"When would you use forces for humanitarian reasons when U.S. security is not at stake?"
Of all the questions from last night's debate, I thought this was the most insightful, and not just because it brought to light a central contradiction in the "Obama doctrine" (he wants to prevent humanitarian crises with U.S. forces and resources, but six years ago said no to preventing more of Saddam's humanitarian violations). It was in fact insightful because it went at an issue (when, where and how to use U.S. military forces around the world) that has rarely been challenged in recent history.
Whether it was WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Kosovo, or Iraq I, U.S. forces have been deployed around the world to protect the immediate interests and security of other nations. In doing so, many thousands of Americans have died in their defense (of course the argument has been made that those troops were protecting America's interests and security). Regardless, the point is that when it comes to using U.S. military foces to prevent genocide (Darfur), humanitarian issues (Somalia), or foreign wars, the resounding answer has been more or less "Yes, in reason."
In light of this, I just want to point out two things that I rarely hear considered:
(1) The role of the United States military is to serve and protect the interests of the United States. The role of the federal government is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. How is it constitutional/legal for the United States government to send in forces when the security of Americans is not at stake? How does that not fall outside the boundaries of the federal government protecting our freedom?
(2) Despite the horrible atrocities that occur around the world, I can't help but think that trying to affect the outcome of other countries' affairs by using our military forces causes more harm than good. In other words, I think the unintended consequences of our intervention/activity could be more destructive than the natural, not-forced-by-us outcomes.
Two examples:
(a) Rwanda: yes, it was terrible that 800,000 innocent people died at the hands of genocidal maniacs; however, Rwanda is now one of the fastest growing, most high-potential African countries. If we (or another country) had intervened to stop the bloodshed, what would have been the unintended consequences? A mere pause in the bloodshed? More violence to come down the road? A never ending sequence of genocided going back and forth, starting and stopping? Resentment/violence towards the intervening country? Our own country lost over 600,000 of our citizens before we were truly on the road to prosperity. What if a foreign power had intervened in our civil war, before there was genuine resolution? What would we look like today?
(b) Iraq: putting aside the fact we did invade for one reason or another, imagine if we had beefed up our domestic defenses so much that Iraq or anyone it supported had NO chance of attacking us, and then we let the Iraqi people do away with their own dictatorship and underlying frictions through peaceful/violent revolution, assassination, civil war, etc. Lots of bloodshed, perhaps a wider war in the middle east, but perhaps the resolution of that kind of conflict (one without the United States' involvement or influence) on those countries/people's terms could have been a better deal for all (including the U.S.) in the long term? Arguably so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"I think the unintended consequences of our intervention/activity could be more destructive than the natural, not-forced-by-us outcomes."
I agree, but generally, I'd say the United States acts the way we do because of a precedent of bailing nations out that's been set over history, especially in the 20th century. Maybe the eventual success of WWII, especially financially for the US and even Western Europe, has led us to try and repeat such circumstances.. over, and over.
I think what you fail to realize is how the notion of "international security" (i.e. that which threatens BOTH the United States and the world at large) evolved from the 20th to the 21st centuries. We entered WWI and WWII because it was a threat to "international security"; those who call for intervention in genocide, mass atrocities and other traditionally "domestic" concerns do so because, in a world of globalization and interdependency (look no further than how our financial crisis has affected the world's financial crisis and vice versa) such crimes against humanity have "unintended consequences" themselves, many of which can threaten U.S. interests.
Example: Somalia. Clinton took big heat when he intervened militarily there in 1993, and now he's taking heat for pulling out immediately after Black Hawk Down because it emboldened Al Qaida, overlooked bin Laden and provided a prized recruitment and training ground for militant groups and terrorist cells from around the region.
So in a "post 9-11, war on terror" world (which we're constantly reminded that we're in), we should very well be concerned with hot zones of poverty and conflict, and how the consequences of these phenomena can breach borders, affect economic interest and the security of our allies (why are we so concerned about the "Palestinian problem"? Because of Israel). I don't agree with U.S. military intervention in Darfur, but I think a good case can be made for more diplomatic and multilateral pushes to end the genocide.
[And I would take big issue with your Rwanda and Iraq examples. Rwanda was a failure of the UN, which was already present in the country upholding a power-sharing treaty, and the influential world leaders who could lobby the UN (such as President Clinton). It was a low-tech genocide that unfolded more rapidly than the Holocaust (and we still lament about failing to properly intervene in the Nazi slaughter) and would not have required the deployment of American troops. As for Iraq, we know damn well that at the onset the war was sold for anything but humanitarian reasons. The whole "Saddam is such a bad dude" was only pulled out once the Administration bungled the WMD excuse, started running out of justifications and had nothing to highlight but their shoddy attempt to stage legitimate elections. Obama never took issue with the humanitarian basis for invading Iraq, only the rush to war on questionable intelligence. And he turned out to be right.]
Post a Comment