Whether it's choosing to allow the Syrian government to massacre its own civilians or to get embroiled in an indefinite and intractable military conflict, or to leave U.S. troops in unwinnable Afghanistan or appear to abandon a mission not-yet accomplished, there are no easy answers or shortcuts when it comes to handling American foreign policy.

This was the emerging theme June 10 at the "America and the World" Current Events Roundtable with faculty speakers in G10 Biotechnology Building, where alumni filled the room for the Reunion event.

Speaker Matthew Evangelista, the President White Professor of History and Political Science and chair of the government department, discussed the dilemma the United States faces in view of recent events of the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings.

Through the lens of Michael Walzer's seminal work "Just and Unjust Wars" (Basic Books, 1977), Evangelista explained that though grave human rights violations -- perhaps like the ones seen recently in Libya, Syria and Yemen -- are one of the few legitimate justifications for military intervention not based on self-defense, Walzer warned that such humanitarian interventions should be "very rare," for the multitude of difficulties they present.

According to Evangelista, this is why, after authorizing intervention in Libya, the United Nations has become more "hesitant" in intervening in such nations as Syria or Yemen -- because humanitarian interventions quickly become drawn out civil conflicts, demanding extensive political reconstruction as well.

"We've seen this picture before," said Evangelista, "in Iraq and Afghanistan; and it's not a pretty one."

Speaker Sarah Kreps, assistant professor of government, argued that, as far as foreign policy substance is concerned -- from Guantanamo Bay to Iraq and Afghanistan -- President Barack Obama has shown greater continuity with President George W. Bush than might be expected. However, "what is clear to any observer," Kreps said, "is that [Obama's] tone is dramatically different."

To explain such continuity, Kreps pointed to some inherited foreign policy constraints, such as the United States' diminishing dominance on the world stage and the institutional habits of government bureaucracy, where there is a general resistance to change.

Kreps also pointed out that the American public often sends contradictory messages to its leaders in Washington. For instance, 80 percent of Americans say they want the United States to be "the major global player," Kreps said, "but 78 percent say the U.S. is not doing enough to tend to its domestic commitments."

"I don't know what you do with that," she said, chuckling.

Prompted by one of the many questions from the audience, Evangelista also commented on the constraints of history in handling American foreign policy decisions -- most recently, when dealing with Pakistan.

"The United States used Pakistan in its cold war against the Soviet Union ...," Evangelista said, "pouring millions and millions of dollars into Pakistan, helping further corrupt an already corrupt military-political system." Having built them up, he said, "now we just don't know what to do with the place."

One audience member asked how the professors themselves would have handled foreign policy decisions they disagree with. After a few moments, Kreps replied that that was a "very hard" question.

"On the one hand," she said, "you look and see abject hypocrisy," referring to decisions to intervene in Libya and not Syria, for instance. And yet, she continued, in the president's shoes, actions that may be "appropriate may also be politically untenable ... if I'm very honest about the question."

Fredrick Logevall, director of the Einaudi Center for International Studies and professor of history, moderated the discussion.

Paul Bennetch '12 is a writer intern for the Cornell Chronicle.