The Libya Mistake and America’s “Half a Doctrine”

America’s debt crisis has led to an alarming decline, a decline that began in America’s role as a world economic haven, in its character as the one state that has the power to lead the rest of the world out of the financial crisis and the economic recession. This is the view of The New York Times, which also said that the “era of Obama” has cleared the way for an “era of austerity,” an era that will unquestionably lessen Washington’s international influence. Therefore, it seems to me that it’s difficult to separate the renewal of isolationism in America from the talk about how Washington doesn’t have the means to pressure the Syrian government without international support!

Several days ago, Human Rights Watch criticized Russia, China, South Africa, India and Brazil for blocking U.N. sanctions on Syria, saying the Syrian people are paying the price for the “endless” foreign intervention in Libya. The organization explained that these countries have said that they would not agree to further international action by the United Nations in the case of Libya. The problem, according to Human Rights Watch, is that this rejection permits the brutality to continue, and that the Syrian people are suffering the consequences for mistakes that were made in Libya.

The international action in Libya has yet to achieve results — poorly planned and with no end in sight, there is less satisfaction as time goes on. The serious weakness of the Libyan opposition forces, despite the generosity of its Arab and Western supporters, was the start to talks about the scorching Arab summer and the bitter winter increasingly taking the place of speech on the Arab Spring. The “Libya mistake” itself will lead to a long civil war between two factions and two capitals, Tripoli and Benghazi.

The talk about American isolationism and declining influence doesn’t mean that the U.S. is on the road to collapse. America remains stronger and more influential than any other country, and there’s no rising power that’s on the verge of taking its place. However, this does not mean that we can ignore the many indicators and repeated calls from within America itself to turn American priorities toward domestic issues. Richard Haass wrote one of these calls in Time magazine at the end of last month. His opinion is that the U.S. should take advantage of the absence of real competition with America and reallocate its resources to domestic priorities instead of foreign policy, in accordance with the “restoration” doctrine.

On a side note, the rise of conservatism in America (the Tea Party, for example) has not been a temporary event, and writer Thomas Friedman’s question about whether the U.S. was fleeing a world it created is misplaced. Hesitation and delay are signs appearing with more vehemence in American politics today while pragmatism, which has long worked to combine principles, values and interests, is now retreating from the front lines. The retreat of pragmatism has left something new, which conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer, of the Washington Post names “The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind,” and writer, David Sanger, of the New York Times calls a “half a doctrine.” In this they mean that principles and values are only followed in certain circumstances and there is no effort to protect them due to the existence of exceptions, special circumstances and numerous other considerations. All this has made the talk about “half a doctrine” an expression about a high level of international opportunism.