The rise of the neoliberal foreign policy? Fareed Zakaria has announced a “new era in U.S. foreign policy”:
[N]ow that these critics are confronted with the success of the Libya operation, they are changing their tune and claiming paternity of the operation. They are further arguing that if their advice had been heeded, the intervention in Libya would have been swifter and even more successful. But the Libya intervention is so significant precisely because it did not follow the traditional pattern of U.S.-led interventions. Indeed, it launched a new era in U.S. foreign policy.
Libya is a “success” in much in the same way the neoconservatives claimed “mission accomplished” in Iraq. More troubling was Zakaria’s assertion that because the six-month old Libya (but still ongoing) mission was relatively cheap, it is a successful model of intervention:
Compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libya operation was a bargain. It cost the U.S. about $1 billion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan collectively cost the U.S. $1.3 trillion. In other words, success in Libya could be achieved at less than one-tenth of one percent of the cost of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not a bad model for the future.
I did not realize that engaging in needless wars was similar to discount shopping.
What exactly is the difference between neoconservative and neoliberal foreign policy? Apparently, this new approach to foreign policy is merely cheaper, but just as brutal and illegal.Published in