There have been four humanitarian interventions in US history: Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. The record is two wins (Bosnia, Kosovo) and two draws (Haiti, Somalia).* FTR, the US has never engaged in a humanitarian intervention in the Middle East.
Why does this generally positive record “deprive the US of any credibility whatsoever?”
Sua
*The criterion I am using is whether conditions in the affected country improved for its citizens. Under this criterion, Haiti may be considered a win, but the improvement is only marginal, so I put it in the draw category.
Why? Let’s put aside the legal issue (I’ve debated that enough recently) and focus on the ethics issue. Why is it unethical to remove from power by force a man who has committed two genocides, initiated two wars that cost millions of lives, has killed at least 100,000 of his own citizens and whose refusal to abide by international law has cost the lieves of an additional 700,000 of its citizens?
You may approach the question from a utilitarian, natural law or any other ethical paradigm you wish.
I don’t, for one. That’s a kind of paternalistic attitude toward world affairs that many just don’t share, I guess. Our conduct and our standards - on the slight chance there are a few people in the world who actually give us credit for having standards of conduct, or any credibility whatsoever - probably haven’t deterred any other country from acting in what it perceives as its own defense. The known “outlaws” won’t trouble themselves with UN regulations and those willing to stay within them are subject to the same political motivations, ours included, that we were up against in the past months. They are still ultimately charged with the defense of their own countries and will act accordingly. So, no, I don’t see the dangerous precedent being set.
The US, and other foreign powers, should never have meddled in the affairs of other countries in an attempt to gain power or contain perceived threats. That strategy has backfired every time it’s been used. We helped create and support Saddam, after all.
Interfering in the natural evolution of societies harms both them and us. Our attempts to “correct” the problem will only make it worse.
Um, Mandelstam, I know you’ve been distracted (congrats, BTW!), but you may have noticed that the precedent has already been set. In the past 50 years, off the top of my head, there have been the following wars, all of which started preemptively:
Korea
India-Pakistan Wars I, II, & III
1956 Suez War
Six-Day War
Yom Kippur War
1982 Lebanon War
Iran-Iraq War
Persian Gulf War
Chinese-Vietnam War
Vietnam War
Vietnam-Cambodia War
Zairian (Congolese) War
Ethiopian-Eretrian War
Tee: “That’s a kind of paternalistic attitude toward world affairs that many just don’t share, I guess.”
If precedent is paternalistic than all of law is paternalistic. The actual point has nothing to do with paternalism though. The idea isn’t that others would follow us because we are some kind of beacon of standards. The idea is that by diverging from international law and the channels through which it is maintained we have provided others with a justificatory rationale for doing the same.
You assume that known “outlaws” don’t trouble themselves with UN and other international regulations: but how do you know that? Such leaders tend to do what they think they can get away with (as Saddam once thought he could get away with Kuwait). Now by doing what the US thinks it can get away with, rather than by adhering to its own historical commitments to international law, the US has pushed the envelope for anyone else who dares.
Sua: In light of what I’ve just said, I’m ready to give the utilitarian argument a quick whack.
“Why is it unethical to remove from power by force a man who has committed two genocides, initiated two wars that cost millions of lives, has killed at least 100,000 of his own citizens and whose refusal to abide by international law has cost the lieves of an additional 700,000 of its citizens?”
Because the change in precedent might trigger wars and other conflicts that kill millions.
Because having been implicated in some of these crimes, we do not stand a good chance of persuading the world of our noble intentions, and therefore the danger of the precedent and what it might trigger is made far worse.
Because there are other, safer options–the most obvious of which would have been waiting a few months in order to dramatically reduce the risks by including the UN and our allies. An option that has almost no cost at all!
Think there won’t be takers? Or think it will just be a snap if there are takers to–as the popular phrase goes–“take 'em out.” Maybe you should first see what the human costs will be in Iraq, including its aftermath. Maybe you should consider the human costs of trying to “take out” North Korea, which is in a position to kill South Koreans on a mass scale as it goes down in flames. Or the costs of turning Pakistan, another nuclear power, into Al Qaeda central. Or the costs of provoking a war between that country and the Hindu nationalsits in India?
b]Tee**: “That’s a kind of paternalistic attitude toward world affairs that many just don’t share, I guess.”
If precedent is paternalistic than all of law is paternalistic. The actual point has nothing to do with paternalism though. The idea isn’t that others would follow us because we are some kind of beacon of standards. The idea is that by diverging from international law and the channels through which it is maintained we have provided others with a justificatory rationale for doing the same.
You assume that known “outlaws” don’t trouble themselves with UN and other international regulations: but how do you know that? Such leaders tend to do what they think they can get away with (as Saddam once thought he could get away with Kuwait). Now by doing what the US thinks it can get away with, rather than by adhering to its own historical commitments to international law, the US has pushed the envelope for anyone else who dares.
Think there won’t be takers? Or think it will just be a snap if there are takers to–as the popular phrase goes–“take 'em out.” Maybe you should first see what the human costs will be in Iraq, including its aftermath. Maybe you should consider the human costs of trying to “take out” North Korea, which is in a position to kill South Koreans on a mass scale as it goes down in flames. Or the costs of turning Pakistan, another nuclear power, into Al Qaeda central. Or the costs of provoking a war between that country and the Hindu nationalsits in India?
Sua: In light of what I’ve just said, I’m ready to give the utilitarian argument a quick whack.
“Why is it unethical to remove from power by force a man who has committed two genocides, initiated two wars that cost millions of lives, has killed at least 100,000 of his own citizens and whose refusal to abide by international law has cost the lieves of an additional 700,000 of its citizens?”
Because the change in precedent might trigger wars and other conflicts that kill millions.
Because having been implicated in some of these crimes, we do not stand a good chance of persuading the world of our noble intentions, and therefore the danger of the precedent and what it might trigger is made far worse.
Because there are other, safer options–the most obvious of which would have been waiting a few months in order to dramatically reduce the risks by including the UN and our allies. An option that has almost no cost at all!
The Marshall Plan was responsible for the rebuilding of a devastated Europe, a devastation that the Allies helped to cause. (The firebombing of Dresden would have been considered a war crime if the side that perpretrated it hadn’t happened to win.) We were already involved.
What about Vietnam? You made an universal assertion - that foreign powers should never meddle. I have provided examples where such meddling caused good. Thus your universal assertion has been disproved.
Vietnam teaches us that such “meddling” is dangerous and should be approached cautiously. It does not provide support for your universal assertion.
The Prime Directive doesn’t apply if we are “already involved”? OK then, as we have been involved in Iraq for the past 12 years - patrolling its skies, protecting the Kurds, intercepting its shipping to enforce sanctions, then you should find it acceptable for the US to engage in this war.
Caveat: As I established earlier, no precedent has been established.
But moving on - From a utilitarian perspective, how does the possibility that other wars and conflicts may arise outweigh the certainty that 60,000 Iraqis die each year because Saddam won’t disarm, that he has killed millions in wars, and that he kills hundreds of thousands of his own citizens?
See No. 1.
a. what other options are you referring to that would have removed Hussein?
b. what evidence do you have that, had we waited a few months, the UN and other allies would have changed their minds and joined in the attack? After all, they had 12 years to unite and force Hussein to submit, and refused to do so.
“France agrees, Russian agrees”
CITE? I never recall any of those to countries saying Iraq has WMDs, only that inspections should continue
I for one will stand up and say that I am very sceptical that there are any WMDs. The UN inspectors never said he has them for definite (and they said that there is NO evidence of any nuclear weapons or even programme and that western evidence was faked).
Rather, they (the UN) want confirmation that Iraq has destroyed them as they said they have - there does seem to be discrepancies in amounts, but some of the totals are fairly small - e.g. 10,000 litres of anthrax sounds a lot, but it is about a lorry load, and depending on the concentration might be enough to infect 10 or so square miles. Robin Cook, former foreign secretary to the UK (who would be privy to all the top secret reports in the UK about Iraq) said in his resignation speech that he doubted there were any WMDs.
If I wrong I will certainly apologise, but only time will tell. However, we should note that the US is launching this war on a possibility not a probability,
In an attempt to shift things back to the OP, I can give you an answer from a pretty solid centrist who loathes both parties but who is against the current war (oh, and lest I forget, here is my apparently mandatory sidenote saying that “I support the troops though”).
First off:
Why on earth would some of the “human shields” changing their mind have any effect upon what most rational people would think, and,
Why are these people “clearly more committed to the cause”.
The individuals who ventured off to serve as human shields are neither representative of the majority of the anti-war faction, nor are they held up as some ideal of commitment. To my mind, they are severely misguided, if obviously passionate, individuals who are under the mistaken impression that the current administration really gives a damn if a few American lefties are down there where the bombs are falling. If they changed their minds because the first few Iraqis they met were happy to see Hussein fall, well great, perhaps this will lead them to a long and happy life of allowing reason and evidence to lead them on their political journeys.
Many who disagree with this war have entirely practical reasons for disagreeing with the action, and while we may weep for the plight of the Iraqi people, are well aware of a number of immediate threats to the well being of the American people (Al Quaida and N. Korea to name the major ones) that deserve our attention first and foremost, and some serious domestic issues that deserve immediate attention as well. Is is selfish? Certainly. Is it immoral to ignore the plight of the Iraqi people? Perhaps, however I believe that morally, self-preservation is a catch-all escape from moral obligation to others.
Add to all of this the litany of lies and “mistakes” made by those who have pushed for this war, and you will find that there is a large portion of the anti-war crowd that represents a centrist, and even “near-right”, perspective which is not as easily dismissed as those on the far fringes of the left.
Nope. Only Kosovo is such a possible example. Korea didn’t turn out all that well – and it at least had UN support.
Indeed, I’m not making a universal claim that all such attempts end in disaster. It’s possible to successfully juggle babies over firepits – that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so. “Oops, there goes another calculated risk!”
Nope. If the UN was in favor, I wouldn’t like it, but I wouldn’t particularly disagree. The actions of our country are shameful, and we’ll probably come to regret them in the future, especially when Iraq finally blows up in our face.
IANAL, but based on the debates raging everywhere I don’t see it as diverging from international law. We believe we are legally justified in doing this per UN res. 1441, and all efforts and arguments through the UN have been well publicized. The interpretations of 1441 differ, but that is a different thing than outright ignoring the law. Someone would have to take this to a higher court of appeal (which AFAIK doesn’t exist) for a difinitive ruling on the matter.
We’d have probably taken action against Iraq in 1991 without UNSC approval, we acted in 1998 without UNSC approval, and we are acting now without it. Matters of our security and those of our allies will supercede UN approval and/or world opinion. I cannot with any seriousness think of why that shouldn’t apply to every other country.
I believe we have gone one better than that, and factored in the human costs of not acting as well, which has thus far been a non-issue in the UN…and why is that? Inaction remains on the collective conscience just as much as taking action does. If there were a viable alternative offered that included the regime change that we have sought and encouraged for years, we’d probably have a deal in place. (Never mind that we “supported” SH at one time. A big mistake, and no excuse for inaction in the present.) One never appeared though.
Anyway, jumping on the back-to-the-OP bandwagon: considering the human costs of inaction is what probably made some human shields rethink. I don’t know if anyone remembers a post from Mr. Svinlesha last week about a US soldier he knew becoming disillusioned with the military and dumping his career plans - this is the same idea. Idealism meets reality.
Funny, I’d swear our President told us he was going to put the decison to a vote, “regardless the whip count”, but then failed to do so, only when he recognized he would fail.
That is a pretty clear contravention of the legal process. Perhaps not outright ignoring the law, but certainly ignoring the established legal process.
Your right that this topic has been debated alot, and the 1441 argument has been roundly refuted by international law experts. About the only international law experts suggesting otherwise are those advising the US and British governments.
You’re not explaining yourself particularly well. If your belief is that, to quote you,
then you have cast UNICEF, OXFAM, Amnesty International, the UN itself, Greenpeace, etc., in the role of evildoers.
I assume that you do not find these organizations to be evil. If so, then you accept that meddling in the affairs of other nations can be acceptable, and we are quibbling over terms.
What are your terms.
BTW, this
Demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of world history. Would you rather be a citizen of South Korea or North Korea now? Had there not be US “meddling,” you wouldn’t have a choice.
Tee, IANAIL, but let me try to take a stab anyway.
[ul]
[li]At the time of the action, nothing.[/li][li]In one sense, it can be described to be the difference between asking for permission or asking for forgiveness.[/li][li]Intervention in Kosovo had (almost?) unanimous support among NATO allies, Iraq does not.[/li][li]The UNSC retroactively approved of the intervention in Kosovo (IIRC, and I acknowledge that the UNSC may still do so with Iraq).[/li][/ul]
I don’t put forward the argument that the US should not invade Iraq based solely on the lack of UN authorization. But I bristle at the assertion that 1441, in anyway, justifies the US action.
There might have been a direct precedent with Kosovo, if the US hadn’t asked for permission first, and then not received it.
