By Scott Rasmussen
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an enabler as “one who enables
another to persist in self-destructive behavior.” They do so “by
providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of
such behavior.”
In popular culture, the term is often associated with a family
covering for a drunk or drug addict. Their motives for doing so are
generally good in the short-term sense of not wanting the addict to fail
or be humiliated. The family members truly want to help and be
supportive. But the very act of letting their loved one avoid
responsibility for their actions enables the addiction to continue or
get worse.
On a much larger scale, U.S. foreign policy over the past
two decades has enabled global irresponsibility. Because we are always
ready to intervene anywhere on the planet, the United States has
protected other nations from dealing with the short-term realities of
difficult foreign policy decisions. This allows both friend and foe to
posture and pass judgment without consequence. As a result, we have
created a more dangerous world.
We’re seeing the fruits of this misguided policy play out in Syria
today. Our intentions and motives are good. We hate the slaughter and
brutality of that civil war. We hate the use of chemical weapons upon
civilians. We want somebody to stop it. We want the international rules
against chemical warfare upheld.
Adding to the dilemma, President Obama sees his own credibility at
stake. Syria brazenly crossed a “red line” that he mistakenly
established. Senator John McCain believes our nation’s credibility is
on the line, as well.
But American voters don’t believe it’s our fight. They
don’t believe that vital national security interests of the Unite States
are at stake. They recognize that other nations, closer to Syria, have
much more to lose than we do. Why does the United States have to police
the world? Why won’t other nation’s step forward?
The reason is simply that our
interventionist foreign policy has allowed and encouraged other nations
to act irresponsibly. They won’t step forward because they know we will.
It is time for the United States to end our enabling behavior.
The place to start is by staying out of Syria and let other nation’s respond as they see fit.
There is no guarantee as to what will happen next and it will
certainly be uncomfortable in the short-term. The same thing happens
when a family first stops covering for a drug addict. It is painful to
watch others deal with the responsibility from which they have been
spared for so long. However, in both the family setting and U.S. foreign
policy, allowing consequences to be felt in the short-term encourages
responsibility in the long-term.
The Cato Institute’s Christopher Preble puts it this way: “If
we encouraged other countries to be responsible for their own security
they would be better able, and therefore more willing, to play a
constructive role even when their interests are not directly at stake.” A former naval officer, Preble outlines his thoughts more fully in a thought-provoking book, “The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous and Less Free”.
The first step on the path to a more responsible global community is to say no to U.S. involvement in Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment