| Click for the Finfacts Ireland Portal Homepage |

Finfacts Business News Centre

 Irish Economy
 EU Economy
 US Economy
 UK Economy
 Global Economy
 Asia Economy


How to use our RSS feed

Follow Finfacts on Twitter

Web Finfacts

See Search Box lower down this column for searches of Finfacts news pages. Where there may be the odd special character missing from an older page, it's a problem that developed when Interactive Tools upgraded to a new content management system.


Finfacts is Ireland's leading business information site and you are in its business news section.


Finfacts Homepage

Irish Share Prices

Euribor Daily Rates

Irish Economy

Global Income Per Capita

Global Cost of Living

Irish Tax - Income/Corporate

Global News

Bloomberg News

CNN Money

Cnet Tech News


Irish Independent

Irish Times

Irish Examiner

New York Times

Financial Times

Technology News




Content Management by interactivetools.com.

Analysis/Comment Last Updated: Mar 30, 2011 - 6:23 AM

Dr. Peter Morici: The Obama Doctrine is not good foreign policy
By Professor Peter Morici
Mar 30, 2011 - 1:16 AM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page
President Barack Obama, with moderator Jorge Ramos, left, addresses a town hall meeting hosted by Hispanic network Univision at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington, DC, March 28. 2011. Ramos is a news anchor at Univision.

Dr. Peter Morici: After missteps addressing Congressional concerns, President Obama has articulated clearly the goals, means and duration of the US military action in Libya. Critics may say he did not address those issues, but he did and the answers are not acceptable.

The President’s speech at the War College articulated the Obama Doctrine on the use of US military force when America’s humanitarian interests may be at stake but an imminent threat to US security is not present.

The President made clear the United States reserves the right to unilaterally use military force to address direct threats to “our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests.” Something less direct, but equally important to the President is at stake in Libya; but the United States is constrained, under the Obama Doctrine, to act in concert with other nations, on a more limited basis, to achieve key objectives.

Prior to allied air strikes, troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi were quite close to crushing the popular uprising in Libya and massacring the opposition. By any reasonable reading of international human rights law, Gadhafi is culpable for human rights crimes on a grand scale, but why is it an American responsibility to respond?

Prior to World War I, international law was quite clear that sovereigns were free to do whatever they chose to their citizens to maintain order and control, as long as their actions did not affect conditions in neighboring states. Gradually, in the first half of the Twentieth Century, this principle came down. This began after World War I with the creation of institutions like the International Labor Organization, whose core principles compel member states to guarantee freedom of association and by implication guarantee free speech.

The Holocaust and Nuremberg Trials ended the notion that national governments are compelled by international law to turn a blind’s eye when other national governments inflict atrocities. Over the last seven decades, governments of all stripes have articulated an elaborate web of international human rights law with limited remedies. The latter includes international courts and extraterritorial jurisdiction for domestic courts to bring to justice deposed leaders who commit crimes against humanity.

However, the pressing question is when do governments have a right and responsibility to intervene militarily against the actions of other governments that violate international human rights law, as is the case with Gadhafi?

Neither the United States nor an assembly of allies with comparable resources can be expected to police the world. More importantly, no national leader or legislature, under emerging international law has the wisdom or right to assume that authority.

In President Obama’s mind, that wisdom and divine responsibility are logged in the UN Security Council and the collective mind of the Atlantic Alliance supplemented by consent from neighboring governments in the region of the atrocity. In his speech, the President referenced the consent and resources of both NATO and several Arab states.

In the mind of President Obama, the United States does not have the moral or legal authority to lead—even as it provides the bulk and most essential military resources. The command structure must be within NATO; however, running a military action by international committee hardly fosters quick decision making and is hardly the best formula for success.

Why, with a GDP and population larger than the United States, the EU cannot carry the heaviest load is a question a succession of presidents have not been willing to press. Under the Obama Doctrine, the Europeans get to command US troops and spend US money to accomplish goals more central to their collective security—look at the map, Libya is a lot closer to France than Maine.

The President, recognizing the limits of intervention, has divided the task into two goals—avoiding massacre and permitting the popular uprising the opportunity to prevail—and removing Gadhafi—apparently because international authority in the form of UN resolutions only permits the former. To depose the tyrant and end atrocities, the United States and its allies must rely on an arms embargo, freezing Libya’s foreign assets and similar economic measures—those are methods with questionable records of success.

Hence, our commitment in Libya is open ended—we stay as long as the threat of massacre is present and the allies want American troops—and getting rid of Gadhafi—a worthy and stated American goal—must rely on other, less effective means. Without a permission slip from the UN, even covert actions to destabilize Gadhafi, though more palatable than air attacks, are illegal.

Should the conflict end in stalemate, the United States will be stuck, as it was enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, indefinitely enforcing another no fly zone over Libya.

It appears under the Obama Doctrine the United States is committed to putting troops in harm’s way and bearing the heaviest financial costs as long as the coalition of NATO and selected Arab states want US troops. And the very nature of running a war by committee reduces the likelihood of success and extends the likely duration of the US commitment and exacerbates the risks to US troops.

Simply, by compelling an open ended commitment under international control and limited tools to resolve the conflict, the Obama Doctrine and the Libyan campaign are not good foreign policy.

A frank talk on Libya with Giorgio Napolitano, President of Italy:

Peter Morici,

Professor, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,

College Park, MD 20742-1815,

703 549 4338 Phone

703 618 4338 Cell Phone




Related Articles
Related Articles

© Copyright 2011 by Finfacts.com

Top of Page

Latest Headlines
Disastrous 44-year War on Drugs and ignoring the evidence
HSBC & Tax Evasion: France/ Belgium issued criminal charges; UK/ Ireland nothing
Analysis: Germany world's top surplus economy; UK tops deficit ranks
Facts do not always change minds - can even entrench misinformed
Finfacts changes from 2015
Facts of 2014: Guinness not Irish; 110 people own 35% of Russia's wealth
In defence of dissent and Ireland's nattering nabobs of negativism
Dreams of European Growth: France and Italy facing pre-euro economic problems
Globalization's new normal needs permanent underclass - Part 1
MH17 and Gaza: who is responsible?
Israel vs Palestine: Colonization set for major expansion
Aviva Ireland's 'fund' runs dry and life cover to die for
We wish Martin Shanahan - new IDA Ireland chief - well but...
Ireland as an Organised Hypocrisy is in lots of company
Dr Peter Morici: Friday’s US jobs report won’t alter Fed plans to raise interest rates
Own Goal: Could FIFA have picked worse World Cup hosts?
Ireland: Spin and spending will not save bewildered Coalition
Irish Government parties set for 2-year vote buying spending spree
European Parliament: Vote No. 1 for Diarmuid O'Flynn in Ireland South
Dr Peter Morici: US April jobs report may show 215,000 added in April
Dr Peter Morici: Hardly time to call Obamacare a success
Celtic Tiger RIP: Change in conservative Ireland six years after crash
Dr Peter Morici: Five things to know about the Fed’s obsession with inflation
In age of acronym/ Google, Trinity to rebrand as 'Trinity College, the University of Dublin’
Hoeness case part of ‘painful’ change for Swiss bankers
Dr Peter Morici: The Cold War was only on vacation
Dr Peter Morici: US economy drags on Obama's approval ratings; Don’t look for changes in Washington
Dr Peter Morici: Bitcoin debacle shatters the myth of virtual money
Dr Peter Morici: US Tax Reform: Eliminate the income tax and IRS altogether
Wealth threatens the simple life in Gstaad, Switzerland
Irish journalists get cash payouts over 'homophobic' defamation claim
Irish academics get lavish pension top-ups as private pensions struggle
Dr Peter Morici: Inequality is President Obama’s highest priority, but solutions are naive
The Finfacts Troika: Better times ahead and a hangover to forget?
Dr Peter Morici: Volcker Rule arrives with the hidden jewel in Dodd-Frank financial reforms
Ireland's toothless fiscal watchdog threatens to bark
Analysis: Germany's current account surplus - - Part 2
The end of western affluence?
Bono's hypocrisy on Africa, corporate tax avoidance in Ireland
France like Ireland is run for the benefit of the old