Compare and Contrast: Libya and Kosovo

    When comparing the speeches to the nation given by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in regards to Kosovo and Libya respectively, there are many similar themes and reasons outlined.  They both cite efforts as humanitarian more so than war.  They both try to justify it to the skeptics by pointing to it being a NATO lead operation and that the U.S. will have to invest less resources and manpower in the fight.   Though, a difference is that while Obama explicitly stated that there would be not troops on the ground, Clinton made no such promise.  With both being NATO operations, the presidents were basically forced into action with the fallout making the US look like a self-serving outlier.  Some of the broader justifications they both made were that the countries unrest had the potential to cause further problems in the region as a whole.  Clinton said that this could get out of hand and spill into other countries and that a unified Europe was key to U.S. interests.  Obama pointed to the many potential revolutions  in the middle east and that if the U.S. and NATO did not stand up to the governments dangerously trying to suppress the revolutions, they would be giving the current leaders a free pass and no fear of repercussion for their actions.  Clinton also made that point in regards to NATO and a previous NATO peace agreement.  They both state that refugees could become a problem as people try to flee the country.  Only Clinton had a history with the country and the obligation of honoring a prior peace agreement in the country as a reason for bringing in U.S. troops.  But, perhaps the biggest point both were trying to impress upon Americans during their speeches was that the U.S., and the other powerful countries of NATO, had an obligation to stop a mass killing like was happening in both of these countries.

    It is on that note that they both somewhat propose a doctrine for helping countries in humanitarian crises, but not in all cases.  Clinton did not intervene in Rwanda, and many of the reasons he went into Kosovo could not be made for Rwanda.  Rwanda was a fairly isolated incident with little NATO interest.  This could make you come to the conclusion that the president needs more than just humanitarian reasons to bring in the troops.  While Clinton now regrets not taking action, as the president he did not see a demand for action when it comes to the US's interests.
  
    Obama has had many possible events recently to put manpower to, but has not seriously considered any besides Libya.  This is probably for an opposite reason, that U.S. interests and allies keep us from even making strong reprimands on the leaders of the countries.  And, clearly it was a good thing we did not put troops in Egypt, as the rebellion was successful and was also able to stay authentic without and outside forces.  Though, we still are not sure what kind of government will come into power in Egypt, just as we do not totally know who the rebels are in Libya.  This is one of the dangers and probably a reason Obama is not taking such steps as supplying them with weapons.  More egregious government actions are taking place in Bahrain.  The problem there becomes that they are being partially committed by the Saudi military, a key US ally.  Clearly, even as a world superpower with the feeling that we need to protect those less fortunate in the world, there are many variables that keep us from intervening.  After all, as Obama stated, we do not have the resources to police the world.  While true, that does not mean we should not try to help in any instance where U.S. interests are not badly interfered with and even at risk, as is the case with Libya and Kosovo.