Regarding when America should intervene in foreign conflicts, Obama and Clinton both propose rather general doctrines. I’ll start with Obama.
Obama states that America has been an anchor of global security and an advocate for human freedom for generations. He says that we should be (or have been) reluctant to use force to solve challenges, but that we have a responsibility to act when our interests or values are at stake. He names several principles that represent America’s values: opposition to violence directed at one’s own people, support for universal rights, including freedom of expression and self-selection of leaders, and support for governments responsive to their people. These principles don’t exactly comprise a doctrine, but they give an idea of the types of violations that Obama might think merit intervention.
Obama also states that “wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.” This isn’t exactly an endorsement of the Bush doctrine, but it’s not terribly far off. Obama isn’t saying it’s America’s job to spread democracy to the world, but he is expressing support for those striving for democracy within their own countries. That’s a step back, but it’s the same sentiment.
On a conciliatory note, Obama reassures the American people that the country’s domestic well-being is the top priority, but says that we have and will continue to protect people around the globe because it increases our future safety.
In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, I can infer some, but Obama was carefully general. Necessary conditions would probably be something like this:
• American interests of some form at stake – though this could be anything, including the protection of human life
• Important freedoms being suppressed
• People not powerful enough to defend themselves
Obama obviously doesn’t give a sufficient condition. This would be far too much of a commitment – if x happens, America WILL intervene. Leaders thrive on wiggle room, and especially in this area, giving people a specific threshold to either avoid or purposefully cross would be very unwise.
President Obama would probably describe America’s ideal role as advocate for human freedom and protector of human life. America should intervene in conflicts where it can do a great deal of good in these areas without prohibitive cost, as part of an international effort. The role is justifiable morally and politically, though the American public can be very fickle regarding foreign intervention. From a purely economic standpoint, intervention may be profitable if major financial interests are at stake, but the fundamental causes for intervention (loss of life/suppression of freedoms) hold little economic sway.
Clinton proposes a similarly vague, but more limited doctrine. He says that we intervened in Kosovo to uphold our values (undefined here), protect our interests, and advance the cause of peace. He is also frank about the fact that we intervened to save face for NATO and avoid a guilty conscience. If a massacre took place near NATO borders, it would discredit NATO, and they’d feel responsible. So, there was a certain amount of stick motivation.
Clinton states that he was acting somewhat preemptively, to “deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests.” He also says that we have an obligation to our allies to “stand with [them] when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom, and stability in Europe.” Further, Clinton points to the importance of European security, stability, and prosperity to our own. A couple world wars seem to indicate that he’s right about this.
Again, not much material to extrapolate necessary or sufficient conditions, but they’d be similar to Obama’s.
• Our values are somehow being offended
• Our interests are somehow at stake
• The abstract concept of peace is in jeopardy
Our role in the world should be an advocate for peace and stability according to Clinton. This is a more selfish role than the one proposed by Obama, limiting our interventions to issues that potentially threaten us directly, rather than leaving the door to intervention open to issues of freedom and suppression of rights, any sort of violence by a government against its people. Clinton’s ideal tends more towards the isolationist side, with concessions that sometimes it’s necessary to intervene in order to avoid a later, greater conflict.
This role is less justifiable morally, but more so politically and economically.
For the United States to involve itself in one or a few of the struggles mentioned in the prompt while not intervening in others does seem a bit hypocritical, but realistically, the US can’t intervene in every conflict, so intervening in some is better than none, if you view intervention as positive overall. The US can’t be everywhere, so delegation is not just permissible, it’s necessary. If we were involved in all of them, we’d eventually become spread too thin, like butter over too much toast, and collapse right back into isolationism as the public grew tired of the strain.
