America in the age of globalization

America in the age of globalization

President Obama’s approach to world affairs

Obama, during his tenure as the president, was very skeptical about the use of military interventions in world affairs than his predecessor. Critics thought that America was in retreat during this time of Obama. His approach to world affairs was more internationalism than interventionism and thus embraced more excellent partnerships and diplomacy. Obama was aware that interventionism could erode internationalism as it was evidence in the Iraq case, which damaged the American reputation.

Moreover, President Obama’s administration supported internationalist convictions, which drove the American foreign policy during his tenure. His take to this was unique from the rest as he insisted on the rule of law, open trade, human rights, and commitment to democratic governance. Obama’s abstinence from intervening is one scenario that describes his involvement towards internationalism, Ikenberry (2014). He argued that constant engagement in endless military interventions is not the parameters to measure American strength. The situation in America, when Obama became the president, reinforced him to remain focused on his goal of internationalism, increasing budget deficit, costly war, and economic meltdown. In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, President Obama argued that America has both honest and deliberate concern in-toeing itself to global systems of rules and institutions. He insisted on leading as an example on the path that they wanted other nations to follow Shively, J. (2016). He quoted President Kennedy’s line which called for an attainable peace that does not depend on sudden revolution but gradual revolution in human institutions

Success and failures of President Obama’s decisions on Libya, Syria and the use of drones

Success in Libya

The fall of Muammar al- Qaddafi of Libya was on the significant progress of Obama’s foreign policy for the United States. Obama set all the strategies but left others to take the burden of implementing the plan, thus achieving the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. All these operations were at a little cost and no United States military troops on the ground. More importantly, there were no United States casualties in the whole process. Libya being the first straight forward military enforcement to protect the norm, Qaddafi’s death opened a window for humanitarian interventions in Libya. The timing was perfect, as all stakeholders were still reeling with the threats caused by the Qaddafi regime. Libya was declared a no-fly zone by the United Nations and supported any means necessary to stop mass killings. Libya is a small country with a small population of about 6.5million people. The small size made the logistics of military intervention easy, cheaper, and safer as opposed to other countries like Somalia and Sudan, which are vast and have difficult terrains.

When it came to the issue of Libya, the Obamas administration studied all their options thoroughly and came up with a strategy that was the best for success in Libya. The lives of pro-democracy protesters who were targets of the dictator’s crackdown were saved, and blood bath prevented in the rebel cities. Qaddafi was shot by the rebel military, and thus this motivated them to take power and start a democratic mode of governance they wanted.

Failures in Libya

The efforts of the United States intervention in Libya have, however, turned to be a failure. Judging by the aftermath, Obama failed to plan for a peaceful way for the Libyans to evolve to democracy, and therefore the country has devolved into violence state. Critics argue that Libya could have been better without the intervention compared to what it is today. The responses led to a civil war, which is more tied to the failure of the international community after the intervention to usher Libya into democracy peacefully. Instead, the international community left immediately from the young country that could not even stand on its own instead of embarking on making an administrative structure that would help the country to rise after the many years of dictatorship. Most Libyans had not had a taste of democracy before, and therefore it was ironical that the United States expected them to structure a democratic government on their own.

Success in Syria

In 2011, pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in Syria against the Assad regime. These demonstrations escalated, and demonstrators called to overthrow Assad. President Obama called for Assad to step down for the sake of Syria people and consequently issued sanctions on the regime in 2011. Obama also warned Assad against using chemical weapons against the protestors and termed this as “Redline” as in would make the united states intervene RuGH, W. (2013) militarily. In 2014 the United States and Russia formed an ally aimed at removing all the chemical weapons from Syria without any battle. By June 2014, the chemical weapons were successfully removed 100%. Obama’s administration also approved plans to arm the Syrians rebels to fight the Islamic state in the region.

Failures in Syria

Obama insisted that Syria was not of any strategic importance and therefore failed to take any military interventions toward the civil war in Syria. Although the United States was unable to offer military interventions, Obama is viewed to have played a significant role in the escalation of the civil war in Syria. First is when he told Assad to resign back in 2012, and this motivated the demonstrators to move on with their course. Secondly is the 2014 removal of the chemical weapons from Syria and lastly providing arms to the rebels. Byman. D. (2015) explains that this led to a more heated war and even gave birth to the ISIL Islamic group, which is a terror group operating in the Middle East.

The united states could not be struggling with the flux of refugees today if it intervened at the right time.

Although Obama did not create the Islamic state, by turning a blind eye on them, he gave them time to gain strength. This terror group continues to strike in the United States and other parts of the world.

Success in the use of drones

Drones seemed to be President Obama’s weapons of choice as he used the 400 times in 4 years. Drones have worked very well, especially in eliminating key leaders in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan, where they have devastated the al-Qaida and other associated militia groups. The drones have also done this with no risk to the United States personnel, few civilian casualties, and little cost than any other alternative method could cost. Although using drones may violate the sovereignty of the state, the degree is less compared to using other massive air attacks or even having troops on the ground.

In many cases where target elimination is needed, it is too risky to send forces, and therefore drones are safer. Drones also remove the issue where sympathetic officials tipped the enemies every time Special Forces were sent to hunt down terrorists, Gross, O. (2015). Such cases have led to the death of soldiers, civilians, and suspects. Drones have jeopardized extremists’ ability to recruit and train fresh members. Terrorist communication is also hampered, mainly using electronic devices, and terrorists tend to avoid gathering in large numbers as this will attract drones. A note found in Mali advised militants to avoid meeting in open places or using electronic communication. The confusion acts as motivation as a significant achievement because leaders cannot give orders without a good flow of information. Drones have, therefore, revolutionized counterterrorism as they offer relatively low a risky way of targeting militants with minimal collateral damage.

Failures of drones

Drones have, however,  killed thousands of innocent civilians and suspects who could be arrested instead. It is also feared that the government might abuse the drones and use them in home front or foreign friends. The use of drones may also have devastating effects, especially when in the hands of brutal regimes. Sterio, M. (2012)  explains that drones infringe on human rights and their fundamental freedom. Critics argue that a less lethal approach should be adopted and more focus put on curbing the factors that contribute to terrorism such as poverty, authoritarianism, and unemployment.

Impact on America’s global leadership

In my view, President Obama’s decisions made America a better global leader in many ways. He termed terrorism as among the numerous international hitches that called for collaboration of all the nations to fight. Consequently, President Obama invested more on diplomatic policies rather than military intervention and force. He thought that the United States that paid more attention to other countries emphasized on mutual interest, and preferred multinational achievement would gain followers all over the globe. It is important to note that in such a time when power is much disseminated, most countries do not seek for a course. Instead, the aptitude of policy architects to identify and adapt to the dynamic setting in which the united states continues to be the most noteworthy military, diplomatic, and economic giant. Owing to Obama’s administration, America is now known as the mighty country that will stop at nothing to stop terrorists. Its dedication to helping other countries faced with such problems to rise from the ashes and stand again is also incredible.

References

Ikenberry, G. J. (2014). Obama’s pragmatic internationalism.The American Interest, 9(5), 1-9

Shively, J. (2016). Practical Internationalism. In Hope, Change, Pragmatism (pp. 101-118). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Lynch, M. (2015). Obama and the Middle East. Foreign Aff., 94, 18.

Nünlist, C. (2016). The Legacy of Obama’s Foreign Policy. CSS Analyses in Security Policy, 188.

Sterio, M. (2012). The United States’ use of drones in the War on Terror: the (il) legality of targeted killings under international law. Case W. Res. J. Int’l L., 45, 197.

RuGH, W. A. (2013). Obama’s Policy Towards Syria. Fletcher F. World Aff., 37, 147.

Nahlawi, Y. (2016). The Responsibility to Protect and Obama’s Red Line on Syria. Global Responsibility to Protect, 8(1), 76-101.

Gross, O. (2015). The new way of war: is there a duty to use drones. Fla. L., Rev., 67, 1.