Redstate

Ignores a very important point:

The military is an important tool for negotitation.

I strongly believe that the USA should have bilateral negotiations with all countries in the world (hostile, nigh belligerent negotiations, but keep them talking).

If the military is the most effective way of coercing a country to do what we want, we should use it.

It's in no one's best interest to waste America's talent pool (and wealth, and knowledge) by allowing it to die in needless genocidal wars.

And that's why we should intervene. Because America's talent comes from the smartest of the entire world (brain drain).

and in the case regarding Darfur, I stand by my original statement.

"US military intervention is not in the national security interest of the United States."

Additionally, in a country twice the size of the UK, a limited engagement utilizing "several thousand" US military personnel would fall woefully short of achieving a clear victory, and stabilization would require a long-term occupying force.

Besides, as indicated by the article in the Sunday Herald, how does one identify the enemy? The Sudanese government is using proxies to do their dirty work. Or, absent a clear US national security interest, do you suggest that we eliminate the government of Sudan while negotiations with the African Union/European Union/United Nations are ongoing?

However, I would support a covert special operations mission to eliminate high-value al-Qaeda targets, which is clearly in our national security interest.

Note: Don't forget, Redstate 2.0 has threaded comments.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

that we should intervene in Darfur, most recently here.

1. There are troops available for intervention through the African Union.

2. I object on principle to a single American trooper being made uncomfortable, much less have their live put in jeopardy, on missions totally extraneous to the furtherance of our national security or national interests. I felt that way about Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

3. While I would be willing to intervene to prevent the creation of another Hitler or a similarly disposed regional magnate, which is one of the many reasons why I supported and support the Iraq war, I would not be in favor of using US troops strictly to prevent genocide in an area which was a geopolitical null set. The logical provider of troops in those instances, with US intel and logistics support, are troops from other security blocs.

4. I have no doubt that while Darfur is horrible, that its primary attraction is that it potentially provides a way of diverting US troops and assets away from Iraq and Afghanistan. One can't help but note that guys like Joe Biden who are all het up to stop killing in Darfur seem pretty happy to make US troops stand aside and allow killing in Iraq.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I believe US has provided recently intel and logistics support in fighting around the Horn of Africa. It's a good thing, and the US can do that a lot better than sending in infantry troops.
The Ethiopians seemed a better choice for that part of the deal.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Haiti could very well be considered in our interest though. Mostly because its nearby and its in our interest to have orderly neighbors not chaotic ones.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I ain't volunteering my Army infantryman son to go assuage liberal consciences in some s**thole that doesn't mean a thing to American national interests. I don't mind spending a little money or providing some resources but unless there is a vital national interest I'll leave it to some modern equivalent of the Lincoln Brigade. So, saddle up and ride to the sound of the guns.

In Vino Veritas

The Africans don't give a damn about Darfur. Or anyplace else in Africa for that matter. The EuroTrash don't give a damn either. And, by the way, they've got no "military" to send.

The US military should only be deployed in instances where our national interest and national security is at risk. I have no problem with Afghanistan, Iraq, and I wouldn't bat an eyelash at going to war with Iran and Syria as long as we drop the kinder-gentler-war crap that President Bush is seemingly fond of.

Never, ever should one US soldier, sailor or Marine be under the command of anybody wearing a blue hat. Any CinC who sent them should be sent to Gitmo. You want to humanitarian crap, where do you plan to stop? In case you haven't noticed, things ain't much better in Mr. Mugabe's Zimbabwe than they are in Darfur. Wanna fix that one while we're close?

And, while we're at it, don't bother with the "Darfur could be in our national security interest" argument. It's total BS. If you're planning on hauling out the aQ breeding ground, send in a SF or Marine sniper team(s). Tell them to kill anybody they think even might be a bad guy. Give them some predators while were at it.

I had a conversation right after 9/11 with my Marine Corps son. He had some ideas about humanitarian intervention. I won't bother you with them, other than to note that he makes me look like a bleeding heart.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

take you and the MSM to start calling for a pull out and surrender there? Genocide, rape of women, murder of children sounds a lot like Saddam. You lefties can't finish a fight we can win and you want to start another one? Talk your buddies into funding and finishing this one and then we'll talk about Darfur.

ok, I'll bring it up at my next Comintern meeting with the other "lefties" (you know, my "buddies"). Seriously, can't you discuss/debate an issue without throwing around labels, and wildly presumptuous ones at that? Is it really that hard to simply discuss and, if you wish, seek to refute, the assumptions, principles, logic, etc. of someone else's position?

for Pete's sake learn to use the "Reply to this" function. If you do nothing else, please start using this function.

Second, let's not take a step back. You made a policy pronouncement. A lot of us disagree. Let's continue what we're doing and you tell us why we are wrong.

Lastly, stop playing at Conservatives in the Mist. Hypotheticals are nothing more than verbal onanism. Let's stick to real, actual, events.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

... Like Bosnia?

Gen'l Clark managed to stop a genocidal (cleared by the ICC?) war without losing a single american life.

I've read the military studies -- this -raised morale- and increased rates of "resignupedness" (okay, so that's not a word. --you know what I mean).

that we've had boots on the ground there for 8 years to keep the killing to an uninteresting minumum. We've essentially provided cover for the ethnic cleansing (Christians being removed so it doesn't count) of Kosovo. I wouldn't exactly tout this as a great success.

the genocide was stopped by the Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs ethnically cleansing their areas and thus ran out of a need for genocide. The "genocide" may have stopped in Kosovo, but the ethnic cleansing by Kosovars and the importation of al Qaeda terrorists has not stopped.

And we are still there and no closer to leaving now than we were on Day One.

But taking your point as something other than juvenile snark, no we should not have intervened there. That was an instance when the EU or OSCE should have stepped up to the plate because nothing that happened in the Balkans really mattered to us.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

...And everyone won.

Gaining goodwill of the populace in countries that have historically hated their rulers and the gov'ts that supported them -- I'd say that's a good thing.

It's rather hard to move to war, without a populace that will stand behind the gov't. Moves that significantly weaken the culture war should be considered steps in the right direction.

Please, let's have a real discussion/debate here. I was simply suggesting that we take a step back for a moment and discuss the core principle involved here -- whether or not it can ever be worth risking/sacrificing the life of a single American troop to save the lives of a large number of foreigners -- because if one's answer is "no", then all further discussion is moot except insofar as non-humanitarian arguments (i.e., self-interest) may or may not justify military intervention (and I'm not making an argument either way on that question here, and it's quite possible that the case for intervening out of pure self-interest is weak). I was not suggesting that discussion of the specifics of Darfur should not subsequently be discussed, nor was I suggesting that all the practical issues are irrelevant. I just wanted to step back and start fresh by discussing the principle, because, as I've explained, if we disagree on the principle, then everything else is moot.

And principles certainly ARE worthy of discussion. They guide our policy preferences -- including yours, whether you realize (and admit) it or not. And hypotheticals have been perhaps the most useful tool in discussing/debating principles throughout the millennia of recorded discussion/debate.

Lastly, I liked that column you linked to. It was a clever and witty analogy. But I suggest/request that you refute my arguments rather than attacking what you believe to be my motive. And if you want to have a sense of why I engage in discussions/debates such as these -- and why I do so with people whose views span the political spectrum -- read my post at http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/03/real_debate_an_endan...

p.s. I usually do use the Reply function, but didn't last night because I was responding to a number of comments at once and addressing everyone who had commented and everyone who would subsquently visit.

use military force for "humanitarian" reasons.

1. Exactly where do you draw the line and who draws it?
2. What's a genocide? Who gets to decide? One man's genocide is another's civil war.
3. Using Sudan as an example, the government of Sudan - the one recognized by that august international body that recognizes "legitimate" governments, the UN - insists that there is no genocide going on. The UN can't seem to muster a whisper that genocide might be happening. And the Chinese will have a bloody fit if we send military force. How do you plan to deal with that little international crisis?
4. If we're going to start "righting humanitarian problems", we need a couple of divisions going into Cuba right away.
5. We need make a stop off in Zimbabwe on the way to Darfur.
6. And we need to address the biggest humanitarian crisis of them all, North Korea. You ready to schlep in there?

I am perfectly willing to allow the entire continent of Africa, every last North Korean right down to the Dear Leader and all of Cuba - just for starters - to starve to death. Not one of those people are worth the life of one US soldier. I wouldn't even approve of getting involved if all that happened was a bloodless, JohnKerry Purple Heart wound.

You're all worked up about Darfur. What about Zimbabwe? Pre-Mugabe it was the "bread basket of Africa". They can't feed themselves now. Mugabe's "cops "are slaughtering white land owners and giving the land to his family members. Shouldn't we do something about that situation?

What do you want to do next winter when we stupidly send grain to North Korea and the Dear Leader only feeds the army while a couple of million peasants starve? Those numbers, which appear to happen on a fairly routine basis, make the "problem" in Darfur and Rwanda look like a high school prom.

What about most of the middle east and the way they treat their women? I hear screeching constantly about the "humanitarian crisis" in most of the Islamic world. Tell you what, let's ignore the Iranian's nuclear bomb, but we'll set their women free. How about that.

Then there's Bosnia. An upthread commenter suggested that Wes Clark and Clinton did a great thing from 35,000 feet and not one American life was lost. We're still there watching low level slaughter and absolutely nothing was accomplished.

There are thirty or forty places around the world where there's arguably a "humanitarian crisis". Most of them are instigated by the recognized governments of the country. The body that was assembled to deal with just such stuff doesn't bat a eyelash. In fact, the heads of government are welcomed at Turtle Bay to standing ovations when they castigate the US. Let them fix their own problems.

Now then, I responded to you. I expect a response from you about North Korea, Zimbabwe, and all of Islam still living in the ninth century.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

While I totally disagree with you (not uncommon) on not caring whether people starve,I may agree with you on the policy. First, the principle though. You say you do not care if these people starve, I serve a God that notes the falling of a sparrow. I do not see how one can claim to be a follower of Christ and not care about their brothers and sisters around the world starving, maybe you don't.
Anyway on to the policy. I believe that humans are created equal, therefore I do not see a problem with an American sacrificing his life if it would mean a greater number of people living. There was a time when I would have responded to your question about what to do to all the humanitarian problems in the world by responding that we should invade them too. However, I now see two problems with this, one ethical, the other practical.
The ethical problem is, even though I think it is noble for one to sacrifice their live for others, is it right for the government to make that decision? I don't know that it is the Government's job to make the sacrifice. If our soldiers take an oath to defend world peace than I don't have a problem with this, but I think their oath is more along the lines of defending the Constitution. Now, I am not neccessarilly against starting a volunteer Army which is devoted to world peace, but I don't know that it is right to sacrifice those who have not agreed to be sacrificed.
The second problem is logistical. While I used to imagine that the U.S. military could go into all the oppressed countries of the world and establish democracies, I now realize that it is not that simple. It seems possible that our troops might only serve as targets. In order to win in a conflict we need to pick a side, or at least a solution that we are fighting for, is there a plan for troops to do anything more than stand around and get shot at?
So I strongly disagree that we should not care. I also think that the USA as one of the most powerful countries may be able to be part of the solution. But we should definitely think twice before considering the U.S. military to be that solution.

Everyone need world, no matter how many of them have to die to bring it about.

What a predictably silly mish-mash of foolishness.

First of all, I didn't say that I didn't care whether people starved. I said I wasn't willing to deploy the US military to stop it.

All people are created equal so it's OK for an American to die so 1000 (or 100, or 10 - what's the cutoff?) people in Bangladesh can live. How magnanimous of you. And how completely mind-numbingly stupid of you. As a matter of policy, you just decided to expend the US military to right every wrong on the whole bloody planet. For the sake of natives, not for the sake of the US. Call your local recruiter. Ask him what it is that new recruits swear to uphold when they enlist. [HINT: it's the US Constitution.] [ANOTHER HINT: it doesn't cover foreign nationals.]

No US soldier, sailor or Marine has EVER - or will ever - swear to uphold "world peace", what ever that is. What you are trying to do is create an international police force. See the UN Charter. If you have trouble finding it, look in the encyclopedia under "F" for "FAILURE".

Bottom line, you want to wring your hands and whine. You think "we" should be doing something, but choosing sides would be bad. Our troops standing around (probably unarmed since they are a force for "peace") to get shot at isn't a real good idea either. We should think twice. But maybe we should or shouldn't do something.

Oh my.

You should call Dennis Kuchinich's office. You're right on his wavelength.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Some things, like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are best left to humanitarian organizations (charities).

'Tis NOT the role of government. Once gov't gets in the mix, you end up with beuraucratic leeches and corruption (ahem... "oil for food").

www.scottbomb.com

If you were responding to me read the post because with all due respect you missed my point. You attack me for saying that we should expend forces to right every wrong. I did not say this I said that this is a view which I had and then have grown out of. Then you attack my arguement on the basis that the troops swear an oath to the constitution, when I made that very arguement myself, in other words you seem to think that you are attacking me in presenting an argument which I made. You say that I say that choosing sides would be bad, when what I said was that choosing sides was neccesary. Pretty much the only reason I know that it my post which you were responding to was that you manage to read the exact opposite of what I posted.
Listen very closely and I will sum up what I said: I believe that we should care about the humanitarian crisis, but I do not believe that we have a right to send troops who are sworn to defending the constitution to solve the problem
( for solely humanitarian reasons).

Are you saying that under NO circumstances should the lives of American troops be put at risk for purely humanitarian reasons? If so, should our troops not fly relief supplies to victims of natural disasters (e.g., Asian tsunami) because doing so places them at greater risk of death than they would face if not deployed for that purpose (e.g., a helicopter going down)?

I guess I don't know at this point. At one time I was totally on your side of the isssue. But I have now thought about how those in the military have not signed up to defend world peace, therefore even though I am for world peace ( as is most everybody) is it right to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for it anymore than it would be for the government to round up a bunch church members on a sunday morning and send them to die for others. All life is equal, and when one can sacrifice there life and save a great number of people than it seems like a good thing for them to do. I don't know that it is the government role though, to send those who are not signed up to do so. I am not totally convinced on this issue though and welcome discussion. I would also be interested to hear what could actually be done to solve the problem, as I don't see how troops would do any good at this point.

Thanks. I respect the argument that putting our troops lives at risk for purely humanitarian reasons abroad could be (if I may paraphrase) a violation of the contract made with them. And I think you see that, unless one would object to putting their lives at risk for an airlift of relief supplies for victims of a natural disaster, he/she is not taking the absolutist position that our troops' lives should NEVER be put at risk to save the lives of foreigers (unless it were in our self-interest). That is a critical distinction, because the absolutist position makes discussion of everything else moot. If you have a chance to think about it, I'd like to know where you come down on that question.

Brooks, there's a big difference between dropping wheat and dropping bombs. There's a huge difference between trucking food into a natural disaster and running military operations where people will be shooting at you.

I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

And, I would be absolutely opposed to delivering food aid via the military (or any other way for that matter) to North Korea or Zimbabwe. Their problems are government made, not natural disasters.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Would you please stop and think for at least a second or two before firing off a response (especially if you're going to imply that someone else is obtuse)? The key point is obviously that, even when airlifing supplies for disaster relief, the lives of American troops are put at risk to save the lives of foreigners. If you absolutely oppose this trade-off, then you would oppose it in the case of relief supplies -- under ANY circumstances ANYWHERE. Get it?

The risks you describe (delivering supplies in a non-military situation) are so small to be almost non-existent and about the same as they would be exposed to if they weren't on a mission at all. It is not at all comparable to intervention in an armed conflict.

You are big on hypotheticals... so how about this:

If you think it is fine to order an American soldier to his death when there are no American interests at stake, what about performing medical experiments on someone against their will, resulting in their death, if it might save "millions of innocent men, women, and children" from, say, AIDS. Is that OK? Is it all just a numbers game for you, everything else be d*mned?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Tough challenge to my position and an excellent use of a hypothetical to do so. I have an answer, but please do me the courtesy of answering my question first.

You assumed away my hypothetical by stating that there is no (or no significant) incremental risk to the lives of our troops by, say, airlifting emergency supplies for disaster relief. Deliberate or not, that was an evasion of the question regarding the principle here, so let me refine my hypothetical by stipulating that we have before us a situation in which airlifting these supplies would be dangerous enought that there is a good chance that at least one American troop will die, and that this risk level is far greater than these troops would face if not deployed for this mission. Maybe you think that that could never possibly be the case (which would seem to be far too sweeping an assumption to be reasonable), but, for the sake of argument here, assume it is the case. Now, would you object under ANY circumstances to sending troops on such a mission?

is a craw full you.

You can't see the difference between MILITARY ACTION and humanitarian relief.

Brooks, soldiers, sailors and Marines put their lives at risk every day in training. As a matter of fact, we've lost more US military since the initial invasion of Afghanistan in training and in just plain accidents than we have to hostile fire.

On a personal note, my son made it through two deployments as a Marine SpOps unit team leader and hurt in a training accident at mountain warfare school. He ended up with a medical discharge and a 50% disability rating because of it.

I don't oppose putting people's lives at risk - including my son's - for reasons of national security. I don't have a problem with natural disaster relief either because the risk of death or injury is very low. I have a huge problem putting their lives at risk for crap like Darfur because their RoE will very limiting and they are at significant risk.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

which risk cannot be considered giving up life. For example Airlines require pilots to take a certain risk, but I would not say that they are requiring them to give up their lives. I think going to Darfur would very likely mean giving up life. Whether it is ethical to force the soldiers to do anything outside of what they are signed up to do if something that I would struggle with. However, I think that soldiers would probably go on the -dropping food into countries missions- even if they were not under order to do so.

With respect, I'm going to push for a more direct answer. Could it EVER (i.e., under SOME circumstances) be justified to ORDER American troops for such a mission? To get around the distinction between RISKING the lives of some of our troops and SACRIFICING their lives, assume for the sake of argument that there is a very good chance that at least one American troop will die in the mission.

I think we did a great job in Grenada. I'd support that kind of mission again.

As you may know, there's a page pertaining to some of your concerns about matters like this over at the State Department, not just involving direct counterterrorism missions but also humanitarian missions. Here are some excerpts:

• On March 5, a U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules cargo plane delivered another $30,000 of emergency relief supplies -– including water containers and pumps -– to flood-devastated eastern Bolivia, where 70,000 families have been affected by months of heavy rainfall. The United States has donated nearly $1 million in disaster assistance since Bolivia declared a national emergency.

• On February 26, U.S. military engineers in Assamo, Djibouti, a village near the Ethiopian border, surveyed a site for a new water well scheduled to be dug in April, part of an ongoing project to aid communities in the Horn of Africa region.

• For nine days in late February, a team of 20 Air Force medics provided health care for more than 6,500 people La Pita, El Sol and Santa Teresa, Nicaragua, while an Army veterinary team vaccinated more than 3,300 animals for farmers in 10 communities. Follow-on medical teams are working in Nicaragua through mid-March.

• On February 18, U.S. Marines and Navy construction crews completed a new elementary school for 100 children in General Santos City, the Philippines, as part of a 10-day visit called Project Kaibigan –- Tagalog for “friendship” –- in which more than 1,000 American military people helped build or renovate schools in three communities.

• In January, a U.S. military medical team spent three weeks in Choculeta, Honduras, where they saved the lives of four newborns, performed 167 major surgeries and conducted 500 medical exams at the regional Hospital del Sur.

• In Afghanistan’s Khost province, many U.S. troops at Forward Operating Base Salerno spend their off-duty days volunteering to help treat patients at the base’s burn clinic. In the region’s harsh climate, hundreds of people are burned each year from exploding heaters in their homes. The U.S. military treats patients at its on-base clinic and has trained Afghan medical specialists to set up a burn clinic outside the military base.

but I do not know that the Military would have the authority to make such an order. It might be a circumstance where the military should try to intervene but do they have the authority? Sorry I have not yet figured out all of life's ethical delimnas. I would like to see intervention in Darfur, and if you can convince me of a plan to send in troops that would work and is legally justifiable ( in the sense of the power given to the military by the constitution and the oaths sworn) I am open to hearing about it.

I don't think there's a question of violation of the Constitution, but some here have presented the argument that it is a violation of the contract (explicit or implicit) we make with the troops when they volunteer, and I take that point very seriously and have given it some thought and will address it, but I'd like to get a direct answer from zuiko first and then I'll include my thoughts in the context of my answer to a very good hypothetical question that he/she posed.

For now, let me ask, do I understand your position correctly to be that you think that it is at least POSSIBLE that such use our military could be justified as long as it were Constitutional and were not a violation of the contract (explicit or implicit) with our troops?

I wouldn't have much of a problem with the United States getting involved militarily in Darfur on some level if there was a corresponding commitment to do so by some of the other major powers in the world. I think Darfur is a horrible hellhole and it's getting worse by the day, but the rest of the world surely must realize that also. So really your questions here should be addressed to every sovereign nation in the world that has signed onto the Geneva Conventions with a military budget larger than a few million dollars a year.

I can only surmise that more nations in the world haven't made this into an issue for themselves (regardless of what the United States might or might not do) because they have other reasons for not doing so.

Just so I understand -- since I don't want to assume agreement -- are you agreeing that, under some circumstances, it may be justifiable to risk the lives of our troops for a purely humanitarian mission?

Specifically - SPECIFICALLY - what would you do about:

1. Darfur.
2. Zimbabwe.
3. North Korea.
4. Cuba.

Thanks.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

he's trying to take over for flyerhawk as longest lived moby/troll/contrarian here. Maybe he is flyer reincarnated, haven't seen flyer lately. Anyway, the style is the same; whatever you say is just going to bring another question or rabbit trail.

In Vino Veritas

but he's no flyerhawk. I always found flyer's arguments to be well reasoned (if wrong), but this guy is a raging idiot. He won't address a rational argument he just wants to let us know how he FEELS.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

if he is a raging idiot then you should definetly spend all your time arguing with him. What do you find to be wrong with my advive: if you find an arguement to be rediculous don't waste your time. Nobody forces you to comment, live and let live.

when torturing helpless kittens is just plain fun. Especially little fluffy ones who can't either make a cogent "arguement" or spell.

"Rediculous" isn't it.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

thinking I misspelled but sometimes I just don't feel like pasting my document into word to spell-check. I suppose there is an easier way, but hey at least I know when I have misspelled. As far the cogent argument what argument are you referring to. In an above post (see the one titled "mbecker") I point out where you missed my point. Your reading of my post showed that you just skimmed what I had to say and read the exact the exact opposite of what I actually said. I respect you Mbecker, because you are much older, but I would appreciate if you would make an attempt to actually read what I say before you trash it.

If ever I appear to present a rational argument it's because I have spell check. :>)

FWIW, Foxfire has a good one as does IE7. I also have a plug-in spell checker that works with IE6. You can update to IE7 for free (yay!) and Foxfire is free. If you don't want to do either one of those, use my comment link, send me your email address & I'll send you the plug-in.

With respect to me missing your point, you were absolutely right. My issue isn't with you for the most part. It's with Brooks. And my snotty comments to Achance were aimed at Brooks not you.

Anyway, if you want the plug-in let me know. Hey, I won't even scribble your email address in the men's room. :>)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Mbecker, one of these days ( read after school is out) maybe I will install a spell-checker.

I'm no fan of the U.N., in no small part because of its indecisiveness during crises, and due to the fact that China and Russia have vetoes (and of course, China shamelessly protects the Sudanese government because of their oil deals).

As for my title, no, it's not "BS". Have you ever heard of the pledge "Never again"? It means "Never again will we allow a genocide akin to the Nazi Holocaust". It doesn't mean merely that WE won't commit genocide, and it doesn't mean we'll only prevent genocide if doing so serves our self-interest. IF -- repeat, IF -- we have the capability to prevent such genocide and choose not to do so, it is fair to say that it is happening "on our watch", whether one believes our choice is justifiable or not. And "on our watch" doesn't mean that it isn't also occurring on others' watch, nor that others don't have an even greater moral obligation to take the necessary action (just because someone else has a moral obligation to do something doesn't mean we don't have such an obligation if they refuse to act accordingly). Finally, around the time President Bush took office, he read a report on the 1994 Rwandan genocide and he wrote on that report "Not on my watch". That's probably where I got the idea for the title. So if you find my title so objectionable, you might want to write a letter to the White House, and while you're at it, write to Senator Brownback and Congressman Tancredo, both of whom have expressed a strong belief that our nation has a moral obligation to take strong action to stop the genocide in Darfur (including sending NATO forces http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/jan-june06/darfur_2-16.html). Below is from Brownback's web site:

"Human Rights
My belief in the value of human life is what inspired my concern over the international genocides taking place in countries like Darfur. I traveled to Darfur and Rwanda in early 2006 to see firsthand the tragedies that have taken place there. The suffering was unlike any I have ever seen. I believe that we must show compassion to these people. America is a great nation, and we have a role to play in protecting innocent life at home and abroad."

You really like warm, fuzzy generalities don't you. I'll go from bottom up.

And exactly what is Brownback saying? Hint: nothing. OK, Rwanda and Darfur are tragedies. I can make up a very long list of tragedies. As a matter of fact, I tossed out four for you that you haven't seen fit to respond to.

Bush agonizes over Darfur. OK. We've got a "moral obligation". OK. So what. You've managed to blather about this for a couple days without offering any - repeat ANY - concrete proposals. Maybe we could have a series of concerts for the folks in Darfur. Send the money to... the UN? France? The mayor of Darfur?

You want to send troops? Gonna arm them? Gonna give them RoE's so restrictive they can't shoot at anybody unless they're taking fire? Gonna ban air strikes and helicopter cover fire because a civilian might get hurt?

Sorry, all of this "concern" is nothing more than hand-wringing and whining. You want to have a conversation about "principles", fine. Then it's up to you to define just what sort of "humanitarian tragedy" we should respond to. You need to outline just who makes the decision - POTUS? Congress? the UN? Hey, do we need a "Declaration of Impending Peace" from the Congress before we deploy troops? What are the Rules of Engagement? Just how do we deal with a hostile government (Sudan/Darfur, for example)? What about the opinion of other regional/major powers?

"We have a role to play..." No we don't.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I disagree with your contention that one must state a position on exactly which actions he would want us to take in which specific situations before he can initiate a discussion of the core principle here and the underlying values on which that principle is based. You, to your credit, have answered that question. You do no believe that it is worth the life a single American soldier to save any number of lives of innocent foreigners under any circumstances unless it is in our self-interest (correct?). Given that position, any further debate over military intervention in Darfur is moot unless one wishes to argue that it is in our self-interest (I do not wish to make such a case, and as I've said, it's quite possible that such a case would be weak).

If, on the other hand, you did not have this absolute position, but instead believed that it is POSSIBLE for circumstances to justify our military intervention for purely humanitarian reasons, then we could discuss what those circumstances would have to be, if those circumstances apply to Darfur, and how to how to incorporated the related principles into policy, which I'll be glad to do with anyone who does not share your absolutist position.

Since you do have that absolutist position, the only place I can see going with our dialogue is to ask you why, under any and all circumstances, you value the life of a single American over the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children who happen to have had the great misfortune of being born elsewhere. If I've misrepresented your view, please correct me; otherwise, I'd be very interested in hearing your explanation.

If the death of "one American" could save "millions of innocent, men, women, and children," there would be no shortage of volunteers. That's not the way military intervention works. Military intervention isn't going to solve the problems in Africa any more than it did the last time it was tried.

What is it you want to send the military in to do, exactly? Use our men and women as human shields for the civilian population, attracting the attacks from radicals like a magnet? Attempt to take out mystery bad guy #1 so he can simply be replaced by mystery bad guy #2? Then find out that neither of which are all that much better than the "good guys" we are fighting on behalf of? Attract masses of AQ operatives to the region to wage war against the "Great Satan?"

You are free to sacrifice your own life to save "millions of innocent men, women, and children," but you have no right to order American soldiers into battle for something that is not in America's national interest. They volunteer to protect America, not to put their lives on the line on some ill-advised adventure designed to give the appearance (and only the appearance) that we are doing something about some humanitarian crisis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Is your point that it is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE for us to achieve our objectives to any substantial extent in ALL cases of genocide (or severe humanitarian situations in general) by using military force? If, for the sake of argument, you this assumption is correct, obviously I would not favor such action (it would be irrational to favor an action that has a cost but no benefit). But this assumption seems far to sweeping to be sound, so your comment still begs the question -- hypothetical, if you insist on the above assumption -- IF, IF, IF we COULD stop or substantially mitigate a genocide, would you rule out doing so under any and all circumstances (no matter how many innocent lives could be saved with how few lost American lives, no matter if no one else is willing and/or able to intervene to save them, etc.), and if so, based on what principles or values? (and PLEASE don't tell me you're unwilling to respond to a hypothetical as some people here do. I'm simply testing your principle.)

By the way, it risks lives of our troops when we airlift relief suppies in situations such as the Asian tsunami (helicopters can crash, for example). Do you therefore object to such action? (If you answer this question, please don't forget to answer the question in the preceding paragraph).

I guess I missed where I said it is impossible to have any success at humanitarian missions, though that statement would be a lot closer to reality than your "1 man for millions saved" hypothetical.

I responded to your hypothetical. It is not your place to order people to sacrifice their lives for something they did not volunteer for in the first place. If you want to create a peace corps with guns and recruit volunteers for it, go ahead. But that's not what the American military is for. That's not what our soldiers volunteered for.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

ok, as I mentioned in a separate comment, I respect the argument that it would essentially be a violation of contract with our troops. I would ask, though, the same question I asked in that comment: Would you also object to having our forces airlift emergency relief supplies to foreign victims of a natural disaster (e.g., Asian tsunami), since doing so puts our troops lives at risk (e.g., a helicopter going down)?

absolute disingenuous crap for 2007.

You will be happy to discuss specifics, except with Neanderthals who think your basic premise is an unmanageable, unworkable exercise in foolishness.

So convince me you premise is even remotely workable.

FWIW, I absolutely believe that the every life has value. I'm not in the business of playing God and condemning US citizens just so someone in another part of the world can have a better - or even another - day.

If those lives in Darfur are important, let the people of Darfur, or heck, even the people of Africa, intervene to save them.

Until somebody (hint: you) comes up with some sort of a realistic plan to intervene this is nothing more than mental masturbation. It may make you feel good and you can tell all your friends that you're a caring human being, but in the end it changes nothing.

At this point, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are a hopeless fool. I'm willing to change my conclusion, but not without some idea of how you expect this premise of yours to work.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

mbecker says>"FWIW, I absolutely believe that the every life has value. I'm not in the business of playing God and condemning US citizens just so someone in another part of the world can have a better - or even another - day."

Excuse me, wasn't part of the justification for regime change in Iraq due to Saddam's ruthless attacks on his own citizens ? We were sold on the idea that the removal of Saddam would lead to a "democratic" Iraq which would bring peace to that country and its neighbors. Basically so that someone in another part of the world (Iraqis) could have a better - or even another - day.

No, repression of it's population was not listed in the AUMF. Ignoring UN resolutions was. So was a bunch of other things. Specifically cited was US national security.

AUMF is here.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I'm talking about the numerous speeches the Bush administration gave to the American people to sell us on the idea that Saddam was evil because he killed his own people with chemical weapons. I'm also talking about the numerous speeches Bush gave us in an effort to sell us on the idea that a "democratized" Iraq would be a safer Iraq for its people and neighbors in the region. To suggest that wasn't part of the prewar sales pitch to the American people is disingenuous.

The war in Iraq was waged because every intelligence service in the world thought that Saddam had WMD and would have no problem either using them, or giving them to someone who would use them against the U.S and other western nations.

National security and our nation's interest in spades.

If Africans, and Pope Kofi Annan I, and the Europeans don't give a fig about Darfur, why is it suddenly up to us? It is about time the individuals and countries who have long slept under tha blanket of freedom we have provided sack up and actually do something about a genocide.

Apparently Rwanda and Burundi slipped past them. Now they have another chance.

which you think is useless and then complaining about the uselessness of the arguement is the height of vanity. Nobody has forced you to comment therefore if you think discussing hypotheticals is useless than don't do it, don't critisize others who think there is value to it.

If you think there's value here, what is it and how do we go about implementing it?

I think there's value in depositing money in my savings account. But without a plan to do so, it's just so much blather.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

saying is that if you dont think there is value in discussing something than don't. You don't have some sort of moral obligation to tell people what to discuss,the internet has a lot of space,live and let live.

said there's no value in discussing this.

What I've tried to do is to get SOMEBODY to lay out the rules for "humanitarian" use of the military.

All I get is whining about our "moral obligation" and people's feelings.

Put some meat on the plate, guys. All you've done so far is serve up overdone, boiled veggies.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

"Until somebody (hint: you) comes up with some sort of a realistic plan to intervene this is nothing more than mental masturbation. It may make you feel good and you can tell all your friends that you're a caring human being, but in the end it changes nothing."
The point is that you do not see any point to discussing the principles of the issues because if there are no specifics it useless, and the other guys see it in the reverse way. The truth is the specifics are moot without the principles and there is no need to have the principles if you do not have specifics. However, some of us are better at discussing abstract principles, while others are better at discussing the practical details. Both are vitally important, I certainly would welcome a discussion of the details, but I don't see why you have a problem with a discussion of principle.
To use your analogy, you need both veggies and meat. If I bring veggies to the potluck you can bring meat yourself, or just not complain that there is no meat. We all have different roles. I agree that the specific details are absolutely important, and hope to research them when I get some time.

Very well said. Their disregard for a discussion of principles is absurd.

I would add that I think the appropriate sequence in this case is to first discuss the core principle: Can there EVER be ANY circumstances under which we should put the lives of our troops at risk for purely humanitarian purposes? If anyone's answer is "no", than the specifics regarding circumstances (level of risk to our troops, number of foreing lives at stake, likely effectiveness, potential negative repercussions, etc.) don't matter, because even in a scenario in which all the circumstances favor justification of such action, it would not change his/her mind. So the first step is to discuss if justifying such action is at least POSSIBLE, which is why I've tried to get people to focus on that question first. Of course, some people are simply not going to understand the above, and annoyingly but also sometimes humorously, they actually think and express the view that it is others who don't get it.

I think both principle and specifics are important. You have a good point with talking about principles first. However, realize that at times you need to discuss specifics to figure out how far you need to go in exploring principles. For example whether or not sending troops into Darfur is ethical is a moot question if it is not practical. But then again the principles debate has further value in that even if it is moot for the current situation, other situations may arise in which it is not. So like you I find discussion of the principles to be worthwhile, and it does make sense to have some of this discussion before going into specifics.
As to those who " don't get it", don't worry about them. There may be some on this site who get rude ( I have been called a raving lunatic, and worse a fluffy kitten) but for the most part this is a friendly site, much better than Daily-Kos. Hope you stick around.

Thanks. And as long as there are reasonable people like you who are willing and able to engage in rational discussion/debate, I plan to stick around. I've never been on Daily Kos, but I plan to go there at some point, and I'm sure I'll be called by some a radical right-winger. Actually, that's happened on TownHall, where a couple of times I was challenging the arguments of some on the right and some on the left, with BOTH accusing me of being some extremist on the other side simply because I raised challenging questions regarding the assumptions, principles, logic, etc. that underlay their positions (apparently each side wasn't reading my dialogues with the other).

I try to encourage people to approach these discussions/debates more as you do (my post: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/03/real_debate_an_endan... ) rather than as some have demonstrated here and in many other blogging "conversations" I've seen.

Excellent point (and one which I have considered as well), and we should indeed work to ensure that the most appropriate institutions, nations, groups, etc. take the necessary action to stop genocide, it still begs the question: If the needed action to stop an ogoing genocide is NOT being taken by the most appropriate institutions, nations, etc., and it looks like they will continue to disregard THEIR moral obligation and that the choice comes down to our military intervention or allowing the genocide to continue unabated, should we (the U.S.) completely rule out military intervention under any and all circumstances?

Your point about American intervention encouraging others to neglect their responsibilities is an excellent one, and one I have always felt to be one of the stronger arguments against U.S. humanitarian intervention in at least some cases. But, leaving the specifics of Darfur aside for the moment and speaking generally, would you say that this legitimate concern (encouraging others to rely on us) would mean that NO circumstances could justify our military intervention to stop genocide (or for any other humanitarian purpose that can't be justified on the grounds of pure self-interest), or are you saying (which I would agree with) that this concern is an important factor that we have to take into account in judging whether or not we should take such action in a specific situation?

Individuals are motivated to make decisions based on :
1. pursue some pleasure or gain
2. avoid pain
I don't think countries/organizations are much different. The risk/reward ratio is in effect.

Of course we all want everyone to live a free and happy life. It's incredible that such savagery still exists in the world.

I would say that it would be an important consideration. If the US could intervene w/ zero risk then it would do so. The more risk taken on in a humanitarian mission the more reward there has to be. It'd be great if we could take on all the stray pups but we just don't have that much room in the pound.

We can support those who are willing to fight for freedom. Toppling governments w/ stranglehold on their people is a tough biz. We can only stomach so much of it here domestically. The people have to be ready and really want it. How long did it take the US to get on its feet in the right direction? We are learning people don't have that kind timeframe of support for long term missions on the behalf of other countries.

When you say "humanitarian" efforts it's usually not just about feeding people and providing medical treatment. That is one thing and there are many organizations for that. But you are really referring to getting involved in ideological struggles militarily and nation building.

The world has set a high standard that if you get involved you will take full responsibility until success in that country and take the brunt of the blame for everything that goes wrong. This high expectation will probably serve to prolong suffering of people under tyrannical regimes. why? After seeing how the US has taken a "beating" by the left here and talking heads worldwide for being bullies. What country will want to get involved in a military "humanitarian" effort?

If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents

My comment below was meant as a reply to your comment above (forgot to use "Reply")

Nobody, and certainly not me, said directly or even indicated that we should commit troops on the basis of self interest.

The correct phrase is national security.

There is a huge difference. Clinton went into Bosnia - OK, OVER Bosnia - for "self interest". It distracted the media.

Iraq and Afghanistan are matters of national security. So would Syria and Iran be, as well. Interestingly enough, I would be perfectly OK going into Iran and Syria for humanitarian reasons. Both countries are ruled by tyrants and are, at least in my opinion, humanitarian disasters.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Please tell us mbecker, how Saddam was a direct threat to the national security of the United States ?

This should be interesting...

1. aQ was training in Iraq.
2. aQ leaders were transiting thru and getting hospital services at Saddam's hospital.
3. Iraq had a long history of producing and using CBW. Every intelligence organization in the world thought they had WMD.
4. Iraq had a history of financially supporting terrorist organizations - Hamas, etc.
5. There is no reason to assume they would not supply terrorist organizations like aQ, Hamas, etc with WMD, technology and precursors.
6. They were shooting at US aircraft on a routine basis.
7. They were ignoring UN resolutions on a routine basis.

We did not find WMD in Iraq. They are probably in Lebanon in the Bekka Valley. Even though we did not find WMD, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they did not have them, did not have the ability to produce them, and would not - in a heartbeat - supply terrorist organizations.

Like Iran with the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. At some point in the very near future, we are going to have to make an assumption about their ability to build one, whether they have one and whether they have fissionable materials.

If someone decides to make the assumption that they don't, but if they do they won't do anything because they're not crazy, and that person is wrong, the price of that bad decision makes the lack of WMD in Iraq peanuts.

The question is, do we err on the side of caution and protect ourselves, or do we believe the tyrants and put our nation at risk.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Gentlemen/Ladies, with respect, before you get too far into a debate over Iraq, please set up a different place to discuss it. I know neither of you wishes to threadjack, but it seems that the Iraq stuff could easily set off a firestorm that is not sufficiently on topic here. Thanks in advance.

I think you'll find this info and the location of Saddam's WMD's to be of interest.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

1. aQ was training in Iraq.
Bin Ladin didn't want anything to do with Saddam. Saddam, although evil, was a secular dictator who didn't follow the extremist form of Islam of OBL and his followers. There were a few AQ members inside Iraq, but the reports suggested those bases were inside the no fly zones, which means Saddam didn't have any control of such bases. But its nice of you to try to confuse the readers on that point.

2. aQ leaders were transiting thru and getting hospital services at Saddam's hospital.
AQ members were transmiting through many countries, including the USA, and I'm sure there were many hospitals around the world that took in AQ members, including one famous hospital in Pakistan.

3. Iraq had a long history of producing and using CBW. Every intelligence organization in the world thought they had WMD.
Saddam did have WMD at one time. Numerous "western" countries sold such weapons to him during the Iraq/Iran war. So what ?

4. Iraq had a history of financially supporting terrorist organizations - Hamas, etc.
So have the Saudis, the Syrians, and about 20 other countries.

5. There is no reason to assume they would not supply terrorist organizations like aQ, Hamas, etc with WMD, technology and precursors.
As I stated before, Saddam did have WMD's at one time. Do you have any evidence that he sold such weapons on the open market ? If you do. please enlighten us.

6. They were shooting at US aircraft on a routine basis.
Flying within the borders of a dictator's country tends to cause problems.

7. They were ignoring UN resolutions on a routine basis.
So do we.

We did not find WMD in Iraq. They are probably in Lebanon in the Bekka Valley. Even though we did not find WMD, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they did not have them, did not have the ability to produce them, and would not - in a heartbeat - supply terrorist organizations.
Read my earlier statement on that.

Like Iran with the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. At some point in the very near future, we are going to have to make an assumption about their ability to build one, whether they have one and whether they have fissionable materials.
Pakistan is the base of Al Qaeda, Pakistan has nukes. You do the math.

The question is, do we err on the side of caution and protect ourselves, or do we believe the tyrants and put our nation at risk.
Good question. With respect to Iraq, we now have a much bigger terrorist problem there than before the invasion. There is no stability in Iraq, nor is there hope of a peaceful resolution anytime soon. Ultimately, we will most likely have to put another "strongman" inside Iraq fully armed to the teeth. But getting back to the original point of this thread, what you should have stated was that Saddam was a threat to the "economic" interests of the USA, and that Saddam posed a "security threat" to his neighbors, including Israel. But at no time in 2003 was Saddam a direct threat to the national security of the USA. That much is obvious.

It flies in the face of every intelligence organization in the West, the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Congress in 1998, the UN Security Council and any number of governments in the Middle East.

Enjoy your little dream world.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

The devil with Iraq debate is that Republicans have been defending Iraq for so long that a singular policy decision has somehow morphed into Republican principle.

Nation building, global policing, empire are not conservative or even American principles. We made a decision on Iraq based on national defense. We can argue intel, ground strategy, tactics and such, but conservatives shouldnt lose their principles over one war, one decision and one country. We won the war and got lost nation building. When its all said and done, the tried and tested conservative principles have been proven true once again.

We should save our resources for real threats and stike with ruthlessness when necessary. All this bravado about fighting Israels battles, saving Darfur, destroying Serbia and starting preemptive and unecessary wars with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and whoever else nonsense. Conservatives should get back to a strategic and prudent America first vision and our military should get back to doing what it does best and that is killing destroying enemies.