Abstract:
In 2011, Libya witnessed mass protest movement as Arab spring swift the region. The movement remain largely peaceful; however, the movement turned violent following regime crackdown on protesters. Subsequently, Obama administration made a decision to intervene in Libya to avert potential humanitarian crisis. The study is designed to evaluates the morality of U.S. foreign policy. The study employs Joseph Nye’s Ethical scorecard to evaluate foreign policy decision of Obama administration. Moreover, the study explores the rationale behind Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya. The rationale behind the intervention was the presence of interventionist lobby and to deter dictators from dealing violently with democratic movement in Middle East. These factors had a significant impact on U.S. decision to intervene. Nevertheless, the public perception, absence of direct threat, and Obama doctrine limited the scope and duration of armed humanitarian intervention significantly. Thus the intervention was limited one rather a full scale military intervention. It is evident from study that the U.S armed humanitarian intervention in Libya was based on clear and expressed moral values. However, the actions contradicted with expressed values as Obama administration deviated from averting humanitarian crisis to regime change. Moreover, the decision lacked contextual intelligence as Libya descended in horrific civil war and chaos in the region. The failure to understand the evolving situation had adverse impact on U.S interest. Nevertheless, the foreign policy was in coherence with means though which goals were achieved. In sum, the foreign policy of Obama administration regarding Libya less likely justified morally as motives and goals were ambiguous while consequences were horrific for region and Libya alike.
