Is the US Still the Global Leader??

Photo: Scott Nelson/NYT via WcP Watchful.Eye's blog

As people are slaughtered and tortured by Gaddhafi's troops re-taking rebel held areas, the international community dithers. Is it any wonder that neither the UN nor NATO have been able to reach a consensus on action to help the Libyans fighting for their freedom? The United States seems to have forgotten its (self-delegated) role as leader of the free world.

The Bush Administration had no fear as it charged ahead with the invasion of Iraq, despite international misgivings. Now, as Libyans beg for international assistance, the United States seems willing to engage only if others take the lead. As Thomas Ricks says in his Foreign Policy blog, "the American position is that it will support NATO action if one of those three entities [Arab League, African Union, UN] agrees to take the lead."

The US has used up its international political capital in the misguided Iraq war. Now, it must be wary of "regional sensitivities" as it considers Libyan intervention. How sad it is that when US global leadership is needed, we are incapable of rising to the occasion. Constrained by our past actions and reputation, we no longer should call ourselves the beacon of freedom if we cannot assist the forces of freedom when it matters.

Mullen: Give ‘Soft Power’ a Chance

Mullen: Give ‘Soft Power’ a Chance:

Danger Room Blog Reports:

"The top U.S. general in Afghanistan has placed heavy restrictions on the use of force, limiting air strikes and artillery support. In a major speech March 3, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen had a message: This is the new American way of war, so get used to it.

But Mullen was also making a larger argument about the outsize role of the U.S. military in foreign policy. He seemed to be suggesting that the military shouldn’t continue to do the heavy lifting around the globe unless the diplomats and the development experts are willing to step up to the tasks of nation-building and stability ops.

“Secretaries Clinton and Gates [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] have called for more funding and more emphasis on our soft power, and I could not agree with them more,” he said. “Should we choose to exert American influence solely through our troops, we should expect to see that influence diminish in time. In fact, I would argue that in the future struggles of the asymmetric counterinsurgent variety, we ought to make it a precondition of committing our troops, that we will do so only if and when the other instruments of national power are ready to engage as well.”

It’s a remarkable speech, and worth reading in full. But reduced to a bullet point, Mullen’s seems to be arguing that avoiding wars is as important as winning them."

Could it be the beginning of a new era of cooperation between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom? One that does not, unlike during the Bush era, require the military to dominate all aspects of foreign policy, including the traditional State Department domains of development and nation-building?

[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]