{shortcode-fab026ab8fb722552b730dd15b627e3297fc1ed5}

On Monday, September 15, President Barack Obama met with delegates from countries around the world—including multiple Arab nations—to discuss the growing threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and to plan a military and political response to the terrorist organization. Obama has already launched airstrikes against the group, and he is seeking military support that would include ground troops from nearby Arab nations. Concurrently, Obama has assured Americans that this fight will not be a repeat of America’s involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, as American soldiers will not be sent to fight on the ground.

Obama is right to stress the need to combat ISIS. But his message poses several problems. Obama bases his argument on idealist principles: America’s fight against ISIS, seen as an extension of the War on Terror, is couched in demands for democracy and human rights. Both of these objectives are international values that ideally should hold the same weight across the globe. And yet Obama’s request for Arab nations to supply troops while refusing to provide them from the United States suggests that he holds other nations to a higher standard than he holds his own country. Obama seems to expect others to sacrifice more than the United States in defense of a commonly shared belief.

Obama should not underpin his speeches with ideology if he is not prepared for the United States to practice what he preaches. Instead, he should embrace an honest, political explanation. Obama should explain that Arab states should be more willing than the United States to send soldiers because they face a greater threat from ISIS. Their stakes are higher, and if they do not act now, they may face a war on their home territory. While ISIS might attack America via terrorist operations, it does not pose the same existential threat to the U.S. as it does to the countries neighboring Iraq and Syria. It is this point that Obama should stress in his speeches if he wishes to convince Arab nations to take a larger stake in the matter than he himself is willing to do.

{shortcode-4df33e3f6227933239991ef58152b204e59aaf61}

Not only does a focus on humanitarian and idealistic goals hinder America’s diplomatic mission with potential allies in the region, but it also renders America’s own foreign policy activity less effective. Responding to humanitarian crises is by definition a reactionary foreign policy, and leaves the United States government in a position in which it consistently is responding to events as they happen rather than taking action to diminish their likelihood of occurring in the first place.

Obama and his administration consequently need to cease their focus on America as a defender of democracy and freedom, and need instead to adopt a more proactive, long-term foreign policy strategy. They should develop stronger guidelines regarding the objectives they wish to accomplish, highlighting the practical details of their endgame and focusing less on the idealism that necessarily limits the advancement of their objectives.

Idealism has also led to the delegitimization of the United States government in the past when the country has used lofty rhetoric to threaten human rights violators but not followed through on its warnings. In order to regain legitimacy, the administration should make clear that in the future it will take military action from a political and national security standpoint case by case. Other methods, including diplomacy and sanctions, can certainly be employed against countries violating human rights. But as long as the administration is unwilling to resort to military action to respond to such cases, it should not threaten to do so. Instead, the country should be careful to cultivate and retain the credibility of their warning of military threat.

While the United States should continue to stress the importance of human rights and democracy, it should not conflate its ideals with its political policies. Only then will America be treated seriously worldwide, and be recognized as a power with which to contend.

Edyt J. Dickstein ‘17 is a Crimson editorial writer in Adams House.