am) is the massive expansion of government entitlements.  With the exception of Bush’s expansion of Medicare, the rest of them fall squarely on the shoulders of the liberals in Congress, and there are very few Republican liberals. 

    But here is the problem: WE CAN’T CONTINUE TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST.  Sorry to capitalize this, but it is so fundamental and so easily discernible that it amazes me that people still make the arguments you make.   There is no level of taxation that will cover the over $17,000,000,000,000 of debt we will rack up over the next few years, and most of that debt is due to entitlements. That doesn’t even count Obama’s new entitlement: socialized medicine.  Therefore, we can’t just “fund them.”  It can’t be done without printing funny money (like we are now doing) and causing staggering inflation, and sucking every drop of job creating capital out of the economy.   It doesn’t matter what the entitlement addicted people want.  I want a new Corvette, but I can’t afford one.  So I suffer.  It’s brutal, but it’s the truth.

  • Anonymous

    My sincere thanks for pointing out my misuse of the word deficit.

    However, I can’t take off the political blinders because to so would obliterate any chance of resolving the problem.  Before we can solve a problem we need to identify its cause.  The cause of the debt (see how smart I am) is the massive expansion of government entitlements.  With the exception of Bush’s expansion of Medicare, the rest of them fall squarely on the shoulders of the liberals in Congress, and there are very few Republican liberals. 

    But here is the problem: WE CAN’T CONTINUE TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST.  Sorry to capitalize this, but it is so fundamental and so easily discernible that it amazes me that people still make the arguments you make.   There is no level of taxation that will cover the over $17,000,000,000,000 of debt we will rack up over the next few years, and most of that debt is due to entitlements. That doesn’t even count Obama’s new entitlement: socialized medicine.  Therefore, we can’t just “fund them.”  It can’t be done without printing funny money (like we are now doing) and causing staggering inflation, and sucking every drop of job creating capital out of the economy.   It doesn’t matter what the entitlement addicted people want.  I want a new Corvette, but I can’t afford one.  So I suffer.  It’s brutal, but it’s the truth.

  • Anonymous

    My sincere thanks for pointing out my misuse of the word deficit.

    However, I can’t take off the political blinders because to so would obliterate any chance of resolving the problem.  Before we can solve a problem we need to identify its cause.  The cause of the debt (see how smart I am) is the massive expansion of government entitlements.  With the exception of Bush’s expansion of Medicare, the rest of them fall squarely on the shoulders of the liberals in Congress, and there are very few Republican liberals. 

    But here is the problem: WE CAN’T CONTINUE TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST.  Sorry to capitalize this, but it is so fundamental and so easily discernible that it amazes me that people still make the arguments you make.   There is no level of taxation that will cover the over $17,000,000,000,000 of debt we will rack up over the next few years, and most of that debt is due to entitlements. That doesn’t even count Obama’s new entitlement: socialized medicine.  Therefore, we can’t just “fund them.”  It can’t be done without printing funny money (like we are now doing) and causing staggering inflation, and sucking every drop of job creating capital out of the economy.   It doesn’t matter what the entitlement addicted people want.  I want a new Corvette, but I can’t afford one.  So I suffer.  It’s brutal, but it’s the truth.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business