|
 Fairly tame pictures of starving kids and war in this OPThis is the continuation of a discussion that has derailed many a thread in this forum. Humanitarian, sometimes referred to as liberal, intervention, is a very complicated, controversial subject. While humanitarian relief aid falls under the humanitarian intervention umbrella, there isn't much to argue about the merits of giving food to starving victims. This thread is meant to be a discussion about its less popular cousin: Providing military aid and/or using military action in the aims of achieving a humanitarian solution. I'm going to try and put a lot into this OP to give people a solid platform for the discussion to branch out from, as it can get a little heated and silly at times. For starters, I would highly recommend watching this short debate from the al-Jazeera series "Head to Head." The host, arguing against, is Mehdi Hasan. He is the political editor of Huffington Post UK, and the co-author of Ed Milibands biography. He also hosts a couple shows on al-Jazeera. His guest is Bernard Henri Levy, who has been a very vocal humanitarian intervention advocate since getting involved in Bosnia in the early 90's. He became more influential over the years, and by 2011, was said to have been one of the key figures who pushed President Sarkozy into French action against Gaddafi in Libya. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bey0sA_GPAA This debate brings up some very interesting points on both sides, and features a Q&A section at the end where some Syrians and Libyans express their perspectives. KEY CONFLICTS Here I'm going to provide a brief outline of some of the more well known case studies where humanitarian intervention, or the lack of it, played a huge role in the eventual outcome of the war. This is meant to provide a quick reference point, as well as fodder for debate. There are tons of examples of interventions throughout history, dating all the way back to the late 1700's for the US, but few that were conducted with even a trace of action aimed at aiding an oppressed population. There are also tons of examples where at least one of the stated reasons for conducting an operation was for humanitarian causes, but very transparently was not a driving factor at all, especially during the Cold War. I've selected interventions that were stated as humanitarian interventions and acted consistently with a humanitarian goal. Not everyone may agree with certain interventions being left out, or the way I explained these conflicts. I'm sure there's some that I outright didn't even know about. This also is purely a list of humanitarian interventions that Americans were involved in, but surely some other nations have tried their hand at it. If you've got anything to add, post away, and I'll update the OP if your case makes sense to the posters in the thread. In the meantime, I'll try to make this objective as possible. For context, I am strongly in favor of humanitarian intervention in specific circumstances. In chronological order: BIAFRAN/NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR - NIGERIA, 1967-1970 Perhaps the first example of humanitarian intervention in an ongoing civil war. 50 years prior to the war, the UK drew up the colonial borders of Nigeria, which contained 3 distinct regions with 3 distinct peoples. In the north was a sect larger than the other two combined, the Hausa-Fulani. The Hausa were the most autocratic, conservative, Islamic sect. Because of their clear feudal system, the British found them easiest to control relative to the two southern sects that were very autonomous and divided in comparison. As a concession to the Islamist Hausa leadership for their loyalty to the UK, Christian missionaries were excluded from Hausa territory. This was a sharp contrast with the Igbo and Yoruba sects in the south, who welcomed these missionaries, largely converted, and based their bureaucratic systems around Western ones. They produced the first Nigerian doctors and lawyers, established trade throughout the country, and the richest attended Western schools. As a result, they developed and became literate much faster than the Hausa, who viewed these things as haram. In 1960, the Nigerian movement for independence from the UK began, supported by the Igbo and Yoruba sects. They wanted the terms of independence to create multiple countries to prevent the majority Hausa from dominating them both, but the Hausa were reluctant to have independent nations embracing Western ideals and developing so quickly in their backyard. In a concession for independence, the southern factions agreed to Hausa demands that there be one Nigeria with a Hausa majority. The Hausa maintained control of the country, and maintained their loyalty to the British in exchange for military aid. After a series of coups escalated tensions between the Hausa and the Igbo, leading to massacres of 7-30,000 Igbo people living in Hausa land, the Igbo declared secession, and named their new republic "Biafra." In response, the Nigerian government declared war on Biafra, and began an offensive to retake it. The British provided weapons to the Hausa Nigerian government, as did the Soviets, who were attempting to increase their influence in the continent. Meanwhile, the French provided weapons to the Biafrans, as they viewed Nigeria as having the potential to overshadow its proxies in the area, Gabon and the Ivory Coast. So where did the attempt at humanitarian intervention come from? Surprisingly, from aid groups, who took an increasingly partisan tone as the war waged on. The Nigerians blockaded Biafra, and used a campaign of starvation and disease to break the Biafrans, which resulted in pictures like these becoming widespread in Western news.   "Out of Vietnam and into Biafra" became the message, the rallying cry of a generation trying to overcome the legacies of colonialism and lash out at the Cold War order of the world. The movement was at its largest in the UK due to their ongoing support for the Nigerian government, and vehement denial of the starvation campaign as enemy propaganda (despite Nigerian officials outright bragging about using starvation as a weapon), but it was also prevalent in the US. It was shown as widely as the coverage of the Vietnam War for a time. The state department were receiving 25k+ letters a day about it, and it got to the point that Lyndon Johnson, upon reversing the stance that the US couldn't get involved in the UK's backyard, to approving limited aid for the Biafrans, said to his undersecretary of state “Just get those friend of the family babies off my TV set.” Of course, US aid was inconsequential with an attitude like that (not to mention there are reports that assert the US was aiding the Nigerian government as well), but the efforts and effectiveness of NGO's were unprecedented with so much support, creating the modern humanitarian response system. In 1967, the Red Cross had an annual budget of a half million dollars. In 1968, they were spending 1.5 million a month just on Biafra. They eventually withdrew from Nigeria due to the difficulty in appearing neutral, leaving no more than a dent in the overall effort, as so many other groups like Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) were created and gaining larger support with the clear attitude "gently caress being neutral." They wanted to take sides. The side of the victims. Their campaign largely took form in the Biafran Air Bridge, a system of airlifts that were delivering 250 tons of food every night while dodging fire from Nigerian forces. It was the second largest of its type in history at the time, and the largest that wasn't operated by the US Air Force. It's disputed whether these partisan NGO's were delivering weapons as well, but either way, weapons shipments were using the airlifts as cover to make their own deliveries. And surely the NGO's wouldn't have cared about it, as the humanitarian aid for those suffering in Biafra, and independence for Biafrans, were deeply linked movements. In conclusion In the end, the Nigerian government and its backers proved too strong, and re-took Biafra. The Air Bridge campaign is estimated to have saved a million people, but the conflict still claimed between 1 and 3 million lives, mostly children, who were starving to death at a rate of 1,000+ per day. Detractors claim that the aid for the Biafran military prolonged the conflict, and therefore the famine. However, the Hausa retaining majority control, and escalating their systemic oppression of the country, came at a large cost for the Igbo that would be felt for decades to come. We'll never know how a free Biafra growing alongside Nigeria would've looked had almost every major world power not taken the side of the Nigerian government, but it could certainly be argued it was a cause worth fighting for. OPERATION PROVIDE COMFORT/OPERATION HAVEN - IRAQ, 1991 In what I'm sure is news to you all, Iraq has a long, and tumultuous history of sectarian tensions. In 1920 after the end of World War I, the UK were entrusted with drawing the borders of the nation. This map isn't very accurate at a detailed level, but broadly speaking this is the demographics of the country they created.  The British installed Hashemite Sunni Kingdom largely held the country until 1958. After it was overthrown, and a few more coups lived and died, Iraq finally settled down under the Sunni Iraq Ba'ath party, who seized power in 1968. By July 1979, Vice President Saddam Hussein had consolidated power over it, and when the President stepped down due to "health reasons," he became the President. Since the fall of the Ottoman, Kurdish leaders had been taking turns fighting for independence against the central authority in Iraq, and living in exile after being brutally put down. In 1978, with the return of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan from Iran, they began gearing up to give it another shot. As the Iran/Iraq war became a bloody stalemate in 1983, the Kurds saw their chance to take control of Kurdish territories, and negotiate the withdrawal of Iraqi soldiers from their land, and so began the '83 Kurdish rebellion. This rebellion also stalemated, and it wasn't until 1986, when the Iran/Iraq War was winding down, that Saddam was able to truly respond forcefully. In what was called the Anfal campaign, the regime made it a goal to fill in every checkbox on the war crimes list they possibly could. They exterminated Kurds through firing squads, burning villages, looting, raping, tossing men in concentration camps to be executed, and culminated it all off with the largest chemical weapons attack on a civilian populace in human history. Halabja.  In 1988, a ceasefire agreement was reached. 3,000 Kurds had been killed in Halabja, between 50-180,000 Kurds were killed throughout the campaign, and 1 million had fled the country. The region was devastated. After the Army caught it's breath, Saddam turned around and invaded Kuwait, initiating Operation Desert Storm. In February 1991, the war ended, and people from all sects and walks of life were pissed. In just a decade, Saddam had entangled Iraq in two devastating wars, and destroyed the Iraqi economy and its infrastructure. Massive protests in the Shia south kicked off on March 1st, and with military units defecting en masse, it immediately became a military campaign. On March 5th, empowered by deserters and defectors from militias and the Army, and by the Ba'ath party being beaten on every front, the Kurds began an offensive. By March 20th, they held control of every city in Northern Iraq except Mosul. At the height of the rebellion, forces disloyal to Saddam controlled 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. But they were united only in their goal to see Saddam removed from power. After the initial wave, regime loyalists were able to start pushing forward, and began an Anfal campaign on the entire country. The wave of Kurdish refugees were refused entry into Turkey, while Iran accepted some. The rest were pushed into the mountains, where they were ill-prepared for the freezing conditions, at the mercy of the Iraqi forces. On April 5th, the UNSC passed resolution 688 condemning the Iraqi campaign, and on April 6th, the US began aiding Kurdish forces and provided a no-fly zone in the north and south along the 33rd and 36th parallel. 20,000 soldiers from 10 countries were deployed. In response, the Iraqi Army withdrew from the north, and in October of '91, the Kurdish Regional Government gained their independence from Iraq, and held elections the following March.  In conclusion Between 80-230,000 people died in the uprising. 1.8 million refugees fled the country. Fighting continued in the north until October 1991, and in some areas of the south, until 1994. Some Iraqi's and observers accuse the US of not doing enough, as they were encouraging uprisings against Saddam, and people thought the US would aid them in that goal. George Bush made some public statements in February inciting it, and an alleged CIA owned radio station in Saudi Arabia also pushed for rebellion. However, 3 million people were living in the Kurdish held territories, who enjoyed unprecedented freedom from Saddam's regime due to the operation. The coalition forces relocated 700,000 Kurds, restored 70% of the villages destroyed in Iraq, and provided 17,000 tons of supplies. The negative aspect is that Iraq was embargoing Kurdish territory despite not venturing into it, and the US was embargoing Iraq. Economically, things hit rock bottom as Kurdish deals were done solely through the black market. In 1994, a Kurdish civil war broke out, and 3,000-5,000 people died over the 3 years of fighting. But with the benefit of hindsight, the KRG now seems to be easily the most stable region in Iraq. Another aspect to keep in mind is that Turkey was very hesitant in this operation, despite playing a key role as a staging area. As a result, the operation had to continue to be extended 6 months at a time to guarantee Turkey the NFZ wouldn't be a permanent thing. In June 1992, nearing the deadline, Saddam stacked soldiers on the frontline, foreshadowing an invasion. But the deal was extended, and the NFZ was upheld until 2003 when the invasion began, preventing another Anfal campaign from happening. Definitely an interesting debate to be had on this one. STILL TO COME: THE MILOSEVIC WARS - BOSNIA AND KOSOVO, 1992-1995 1998-1999 OPERATION GOTHIC SERPENT - SOMALIA, 1993 THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE - RWANDA, 1994 THE LIBYAN CIVIL WAR - LIBYA, 2011 THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR - SYRIA, 2011- THE GREETED AS LIBERATORS IRAQI FOOTNOTE Many conflicts don't fall under the umbrella of humanitarian intervention, and I'd like to keep those separate unless they are relevant to an ongoing discussion. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is one of these. However, Iraq is relevant when it comes to popular support being sought for intervention, as there were nods by officials within the Bush administration towards liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny. But it is very clear that the US intent had nothing to do with the needs of those suffering in Iraq. Whether it was to remove Saddam to depose a threat to the United States, or for oil, or whatever reason, the US didn't attempt to conduct the war there based on liberating Iraqi's from tyranny, and I think we can all agree on that. So lets keep that in context. So what, if anything, can the international community accomplish militarily towards humanitarian aims? Clearly governments are going to have the agendas of their own nations to take into account. Can those sort of imperialist viewpoints fall in line with a humanitarian goal and result in win/win situations? Or will nations inherently act in their own interest at the expense of the populations in the regions they are poking around in? Volkerball fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Nov 17, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
It is obviously situational but I take issue with humanitarian aid as being necessarily conflated with what at times are outright proxy conflicts of Western. Your first example of Nigeria seems to show that what humanitarian efforts that occurred were often concurrent with a larger proxy war that exacerbated the problem. Furthermore, I think your example of Iraq is far from complete considering the effect Western sanctions across the 1990s had on the larger non-Kurdish population. Personally, it is a pretty troublesome lacuna, and one thing that I think is going to be a real issue is talking about the effect intervention has not only one specific subset of the population. Can the Bosnia talked about without Karjina? Edit: Also the 2003 war was in part promoted as humanitarian, I think it is still necessary to talk about it in the context of what happens when there is a bait and switch? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is obviously situational but I take issue with humanitarian aid as being necessarily conflated with what at times are outright proxy conflicts of Western. Your first example of Nigeria seems to show that what humanitarian efforts that occurred were often concurrent with a larger proxy war that exacerbated the problem. Certainly proxy wars between nations can complicate things and have a terrible effect on the war at the expense of civilians, especially when those countries aims are hegemony. But should those countries just be left to act with impunity with no response from nations who have the potential to be above it? Is Ukraine a better place because the US didn't get involved and left Russia to its devices? Yeah, true. 500,000 kids died as a result of the sanctions, but the sanctions weren't inherent to the humanitarian aspect. That was part of the "gently caress Saddam" aspect. And while the sanctions were terrible policy and drastically affected civilians more than the regime, there's no doubt based on his exploitation of the Oil for Food program that Saddam was using whatever he could to gain the power necessary to go back to the imperialist force he'd been in the region for his first decade in power. So while the US clearly chose the worst option, the alternate still wasn't a whole lot better. I also think HW Bush is far from the best we have to offer in a politician these days. He was still all about showing the world what we say goes, and all that American exceptionalism nonsense. Sure guys like Obama makes token nods to that stuff, but it's not the same. As far as the Iraq War goes, I wouldn't call it a bait and switch when it came to the humanitarian aspect. The Bush administration was determined to take down Saddam, and they lied and said what they had to say to garner support. The humanitarian aspect was just one "bait" of many. That said, I don't think support for the war was based around liberating Iraq from tyranny at any major degree. It was mostly the WMD's, Saddam's links to terror, and the threat he posed to Americans abroad and at home. But of course, that's totally appropriate to debate and discuss here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Military interventions cost a lot more than humanitarian aid. Dropping a million bucks of food on a country every month sounds expensive, but will that amount even buy you a single cruise missile? Also, military intervention risks the lives of military personnel, whereas the risks of humanitarian aid can be borne by aid organizations instead. The cost and risks of military intervention are far greater than those of just throwing food and medical supplies at the situation, and countries expect appropriate benefit to themselves for stepping in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
I disagree that "giving food to starving victims" is not contentious. A common argument against humanitarian intervention is that even when the self interest of a state aligns with the interests of an oppressed group, successful intervention lowers the threshold for other less benign military actions, which some might contend are the norm rather than the exception. The same argument could be applied to humanitarian aid- it's a manifestation of the "giving" nation's soft power, and also empowers that nation to pursue its exclusive interests amongst the oppressed. edit: Main Paineframe posted:Military interventions cost a lot more than humanitarian aid. Dropping a million bucks of food on a country every month sounds expensive, but will that amount even buy you a single cruise missile? Also, military intervention risks the lives of military personnel, whereas the risks of humanitarian aid can be borne by aid organizations instead. The cost and risks of military intervention are far greater than those of just throwing food and medical supplies at the situation, and countries expect appropriate benefit to themselves for stepping in. Unless you're excluding everything but the material cost of the food, "a million bucks a month" will at best pay for a loadmaster to chuck a sandwich out the back of a C-130. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Military interventions cost a lot more than humanitarian aid. Dropping a million bucks of food on a country every month sounds expensive, but will that amount even buy you a single cruise missile? Also, military intervention risks the lives of military personnel, whereas the risks of humanitarian aid can be borne by aid organizations instead. The cost and risks of military intervention are far greater than those of just throwing food and medical supplies at the situation, and countries expect appropriate benefit to themselves for stepping in. You can understand why that's not enough for people in certain situations though, right? In Ghouta, when a thousand were killed by sarin exposure, and aid organizations gave them gas masks? It's insulting. It also doesn't address the core issues. In Syria and Iraq, 14 million people have been displaced from their homes due to the violence. The choices in that situation are to try and create the potential for an end to the violence, or provide for 14 million people who are foreigners in their homes forever, and will never get the kind of opportunities they would have if they could go back to their old life. In the long run, it also has serious cons. As far as whether it's aid organization staff or military who is put at risk, I seriously couldn't care less. People are people. Dilkington posted:I disagree that "giving food to starving victims" is not contentious. A common argument against humanitarian intervention is that even when the self interest of a state aligns with the interests of an oppressed group, successful intervention lowers the threshold for other less benign military actions, which some might contend are the norm rather than the exception. Can you think of any examples that show this? Either way, outside of Biafra and Live Aid, I don't think aid from NGO's separated from government agendas has ever had much impact on conflicts other than getting people fed, though the lines certainly become blurrier when a nation itself gets involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Can you think of any examples that show this? Either way, outside of Biafra and Live Aid, I don't think aid from NGO's separated from government agendas has ever had much impact on conflicts other than getting people fed, though the lines certainly become blurrier when a nation itself gets involved. The only specific example that has been cited to me is the fight against polio in AfPak: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314231260/cia-says-it-will-no-longer-use-vaccine-programs-as-cover I mostly see this opinion amongst members of the internationalist and "alternative" left- people for whom US action in the Balkans is a transparent example of imperialism. edit: removed a catty comment Dilkington fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You can understand why that's not enough for people in certain situations though, right? In Ghouta, when a thousand were killed by sarin exposure, and aid organizations gave them gas masks? It's insulting. It also doesn't address the core issues. In Syria and Iraq, 14 million people have been displaced from their homes due to the violence. The choices in that situation are to try and create the potential for an end to the violence, or provide for 14 million people who are foreigners in their homes forever, and will never get the kind of opportunities they would have if they could go back to their old life. In the long run, it also has serious cons. As far as whether it's aid organization staff or military who is put at risk, I seriously couldn't care less. People are people. Sure, but from the perspective of governments, humanitarian aid is cheap and low-risk. The cost of feeding a few million refugees is pocket change for the US. Military action is several orders of magnitude more expensive and dangerous, and a country isn't going to take that sort of action unless they can get a return on that investment. Besides, look how the last decade of Western interventions has turned out. Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan haven't really ended up as shining success stories; the countries' issues run far deeper than one evil dictator being the source of all problems, and Western military force alone has proven insufficient to bring long-term stability to those countries. Would the Nigerian civil war have turned out any better if the US had backed the secessionists with military force? Probably not by much, because the Soviets would have continued to back the Nigerian government and then it'd snowball into a second Vietnam .
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Besides, look how the last decade of Western interventions has turned out. Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan haven't really ended up as shining success stories; the countries' issues run far deeper than one evil dictator being the source of all problems, and Western military force alone has proven insufficient to bring long-term stability to those countries. Would the Nigerian civil war have turned out any better if the US had backed the secessionists with military force? Probably not by much, because the Soviets would have continued to back the Nigerian government and then it'd snowball into a second Vietnam . Well also, the British were backing the central government at the same time, Nigeria if anything was a situation that split the West. However, there is a larger point, is backing a proxy war ever a good idea from a humanitarian perspective? I mean, I can think of contrary examples, such as Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia but that was against the British-backed Khmer Rogue. Also, you probably should tack on Yemen at this point to that list even if it is a "secret war." Volkerball posted:Certainly proxy wars between nations can complicate things and have a terrible effect on the war at the expense of civilians, especially when those countries aims are hegemony. But should those countries just be left to act with impunity with no response from nations who have the potential to be above it? Is Ukraine a better place because the US didn't get involved and left Russia to its devices? As far as Ukraine it could have gone either way, if Putin had called the US' bluff and poured even more troops into it, I can't see that as a better "humanitarian" ending. It could have easily been even a greater disaster for the civilian population. There is an issue with ring-fencing parts of an intervention because it is ultimately the same foreign policy and both tied together as a single project (saving the Kurds and loving over Saddam were obviously seen as closely related). You can always create an alternate scenario where US didn't lay down sanctions, but in reality they were tied together by the administration, if anything it shows how humanitarian actions are often a small part of larger more disastrous interventions. From my perspective of the period, I think the humanitarian/pro-democracy aspects of the war got a lot of more moderate/liberal leaning people to support the war in the first place. It was part of a mix of rhetoric the administration was throwing out at the time. Basically, I think different aspects of the war were promoted to different portions of the population to get the maximum amount of support. It is also why so many people have soured on the idea of that form of intervention especially in the Middle East. To be clear we are also talking about such vastly different things it will get bogged down easily, is the Red Cross showing up after a hurricane the same as US tanks maneuvering around Kharkiv?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
I think it's purpose was more of a cudgel used to beat liberals than to win support, though I suppose the distinction can be blurry. But there certainly was the general idea of 'either support the president or be on the side of Saddam, murderer of million of innocents'. Hell even in D and D those sorts of arguments were a common argument used to rebut anti-interventionists for libya, syria and so on. Syria is interesting because you can look at it and come up with two different and opposite conclusions. On the one hand early intervention and removal of Assad may have limited the number of deaths. On the other it might be the case that the most extreme groups rising to the top was inevitable and then woops you just armed jihadists that make al qeda blush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Voted this:quote:In favor of intervention in clear humanitarian crises provided there has been a UN resolution supporting action. There's a reason why the UN is there, and it's to prevent cold wars from becoming hot. Rarely have been coalitions on any side successful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Voted this: Out of curiosity what is the measure you're using a for a "clear" crisis? Does massive internal displacement qualify as a clear crisis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Yes, obviously. Imminent and actual danger for civilians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure, but from the perspective of governments, humanitarian aid is cheap and low-risk. The cost of feeding a few million refugees is pocket change for the US. Military action is several orders of magnitude more expensive and dangerous, and a country isn't going to take that sort of action unless they can get a return on that investment. Well obviously they aren't going to get militarily involved if there's no benefit to them, as the primary purpose of all governments is to benefit their own citizens, and that's completely fair. But I definitely think there can be situations where it's a win/win for both the intervening force, and the victims of the humanitarian situation. For instance, Assad helped shuffle jihadists into Iraq to kill American soldiers, and is a destabilizing force in the region. It's definitely in the US' interest for moderate Sunni's to win popular support over the extremists who present threats to US embassies and elsewhere, and Assad is a block preventing that. And of course, he is causing the largest humanitarian crisis in several decades. In a situation like that, it becomes less about whether something positive could happen for the intervening force, and more about logistics. Ardennes posted:As far as Ukraine it could have gone either way, if Putin had called the US' bluff and poured even more troops into it, I can't see that as a better "humanitarian" ending. It could have easily been even a greater disaster for the civilian population. That's actually something I've been thinking about, from a completely different angle. It's totally possible that Putin could've done that, but if that put more pressure on the Russian government, which could eventually lead to its downfall, could it have still achieved a positive result? Not to  , but lets look at the invasion of Poland. The UK and France had pacts with Poland, and declared war on Germany shortly after the invasion began. They didn't provide much aid for Poland, and obviously, the country fell quickly, and fairly painlessly in context with WWII. Ignoring the aspect that the UK and France might have needed more time to prepare for the war ahead, which would have been undermined by rushing into Poland, what if they had made it their cross to die on, and Poland had become the main battlefront against Hitler? Certainly it would've been much worse for Poland in that regard, but in the grand scheme of things, assuming the advance could've been stopped there, it's clearly a better result overall. So with that in mind, anything involving Putin is a pretty tricky situation. You're not just stopping what's happening in Ukraine, but you're helping to prevent whatever is next on the docket for Russia. I wouldn't liken Putin to Hitler, but he's clearly holding the entire region back from making progress, and every step towards ending that is a huge positive.But when you look at things like the sanctions on Iraq, and the effect they had, it's also quite possible that going about business with the aim of overthrowing Putin could have very serious consequences, that could perhaps outweigh the consequences of leaving him in power for the people in Russia and in the nations Russia are involved in. But this is all pretty drat hypothetical, because I don't think the US is anywhere near making the ousting of Putin this generations fight. Ardennes posted:There is an issue with ring-fencing parts of an intervention because it is ultimately the same foreign policy and both tied together as a single project (saving the Kurds and loving over Saddam were obviously seen as closely related). You can always create an alternate scenario where US didn't lay down sanctions, but in reality they were tied together by the administration, if anything it shows how humanitarian actions are often a small part of larger more disastrous interventions. Somewhat closely related, but I don't think it was a huge part. If the US wanted to take Saddam out, that was the time to do it. He had very limited support geographically throughout Iraq, and had control of a minority of the country. So the true "gently caress Saddam" thing to do would've been to ally with the Kurds and the Shia's to remove Saddam once and for all. And that's what those sects were asking for. But I think the US public were tired of the country as the war had just ended a few weeks ago. So the US had to make concessions towards the "gently caress Saddam" aim, and that's when we saw some semblance of a humanitarian aim pursued in Iraq. They wanted to show the opposition to Saddam that had aided the US that the US was there for them, but also needed to maintain a small footprint. So they established the NFZ, and ensured there would be no Anfal campaign. The aim of that operation was to maintain public support towards the West rather than towards the regime. For that reason, I don't think operation haven and steps taken to starve Saddam are two sides of the same coin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Can you have a humanitarian military intervention? It seems like a massive misnomer to me. I mean, we've gotten to the point where the language we use to describe humanitarian military actions actually obscures the intended results of those actions. You can have 'surgical strikes' with the latest bombs on 'dual-use' facilities resulting in 'collateral civilian damage' when in fact you intentionally destroyed Kosovo's ability to produce electricity resulting in a different crisis. How do you even weigh up the costs and benefits in situations like that? Yeah you might have helped stop atrocities but you've now replaced one problem with another, cool. It's humanitarian in a very narrow sense, completely detached from the surrounding consequences. I'm particularly wary of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
ColtMcAsskick posted:Can you have a humanitarian military intervention? It seems like a massive misnomer to me. I mean, we've gotten to the point where the language we use to describe humanitarian military actions actually obscures the intended results of those actions. You can have 'surgical strikes' with the latest bombs on 'dual-use' facilities resulting in 'collateral civilian damage' when in fact you intentionally destroyed Kosovo's ability to produce electricity resulting in a different crisis. How do you even weigh up the costs and benefits in situations like that? Yeah you might have helped stop atrocities but you've now replaced one problem with another, cool. It's humanitarian in a very narrow sense, completely detached from the surrounding consequences. I'm particularly wary of it. There is a degree of "trust" attached to it, that is really troubling, I agree. Hypothetically the UN is supposed to be the place where that trust is signed off on by nations, but in practice, it only takes one UNSC nation with any motivation to shoot it down. So what you end up with is individual nations, or coalitions of like-minded nations (NATO, etc) who take it upon themselves to declare a humanitarian crisis that needs addressed, while citing the uselessness of the UN. That is really subjective, and you end up with things like, for a less controversial example, Russia acting as if they were preventing armed gangs of fascist terrorists from taking over in the Crimea. The idealist in me says that public opinion in democratic nations can sway policy. In the Cold War this was not possible, but I think today, if there was 50-60% support for involvement in Rwanda to create safe zones and limit the deaths, we would get something like that. Kony 2012 was a fad, and a bad example as far as support for humanitarian intervention goes, but it does show that politicians do address large movements involving humanitarian crises in foreign nations these days. It's just difficult, because even if those paying close attention say "Hey, we wanted you to help these people, not bomb them into oblivion," the government only needs to keep enough people on board to prevent overwhelming dissent against their war strategies, which doesn't seem to be a difficult thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
quote:Kony 2012 was a fad, and a bad example as far as support for humanitarian intervention goes, but it does show that politicians do address large movements involving humanitarian crises in foreign nations these days. Along those lines, can you add to the list of "things to come" the way that Leopold II spun the creation of the Congo Free State as a humanitarian endeavor to protect the disorganized Africans from Arab Slavers? That's something I'd like to see gone into depth. Or at the very least maybe I could write something about it or if you could just share a little about your opinions on it that'd be great e: as a counterpoint to other examples, because as you have said, you are in favor of humanitarian intervention and I feel like one example of a clearly unjustified intervention would be helpful. Or if that doesn't fall under the classification of intervention, maybe the Spanish-American war and resulting Philippines-American would do. Either goes with my view that humanitarian intervention should not be rendered by state actors who take a view of the people they say they are helping as being less human, as this generally leads to interveners' irresponsibility with the lives of civilians. I don't think you can limit your examples to "having justified humanitarian intent that people follow through with" to argue whether proposed humanitarian interventions should be followed through with, because that's assuming hindsight as a given for future problems for which not all info has come to light. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I disagree that "giving food to starving victims" is not contentious. One thing I've encountered semi-regularly over the years is local political and business leaders (who, admittedly, are not the people who need the aid, and should probably be viewed with more-than-usual skepticism on that account) complaining that massive, heavily publicized aid blitzes drive down foreign investment and tourism, preventing local economies from developing and keeping more people in poverty. I'm personally doubtful of this, but am neither economist nor sociologist enough to know how to tackle the idea in any thorough way. Not that I doubt that Sub-Saharan Africa and Indochina suffer due to the way they are presented in western media, but I expect the food drives are less of a factor than the emphasis on pestilence and violence. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Death to America should be a poll option
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:One thing I've encountered semi-regularly over the years is local political and business leaders (who, admittedly, are not the people who need the aid, and should probably be viewed with more-than-usual skepticism on that account) complaining that massive, heavily publicized aid blitzes drive down foreign investment and tourism, preventing local economies from developing and keeping more people in poverty. What a load of crap. There's no shortage of foreign investment in developing nations, especially in Africa. The issue is that with business sweeping into the continent comes massive corruption, with limited ability and will to prevent it. In fact, in Africa, more money goes out than comes in. Aid has a positive effect there, but it's not enough to outweigh the influence of the very people condemning it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAO035ivjUw Rodatose, I'll get back to you after Christmas stuff. I'm gonna have to do some digging to give you a proper response, and I should be asleep already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI No talk about western intervention is complete without this interview.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:07
|
|