In his address last week about the current conflict with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, President Obama presented his four-point plan to defeat it using airstrikes, relying on Arab nations for ground support, cutting the Islamic State off from its resources, and giving humanitarian aid to refugees. He made no attempt, however, to explain what will happen after we “degrade and ultimately destroy” it. How he plans to keep the Syria and Iraq from descending into chaos again remains a mystery even now.
While Obama’s actual address was dismal, I reveled in the ample criticisms of his four-point plan the next morning. An article titled “Obama and the Never-Ending War” explained why Obama’s strategy is not practical nor strong enough to defeat the Islamic State. The article concluded that if the U.S. is going to get involved, then it should do it right. There were plenty of columnists advocating more action, but lacking were libertarian arguments that went beyond the usual calls for immediate withdrawal and non-intervention in the future.
Libertarians are very vocal in their criticisms of Obama and even of former President Bush. They are relatively silent, however, in offering practical solutions for the best way to untangle ourselves from our involvement in the Middle East without making the situation worse than before. Finding a libertarian columnist who opposes foreign intervention? Easy. Finding a libertarian columnist who attempts to outline a prudent way to pull out of all of our foreign engagements? Not so easy.
Overall, libertarians tend to be so fixated on non-intervention that they would rather withdraw without considering the possible fallout if we just up and left. The conflict in Iraq and Syria becomes problematic for them when they do not take into account its full realities, the degree to which we are already involved, or the context of the rise of the Islamic State.
The current crisis, for example, has largely been the result of an imprudent departure from Iraq. Obama, intent on being the one to clean up Bush’s mess, and libertarians, wanting no foreign intervention whatsoever, both were calling for the withdrawal of American troops without considering the potential consequences. By not facing the reality that Iraq was not ready for U.S. withdrawal in 2011, we are right back there again only three years later.
After a decade in Iraq and an even longer conflict in Afghanistan, most Americans were ready to put an end to these wars. The hastiness of our withdrawal from Iraq without recognizing what was brewing under the surface of former Prime Minister Maliki’s unpopular government made the current conflict with the Islamic State almost inevitable. The combination of extreme ethnic tensions and a weak central government spelled trouble from the moment our troops left.
Now America is trying picking up the pieces and Obama is trying to do so while keeping our hands as clean as possible. The reasons why his strategy will likely prove ineffective and the commentaries on his strategy are numerous. Libertarians, however, are not engaging in debate over strategy, which is what is needed most in order to stabilize the region enough to avoid another conflict like this.
The libertarian approach is also self-destructive because its adherents’ refusal to compromise on some means makes them largely irrelevant in political discussions. They marginalize themselves when they are unwilling to contribute to the discussion at hand or engage in deliberation about the best policy option given the circumstances. At the end of the day, the U.S. is already committed to action in Iraq and Syria, and libertarian naysaying is not going to change that. There is still the chance, however, to change the outcome with the correct strategy.
Indeed, it would be difficult to find a strong proponent of Obama’s plan outside his administration. His strategy depends too heavily on a coalition in which each nation’s role is vaguely defined, if at all. Not to mention the difficulty of making the coalition function properly despite the ethnic, religious, and political tensions between the Arab nations. Then there are the unaddressed problems with Iraq’s domestic politics and the potential danger of U.S. arming Syrian rebels.
But what libertarians need to realize is that the question is not whether or not we get involved; now, the question is what strategy will defeat the Islamic State. The major holes in Obama’s strategy are not going to mend themselves. Until libertarians confront current circumstances, start engaging in the debate at hand and providing solutions, they will remain on the political sidelines with their hopes of liberty and non-intervention on the bench.