In the aftermath of the Libya operation, my Naval War College colleague Tom Nichols concluded bluntly, "Humanitarian interventions are here to stay and are going to be driven more by moral calculation and military opportunity than by 'national interest.'" This, it seems, is the new American foreign policy consensus; despite the costly U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the anti-interventionist coalition has lost the policy debate.
The current fiscal crisis may trim back the scale and scope of future interventions, but will not eliminate them altogether from the U.S. policy toolbox. Even with its fiscal constraints, the United States will continue to retain an absolute preponderance of the world's economic and military power for the foreseeable future. And if Libya provides a model for "intervention on the cheap," we are likely to see this template emulated in other situations. Candidates on the campaign trail will continue to make promises about a humbler, less interventionist foreign policy. But the reality, as Dan Drezner recently pointed out, is that candidates' "pronouncements about future foreign policy don't seem to matter" once a president actually takes office. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- World Citizen: Netanyahu’s Speech Divides Washington—and Israel
- The Realist Prism: U.S.-Iran Deal a Gamble for Everyone, Including Netanyahu
- Turkey Security Bill Latest Fault Line Between Erdogan and Opponents
- Diplomatic Fallout: At U.N., Russia Is Now the Indispensable Nation
- Playing Many Sides, Sudan’s Bashir Tries Again to End His Isolation