There is no doubt that history is being made on the African continent and the world is closely watching.

The United States, known as the lone super power, is often called upon to serve as a global problem solver when conflicts erupt internationally, like what’s happening in Africa.

For years, many have criticized America for not helping Africa enough when conflict occurred and swept the continent. But, others ask whether the U.S. should be held responsible for bailing out other nations.

Let’s rewind back to the 90’s. In August of 1992, what seemed to be a noble U.S. humanitarian relief response for Somalia turned disastrous. Operation RESTORE HOPE, as it was dubbed, started off well.

However, Americans were shocked in October 1993 to find out that 19 American soldiers were killed in clan battles that erupted in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia.

Approximately a year after America left the failed mission in Somalia, a genocidal civil war on African soil had some calling for the U.S. military to intervene. But, this time, President Bill Clinton opted not to get involved. William Ferroggiaro wrote about the incident on the National Security Archive site for George Washington University:

As horrific as the killing was in Rwanda, the U.S. did not see its interests affected enough to launch unilateral intervention. President Clinton himself best articulated his Administration’s calculus during D-Day commemorations in France on June 7 saying of U.S. humanitarian relief efforts on Rwanda “I think that is about all we can do at this time when we have troops in Korea, troops in Europe, the possibility of new commitments in Bosnia if we can achieve a peace agreement, and also when we are working very hard to try to put the U.N. agreement in Haiti back on track, which was broken.”

His administration was criticized and Clinton noted after his presidency that he thought it was a mistake to not get involved. He later founded the William J. Clinton foundation, which is based in Rwanda, helping those affected by genocide.

Joshua Eisenman, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, says nations will help where it best suits their interests, especially if it impacts them economically.

“When you have investments in a place, you have more interests and you’re more willing to help,” Eisenman said.

“You can’t do business when there’s war going on.”

Where does America have national interests and is that a reason to intervene in ­a country’s problems?

For the past two decades, the U.S. has been militarily involved in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

There have been interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia: nations where the U.S. provides military funding or obtains natural resources.

Richard Downie, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, agrees that countries are more willing to intervene in another nation’s affairs that affect its national interests, but believes there is more to it than that.

“I think the colonial experience Africa had makes them more sensitive to foreign intervention,” he said, explaining why the U.S. is hesitant to get involved in African conflicts.

“Anything that shows neocolonialism plays out very badly.”

Downie does not believe the U.S. should receive as much criticism as it does for staying out of affairs abroad, and that it does not specifically exclude African nations from military assistance for any specific reason.

Recently, President Barack Obama made a controversial decision to get involved in the Libyan civil war to stop the Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi regime from murdering rebels who protested his rule.

Downie said it’s not an issue of picking and choosing, but rather knowing when to intervene and when to stay out.

There was a strong purpose for getting involved in Libya.

America would find out the very next night that the secret was he made the difficult call to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. He announced that the CIA gathered enough intelligence to send in elite Navy SEAL Team 6 into Pakistan, which completed the mission by killing the most wanted man in the world.

About three months later, American forces, including members of the same elite Navy SEALs unit that raided Bin Laden’s compound, were shot down and killed in Afghanistan by a rocket-propelled grenade from a Taliban insurgent. As the single deadliest attack on American forces since the war on terrorism began, this is a reminder for a president, who campaigned against the war, about the deadly consequences of military action.

“He [President Obama] has adopted a moderate posture on Afghanistan since 2008,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information.

It’s clear that the war has made a paradigm shift to being Obama’s war. Pressure seems to be mounting on him to make a decision on what to do now that he’s been in office for over three years.

The Washington Post reported on his trip to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to mourn the lives of the 30 soldiers killed in Afghanistan:

“Since his last trip to Dover, 874 more Americans have died in Afghanistan, and Obama has signed 874 handwritten condolence letters. The war is fully his now. This time, he went to Dover to greet the charred and dismembered remains of Americans he had ordered to Afghanistan himself.”

In late June, Obama announced he will order the withdrawal of 33,000 troops from the war by the end of 2012. But, will the recent attack put a damper on his plans?

Wheeler believes that the Obama administration’s stance on the war remains the same, but the unnecessary “media attention” of the insurgency has brought the war back to the forefront of issues.

“This kind of thing happens in war all the time. It means nothing other than it’s brought the war to people’s mind, it hasn’t changed the debate at all,” he said.

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, believes that the country’s response to the incident can be viewed two ways. He says it shows that the country is fed up with what is going on, but at the same time it shows that people here are resilient and patient dealing with a decade long war that has caused the death of thousands of American troops.

“Some people will say can’t we just leave and then others will say look at what these people did, we can’t let them get away with this,” he said.

Therefore, he doesn’t think any added pressure because of this recent tragedy will change the current administration’s approach on the war and that Obama has made his plans clear.

“The President has already reflected the nation’s mood by announcing the taking out of troops next year,” he added.

“There are a lot of forces and arguments that lead us to say we don’t want to be there forever.”