I would like to highlight Walter Russell Mead’s recent piece on America’s war in Libya, ‘The Shores of Tripoli: Our Latest Wilsonian War‘. As usual, Mead’s take is thoughtful, fair, historically grounded, and brings to light aspects of the situation that I at least haven’t thought of before. Here’s an excerpt:

We will, I very much hope, be lucky enough to come out of this Wilsonian war in Libya with a decent result.  What follows, though, will not be a Wilsonian peace.  The Libyan adventure is a lot of things: a noble effort to protect innocent civilians from horrifying goons, an experiment in a new kind of indirect American leadership, a last desperate throw of the dice by a hyperactive French president whose people increasingly loathe him, an attempt by flustered Arab establishmentarians to get on the right side of popular fury, a demonstration of Britain’s enduring if tortured moralism, a slugging match in the sand, and a nailbiting distraction for a White House that has repeatedly failed to convince voters that it is ‘focused like a laser’ on the economy and has much more to lose if this goes bad than it has to win if things work.

But there is one thing it won’t be, even if it “works”: the start of a new age of multilateral cooperation under the rule of law.  The UN-blessed response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait failed to start the new age of peace, collective security and law; similarly the liberation of Libya is a fluke not a trend.

Mead also clearly layouts the realpolitik aspects behind the individual decisions made by Russia, China, and France to lead, abstain, or reject an activist policy in North Africa. In other words, this war is not a Wilsonian one for those guys. Here is Mead’s conclusion:

We will, I very much hope, be lucky enough to come out of this Wilsonian war in Libya with a decent result.  What follows, though, will not be a Wilsonian peace.  The Libyan adventure is a lot of things: a noble effort to protect innocent civilians from horrifying goons, an experiment in a new kind of indirect American leadership, a last desperate throw of the dice by a hyperactive French president whose people increasingly loathe him, an attempt by flustered Arab establishmentarians to get on the right side of popular fury, a demonstration of Britain’s enduring if tortured moralism, a slugging match in the sand, and a nailbiting distraction for a White House that has repeatedly failed to convince voters that it is ‘focused like a laser’ on the economy and has much more to lose if this goes bad than it has to win if things work.

But there is one thing it won’t be, even if it “works”: the start of a new age of multilateral cooperation under the rule of law.  The UN-blessed response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait failed to start the new age of peace, collective security and law; similarly the liberation of Libya is a fluke not a trend.

We have had Wilsonian wars before and I have no doubt we will have them again.  You can, sometimes, wage Wilsonian war.  What you cannot do, at least not yet and probably never, is build a Wilsonian peace.

Woodrow Wilson discovered this almost a century ago.  He could fight a “war to end war” and make the world safe for democracy; but a fatal combination of American political resistance at home and the cold calculations of national self interest by leaders abroad thwarted his attempt at Versailles to create a new global order on Wilsonian lines.

Like Wilson, President Obama is going to find it easier to fight for humanitarian ideals than to make them prevail.

Thoughts? Critiques?

For our third and final Question Time concerning the Libyan war, we turn our attention to the views of a so-called ‘Average Joe’. Our ‘Joe’ is no foreign policy expert or political junkie, but has been keeping an eye on the Middle East upheaval and the situation in Libya. His perspective on the issue should be enlightening as he likely represents many other ‘average’ Americans who are watching these events unfold on their television and computer screens. With the United States militarily attacking Qaddafi’s forces in Libya and many in this country questioning exactly why we are intervening (Rasmussen has only 45% supporting US military action) in the civil conflict, the views, aka support or lack there of, of average Americans will be integral in how the Obama administration proceeds. Enjoy.

1. Why do you think the Obama administration made the decision to join France and the UK to institute a no-fly zone and bomb Qaddafi’s forces in Libya? Do you support the decision? Why or why not?

Average Joe: I think that Obama finally decided to support France and UK because he didn’t have any alternative at this point, and was forced to make a decision finally.  It would be a major disgrace to not support our allies. Yes I support the decision, even tough I don’t think Obama has a real vision or strategy.  I think Libya is an example of a country whose leader will stop at nothing to restore order, and will slaughter anything that stands in the way.  Libya is also a real opportunity to keep the momentum going with regards to rebellion in other oppressive nations ( Syria, Bahrain, Iran etc). Also it’s important to be a nation that supports freedom throughout the world.

2. In Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia there are citizens voicing their opposition to the ruling class and leader(s) and refusing to let the status quo remain. What do you think of these recent uprisings throughout the Arab world? What will they lead to? How do you think they will affect the United States?

Average Joe: I think they are all corrupt nations and I’m glad to see the people starting to rise up against these monarchies and unjust societies.  I think this is only natural as we have seen this in Europe and our own history. It needs to happen. I’m not sure what it will lead to, just as America’s future was unclear in the beginning.

I’m optimistic though, most of the protesting and revolutions have had economic factors as a driving force – no jobs and no opportunity for the masses. I don’t think that any new oppressive or Islamist fanatical regimes could take over and provide the type of economic freedom necessary to satisfy these needs.  I also wouldn’t discount the importance of people remaining “connected” to the Internet and outside world. Something that was so important during the revolutions.  Basically, I don’t see these nations trading one dictator for another.  Once freedoms are established, it’s much harder to take them away.

However if Islamic extremists do take power via democratic elections, so be it.  At least then we will have clarity on where things stand in that part of the world.

Any other ‘Average Joe’s’ out there that would like to comment?

I have often argued on this blog that the United States needs to take their enemies seriously, know who they are, and what they stand for. This is why I get so frustrated when the Obama administration has gone out of the way to not use the words ‘terrorism’, ‘Islamism’, and now, even ‘war’. It should also be noted that just as important as knowing your enemies is to know who your friends or allies are, both in times of peace and war. Who are the US allies in our current war in Libya?

From the outside, though the coalition is smaller than any major multilateral American operation since the end of the Cold War, it includes strong US allies like the UK, France, and now NATO as a whole, and also the Arab League (for the moment at least) and three other Arab states. But when one looks at America’s allies inside of Libya, some questions arise. During the drum up to war, I remember hearing a story that the areas where the Libyan rebels were based in the east of the country was also were a majority of foreign combatants fighting in the Iraq war originated from. So I did some searching and found these two charts from Time magazine:

Time got this data from West Point and it only covers August 2006-August 2007, a period of great violence in Iraq. As can be seen, on a per-capita basis, Libya was the mother of a large percentage of foreign fighters coming to attack American and Iraqi government forces. The next chart….

breaks down the exact location in Libya where the foreign fighters originated from. Yes, that’s right. Benghazi and and Darnah are both home to the rebel movement currently battling Qaddafi and receiving US/Allied support. It has also been reported that a rebel leader, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, fought against the US and NATO in Afghanistan.

Now this isn’t in itself a reason not to help these insurgents or to topple Qaddafi’s regime. Libya’s rebels also have a government in waiting that has strong French support and we should not judge a whole region or people for the actions of a small minority. This is just something that should be duly noted as we go forward in this still murky war effort. After all, what do we do if the rebels win?

This time FMFP finds himself under the hot lights of questions written by yours truly. Let’s see how he does…

1. Why do you think the Obama administration chose to attack Libya? Why Libya? Why now? How would you say the decision making process and final choice to start an intervention in Libya’s civil war reflects an Obama Doctrine?

FMFP: I will start with your last question. An Obama Doctrine at this point can be traced to a document written in 2008 by some of President Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers called, “Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy.” Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal recently captured the meat of the strategy in a recent article:

“Their blueprint…counsels constant multilateral cooperation, institution-building and consultation. While it admits U.S. preeminence, it is largely a meditation on the limits of American power and authority (my italics). This is the document’s final, summarizing sentence: ‘And such [U.S.] leadership recognizes that in a world in which power has diffused, our interests are best protected and advanced when others step up and at times lead alongside or even ahead of us.’”

As to why Libya and why now, I can only guess. Perhaps because the pressure to do something became so great and after weeks of indecision and paralysis by America, the French and British finally decided they would take the lead. Only then was it safe for the Obama Administration to act without feeling beholden to the imperialist claims that so many of the Left’s base feel naturally inclined to lodge every time American action is taken abroad.

2. When you hear the words ‘Commander and Chief’, what comes to your mind? In this vein, how does President Obama’s performance in the role, specifically in regards to Libya, but also more generally, compare to your vision?

FMFP: Commander-in-Chief is the leader of the country’s armed forces and tasked with protecting the American people against threats, foreign and domestic. This position comes with unbelievably tough decisions and responsibility. It requires leadership, instinct, skill in foreign diplomacy and ultimately, an unflinching desire to protect American citizens at all cost. Needless to say when I think of President Obama, the first thing that pops in to my head is Hillary Clinton’s famous “3AM White House Phone Ringing” Ad:

These travails are certainly no easy matter to decide but that’s what being a leader is all about and for the biggest foreign policy events of Obama’s presidency he has been silent, indecisive and weak. The next candidate for president should run that ad again and show Obama golfing, writing op-eds about gun safety and filling out his NCAA bracket while the world’s on fire. Sadly, in reference to question 1, this is probably the role Obama envisions the US playing as long as he’s president – keeping his head down as President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron make the tough decisions.

Tomorrow, Average Joe takes the GPP stage to offer us how might a ‘normal’ American citizen view US involvement in Libya and the Middle East turmoil.

The next three days GPP will feature a Q & A covering the ongoing war in Libya. Today will feature questions by FMFP to myself, representing a so-called foreign affairs expert. I am no master of Libyan politics and society, but I will do my best to provide a thoughtful analysis of the war from an American perspective while answering FMFP’s questions.

1. Americans have proven quite resistant to military action based on humanitarian concerns. Whether it’s going after the country that was primarily responsible for 9/11 (Afghanistan), a merciless dictator feeding instability and seeking WMDs in a vital energy-producing region (Iraq), or a mix of all of the above (Somalia), American popular opinion is hard to maintain even with national interests at stake. Thus far President Obama has been practically absent on the US interests at stake in Libya and further, there appears to be no clear game plan, objectives or exit strategy in place. Given this historical and political context, how long do you see President Obama maintaining support for air strikes or even promoting more aggressive military action? How much deference will the American public grant the President before raising these concerns?

“Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.”

President Obama on Libya, March 18

First off, Americans have proven throughout the past 250 odd years that they are willing to fight and die for their national security, their freedom, and the freedom of others. If a country or group messes with the United States, the Jacksonian streak in our culture rears its head and demands retribution. As of right now, Libya doesn’t fit that description and that is why the Obama administration has to be careful. Qaddafi’s regime has American blood on its hands, spoken ill of our intentions and nature, and is currently violently putting down his own countrymen to secure his dictatorship, but none of these are at a high enough emotional or strategic level that would get a majority of Americans to believe that we must use extensive resources and blood to remove and replace him. This does not mean that a majority of Americans won’t support the implementation of a no-fly zone, which has and will include bombings and missile strikes against Qaddafi forces, nor that they don’t sympathize with the rebels opposed to the brutal and backward Qaddafi regime.

The key here is time, resources, and objectives. The Obama administration clearly plans for this endeavor to be short-lived, or at least the part led by the United States, and does not exert too much pressure on American military resources, but wars hardly ever go as planned. Turning to objectives, President Obama has, as his quote above shows, attempted to justify the US involvement in Libya’s civil war by referring to the humanitarian disaster and warning that the situation could lead to further regional instability that could harm our allies, and therefore, ourselves. But there’s a problem. President Obama said these words on Friday, March 18 (when most Americans are concentrated on other matters) and then went on a trip to Brazil. I did an informal test of the knowledge about the war with some of my co-workers, neighbors, family, etc. and did not find many who knew what the heck was going on and had even less knowledge of why the US was getting involved. Americans will follow a President into war and sustain the effort if he can show them that the fight is worth fighting. President Obama’s lackluster effort engaging the public and explaining our objectives, combined with his poor job propping up  American/NATO efforts in Afghanistan, does not give one great confidence.

2. It’s been just a few days since the U.N. coalition began bombing in Libya and already we are hearing complaints from the Arab League that they only supported a no-fly zone, not aerial bombing. Considered a crucial partner in the campaign and a central element in President Obama’s “world-wide approach,” what is the likelihood of maintaining the Arab League’s support for the mission? What implications will this have on the resolve of the UN and the US particularly?

Good question. The Arab League went from supporter of international intervention in Libya to skeptic in near rapid fashion. The group has voiced concern over civilian casualties caused by the process involved to create a no-fly zone in Libya. This is not unexpected as no one wants to be on the side of innocents being harmed by outsiders, especially if you’re considered the ‘in’ group, but the whole US/France/UK/Arab League/UN mission was to protect the Libyan civilians being crushed by Qaddafi’s forces. There have also been no documented reports of civilian casualties caused by allied bombing, which has been painstakingly made to only harm Qaddafi’s forces. The Arab League’s support is indeed important, and it was probably necessary to get the Obama administration and United Nations Security Council on board (or at least abstaining), but it’s relevancy should not be overstated. As long as the group continues to for the most part support the military intervention and oppose the rule of Qaddafi there should not be any major impact on the ongoing war effort. In fact, calls for the allies to be careful in their military efforts by the Arab League, should not be surprising. They represent those civilians in many ways and obviously do not want to be seen as puppets of the US/UK/France.

Tomorrow, FMFP, a domestic policy junkie, takes the stage and faces questions from yours truly. The last session we will see the views of an ‘Average Joe’.

By no means is Libya a simple issue, nor do these facts necessarily argue against the actions taken by the United States, but it is important to take this opportunity to put our last major military intervention in Iraq into perspective by considering just a few facts:

International Support
* Coalition partners Bush had for Iraq: 30
* Coalition partners Obama has for Libya: 17

Domestic Support (Pew Research Center)
* Decision to use military force in Iraq (March 2003): 72% support/22% oppose
* Decision to enforce no-fly zone in Libya (March 2011): 44% support/45% oppose
* Decision to bomb Libyan air defenses (March 2011): 16% support/77% oppose

Constitutional Considerations
* Candidate Obama (2007): “The President does not have power under Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military strike.”
* President Obama (2011): “Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and  France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.” – CNS.com

Congressional Support
* Iraq war resolution passed House 297-133 and Senate 77-23.
* Libyan war resolution: does not exist

Objective
* US objective in Iraq War: Topple Saddam Hussein regime, replace with democratically-elected government, stop race to obtain and use WMDs and ultimately bring more stability to Middle East.
* US objective in Libya: Stop Qaddafi from murdering Libyan residents, ???

Public Demonstrations

* Iraq War: Major protests in San Francisco, New York, Portland
* Libya War: Crickets….

The Iraq war started in 2003 and the present one in Libya have numerous differences, but I thought the comparisons above were worth highlighting. GPP will have much more on the ongoing American/UK/French war efforts in Libya throughout the next few days.

From time to time – optimally on a weekly basis – we would like to have point-counterpoint debate between two different contributors on timely topics. The questions will be written by a third contributor and the other two will have the opportunity to answer and respond to each other’s comments. Ideas for future questions and comments on the questions and answers provided are invited. Enjoy this week’s point-counterpoint between Pat and a new contributor called Grey Gambler:

1. Rep. Peter King’s hearings on homegrown terrorism in America have gotten a lot of media attention – much of it criticism directed at King and comparing the hearings to McCarthyism. What do you think of the hearings, both the need for the hearings and the potential for them turning into a witch hunt?

Pat: I respect the media’s role as a watchdog over the hearings; making sure the did not denigrate a specific segment of our population and tackle a serious issue, well, seriously. But I feel the way the word ‘McCarthyism’ has just been used to slander Rep. King and attempt to silence a debate this country needs to have. As I detailed in my post on Wednesday (link), this country faces a tangible threat from sources within that wish other Americans harm. The number one role of a country’s government is to keep its citizens safe and to argue that a Congressional hearing about homegrown terrorism is ‘inappropriate’ is baffling to me. We were one shoddy work of bomb making away from having Times Square look like a war zone. This isn’t hyperbole or Islamic demonization, this is the reality we face in 2011. I’ll end with a quote from the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus: ‘To ignore the religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb to politically correct delusion. To ignore the homegrown religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb even further.’

Grey Gambler: I have to admit that I haven’t read or seen anything about these hearings. I have no issue with hearings designed to keep America safe if that’s what they are. By the same taken, I have no tolerance for hearings designed just to score cheap political points. I haven’t seen anything about these hearings, so I can’t comment either way.

2. As the budget battle continues, NPR’s federal funding remains a big target of Republicans. Also recently a top NPR executive was caught on camera saying the station would be better off without federal funding. In this time where government spending far exceeds its revenue, is NPR a worthy target of budget-cutters? If not, what makes federal funding of public radio a worthwhile priority among competing interests?

Grey Gambler: Is NPR funding better for the American people than funding for education, infrastructure or defense? Of course not. By the same token, the small (in budget terms) amount we spend on NPR isn’t why we’re in trouble. 60% of the budget is mandatory spending that Congress doesn’t dictate year to year, another 20 or so is defense spending, 6 or 7 percent interest on the debt, and 13 or so on actual discretionary non-defense spending. That 13% is where NPR’s funding comes from. Are we better off as a country because we put some money into PBS and NPR absolutely? As we move more and more to a reality tv based culture (even the history channel doesn’t show history anymore), preserving a station on the airwaves of radio and tv that features educational programming benefits society at large. I don’t listen to NPR now, because living in a big city i have many other options available, but I can tell you that when I spent a good bit of time living in and driving through a rural part of the country where radio consisted of one or two country channels and several religious channels, NPR was a godsend that got me through many a long drive and made me consider what was going on in the US and around the globe.

Pat: The Gambler gives a worthy defense of NPR public funding. It is true that NPR does provide some worthwhile programming, particularly in rural locales where the choices are more minimal, and compared to our budget allocations, its slice is extremely small. That being said, I favor discontinuing public funding for NPR. The US will pay $200 million dollars this year in interest payments alone on our debt so anywhere we can cut without serious consequences we should. NPR has many popular stations and programs that will be just fine without public funding. Sesame Street is a big money maker. NPR’s audience includes many wealthy Americans who will gladly continue to donate to keep their favorite programs alive. Modern day media is inundated with news sources and the idea that we need the government to help provide this good is antiquated.

3. Libya remains in near civil war while America and the world sit on the sidelines. Discussions of imposing a no-fly zone have been going on the past week or so but doing so would likely mean a serious military commitment by the US. What do you think should be done given the military, budget and humanitarian concerns at stake?

Pat: Excellent question, that I honestly can answer, I’m not sure. Interestingly, the President of the United States seems to have the same response. It has been widely reported that President Obama is fine with Europe and other international actors to take the lead on this one. I think Qaddafi is a stain on this earth and the US should unequivocally back his removal. The problem is that I’m wary of getting ourselves militarily involved as there are consequences to bear. What if Qaddafi is likely to win even if we provide a no fly zone (DNI Clapper believes this)? What do the rebels stand for? Chances are strong that they would be better than Qaddafi, not a hard thing to do, but elements of the rebels come from a region of Libya that sent more foreign terrorists to fight the US in Iraq than any other country. That would give any US President pause. If I were President Obama, I would listen to my superb Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, and follow his lead.

Grey Gambler: Ditto as to the I don’t know remark. In a vacuum, we should absolutely toss this guy out. In a time where we have a $14 trillion debt and military commitments elsewhere though, I don’t know that we have the resources to spare, particularly if this investment would be paid for with additional cuts in spending at home.

4. Charlie Sheen is the talk of the town with his seemingly non-sensical rants about ‘winning,’ ‘tiger blood,’ and his super-human life. What do you make of it? Breakdown or publicity stunt?

Grey Gambler: I haven’t really followed this. I’ll just say that the focus the media seems to be putting on this story is one more reason why I’ll back NPR funding. Any alternative that actually provides real stories is worth keeping.

Pat: I find that if one wants to follow Charlie Sheen’s hi-jinks they can and if they they don’t, this is easy as well. I ignored the story for days until I finally watched a 3 minute best of clip that was utterly enjoyable. I didn’t need to tune into NPR to avoid Mr. Sheen’s ‘tiger blood’. The important thing to remember here is ‘winning,’ which I believe Charlie is doing quite a lot of lately. Though I deplore his morality and feel for his children, man oh man, is he entertaining. Not to mention that I could never dislike a guy who gave me Ricky Vaughn and Hot Shots: Part Duex.

President Obama has had to walk a fine diplomatic line in America’s dealings with the various uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East the past month or so. The governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Bahrain are all strong US allies and their fall would cause numerous headaches for American interests and foreign policies. Libya, on the other hand, does not really fit into this category. Its government leader, Muammar Qaddafi, has been a thorn in the US’s side for decades and has American blood on his hands. Even after giving up his nuclear program to the Bush administration, the Qaddafi regime has on many occasions, including in the past several days, rhetorically stick his thumb in America’s eye.

President Obama has been slow to speak out against and act against the Qaddafi regime at a time when its domestic legitimacy could not be lower. Qaddafi is right now hiring mercenaries to kill and suppress his own people. What does the US have to lose by speaking out and working with the rest of the civilized world (including the Arab League) to bring about his quick demise? Not much.

I would like to highlight two critiques of the Obama administration’s lack of action against Qaddafi from two left-liberal publications. First, Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic…

They are fighting authoritarianism, but he is fighting imperialism. Who in their right mind believes that this change does represent the work of the United States or any foreign power? To be sure, there are conspiracy theorists in the region who are not in their right mind, and will hold such an anti-American view; but this anti-Americanism is not an empirical matter. They will hate us whatever we do. I do not see a Middle East rising up in anger at the prospect of American intervention. I see an American president with a paralyzing fear that it will. In those Middle Eastern streets and squares that have endured the pangs of democratization, the complaint has been not that the United States has intervened, but that the United States has not intervened. The awful irony is that Obama is more haunted by the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East than are many people in the Middle East, who look to him for support in their genuinely epochal struggle against the social death in which their tyrannies have imprisoned them. He worries about the repetition of an old paradigm. They are in the midst of a new paradigm. He does not want to be Bush. They want him to be Obama; or what Obama was supposed to be.

And now Christopher Hitchens in Slate…

The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.

This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned “violence” in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi’s remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi’s membership.

It’s hard to throw a virtual rock nowadays at any foreign affairs publication and not find statements of the demise or fall of American power. In many ways, these are accurate statements as American economic power is falling in proportion to some of the rising economies around the world (although it is still top dog by a fair amount). But how about in terms of military, ideological, and political power? I would argue that in these spheres the United States maintains unparalleled influence when compared to other present great powers. The current uprisings in the Middle East showcase the continual relevance of American power, especially compared to its great power competitors. Daniel Blumenthal of Shadow Government notes that….

The unrest in the Middle East reveals, then, two important facts about China. First, talk of its impending global leadership is greatly exaggerated. Second, we should adequately prepare for China’s day of reckoning as well. A tired United States may wish someone else would help manage the global order; wishing is not going to make it happen.

In what ways are the citizens protesting/revolting, present autocrats, and hopeful future leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, etc. courting the approval/help of China? None, that I can see. What is China saying about these movements in the Middle East? Next to nothing. China seems only concerned as to how these protests might spread to their mainland or oil prices. When you are afraid of your own people, how can you spread your influence around the globe in an effective, all encompassing manner? China does indeed hold great power and influence in today’s international environment, but the events of the Middle East the past few months should give pause to those who say the American moment has passed.

That being said, the events in the demonstrations and revolutions occurring in North Africa, the Arab world, and Iran also demonstrate the limits of American power. I mean, President Obama hosted now former President Mubarak at the White House just a couple months before he was sent to the dust bin of history. The US was not only shown to be caught off guard by the Egyptian revolution, but in many ways, powerless to affect its outcome.

Nevertheless, when trouble arises around the globe, whether it be government’s falling, democracy rising, or pirates rampaging, most eyes invariably look toward America.