At what point does intervention become justifiable?

[Undesired Walrus]

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?
2: What makes it our right?
3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?

I don't like war all that much (Apart from on films!) but I do see that sometimes you just have to put aside these ideological issues above and fight for those to be able to live their lives as they choose without the hand of a horrific regime rubbing their face into the bloodied soil. My friend would argue that still, we do not have a god given right (We are both athiests) to say what is right, what is just, and I can almost argree with him, but not really.

I'm a young and naive 20 year-old, but hear me out, can we ever help someone out because of our moral outrage alone?

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?
2: What makes it our right?
3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?
*snip*
I'm a young and naive 20 year-old, but hear me out, can we ever help someone out because of our moral outrage alone?

It is expensive to get into military action.
The USA is stretched pretty thin at this point.
The POTUS demanded more $$$ for the troops and obtained it for a while longer, but that 'bank window' is now shut.

Look at GAZA, for instance. Should we place US Marines into that cauldron of misery, to straighten out a horrible mess which is clearly out of control and cannot be assuaged by our ally, Israel?

[Schneibster]

Sometimes there is an ethical obligation to act when atrocities are happening (and sometimes that obligation is ignored, as is the case with the US and Darfur). Sometimes there's a self-interested desire to act when another government is doing things that threaten one's country's interest. Other than that, I'm not sure there's any valid justification for war.

Speaking from my US-centric point of view, I'll also note that the obligation is hard to separate from the desire, particularly for an observer who notes that my country's claims of obligation always seem to be used as justifications after the fact. In addition, due to these practices, we don't seem to hold the moral high ground much anymore. Whining Serbians I can handle; they were engaged in genocide, either abetting it or allowing their government to engage in it through inaction. I'd be able to handle whining Sudanese, as well. The Iraqis are a different matter entirely, because it appears there was actually some positive sentiment toward us from the common Iraqi citizens at first; now, of course, they all hate us because of what the incompetent and corrupt US administration has allowed to happen since "Mission Accomplished."

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?
2: What makes it our right?
3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?

I don't like war all that much (Apart from on films!) but I do see that sometimes you just have to put aside these ideological issues above and fight for those to be able to live their lives as they choose without the hand of a horrific regime rubbing their face into the bloodied soil. My friend would argue that still, we do not have a god given right (We are both athiests) to say what is right, what is just, and I can almost argree with him, but not really.

I'm a young and naive 20 year-old, but hear me out, can we ever help someone out because of our moral outrage alone?

Besides being morally sure, you have to also be practically sure that you can achieve a better outcome. That is the key. How will the people see us? Do they really want to be "liberated" by foreigners, and how much will it really cost. So you have to have an achievable mission and a solid plan for how to achieve it first.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?
2: What makes it our right?
3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?

I don't like war all that much (Apart from on films!) but I do see that sometimes you just have to put aside these ideological issues above and fight for those to be able to live their lives as they choose without the hand of a horrific regime rubbing their face into the bloodied soil. My friend would argue that still, we do not have a god given right (We are both athiests) to say what is right, what is just, and I can almost argree with him, but not really.

I'm a young and naive 20 year-old, but hear me out, can we ever help someone out because of our moral outrage alone?

Justification is a chimerical thing, and subjective. See also Fig Leaf.

National self interest is a more practical framework from which to analyze an intervention, or any use, or threatened use, of force.

If you think that adherence to strict principle is the only rubric under which policy be undertaken, I suggest you leave the Ivory Tower behind.

Principle informs policy, but it does not dictate it, though the better they match the easier the political sales job, both internally and externally.

As soon as you say "should," I'll ask you to stop killing elephants to build your dwellings.

DR

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Quote:

they all hate us because of what the incompetent and corrupt US administration has allowed to happen since "Mission Accomplished."

What an original thought... are you sure you didn`t crib it from the local college newspaper?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?
2: What makes it our right?
3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?

I don't like war all that much (Apart from on films!) but I do see that sometimes you just have to put aside these ideological issues above and fight for those to be able to live their lives as they choose without the hand of a horrific regime rubbing their face into the bloodied soil. My friend would argue that still, we do not have a god given right (We are both athiests) to say what is right, what is just, and I can almost argree with him, but not really.

I'm a young and naive 20 year-old, but hear me out, can we ever help someone out because of our moral outrage alone?

You should probably also ask yourself what kinds of violence you would sanction against innocent people before it becomes "necessary" to start a war.

This is probably an appeal to emotion, but this image has always haunted me (warning-graphic). The thought of that child sitting in her bathrobe and then getting sliced up like that is truly one of the more awful things one could imagine. Could you personally do that to that little girl? What would it take before you'd see that as justified? For me, it's take a lot more than mere speculation, or fear mongering, or some US-centric notion of "democracy". It'd take a solid argument that failing to act would be worse than causing that.

Which is what "necessary evils" are almost always about, aren't they?

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I suggest you leave the Ivory Tower behind.

As much as I respect you as an eloquent and insightful poster that has often changed my mind Darth, I'd beg of you to abandon, at times, this patronising superiority that stands far higher than my Ivory Tower. As much as I do not live in the real world with regards to a lot of my beliefs, it does not mean there is a definitive stamp, ruling them out either.

[Caspian88]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

National self interest is a more practical framework from which to analyze an intervention, or any use, or threatened use, of force.

I concur. Conducting foreign policy based on ideas of morality, rather than practicality, will only cause problems.

[Schneibster]

Conducting a foreign policy without ethics or morals doesn't seem to have worked all that well to me. Perhaps your opinion differs.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Caspian88

I concur. Conducting foreign policy based on ideas of morality, rather than practicality, will only cause problems.

It doesn't have to be either/or. It should be practical and moral, IMO.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Quote:

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention

Hmmm...do you ever have any discussion about who gets to be on top?..just asking.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?

Free people always have the right to free non-free people.

Of course, what it means to be "free" is open to debate. I would argue a more advanced space society that had more freedoms than the US would have the right to invade and "jam them down our throats".

Which is to say, stop our own locals from opressing us.

Quote:

2: What makes it our right?

That's the wrong question. What gives opressors the "right" to opress other people?

Quote:

3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?

The right to intervene is not the same as the practical considerations, which, as the US is learning, can be quite daunting.

But the alternative -- keep heaving hundreds of billions in oil purchase money at them, which keeps "ruling them" as a high prize for the local warlords and sheiks, may be a practical solution, but is also unpalatable ethically.

[FarmallMTA]

Intervention is ONLY justifiable when liberals surrounding JFK say it is, and only then when their disasters can subsequently be blamed on Richard Nixon 10 years later.

And since both are dead, intervention can NEVER be justified. Only sitting in circles singing Kumbayah is justifiable.

[Ranillon]

Originally Posted by FarmallMTA

Intervention is ONLY justifiable when liberals surrounding JFK say it is, and only then when their disasters can subsequently be blamed on Richard Nixon 10 years later.

And since both are dead, intervention can NEVER be justified. Only sitting in circles singing Kumbayah is justifiable.

Okay -- we get it -- whenever any subject comes up (where applicable) we will all assume you take the strong pro-conservative/libertarian position or at least take the opportunity to bash liberals. We can all accept that without having to actually read it -- repeatedly.

Now, can we just concentrate on useful dialogue? This sort of overblown rhetoric really doesn't help.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Conducting a foreign policy without ethics or morals doesn't seem to have worked all that well to me. Perhaps your opinion differs.

Reducto absurdum noted.

"Without ethics or morals" is an overstatement, reductionist, one each.

I'll grant you that the degree that ethics or morals informs, or dictates, policy changes over time. The match between a principle and a practical isn't always a perfectly sized glove for the hand.

That the morals/ethics to policy match may currently be at an ebb depends on

1. your point of view
2. which ethics, and morals you ascribe to
3. how well or badly the policy makers adhere to in fact, versus as advertised, a set of ethics or morals.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

As much as I respect you as an eloquent and insightful poster that has often changed my mind Darth, I'd beg of you to abandon, at times, this patronising superiority that stands far higher than my Ivory Tower. As much as I do not live in the real world with regards to a lot of my beliefs, it does not mean there is a definitive stamp, ruling them out either.

OK, so I am an arrogant prick. Noted, but the doctor did tell me that mine was a terminal case.

I'll see what I can do to alleviate my affliction's impact on our discourse. Should I wear gloves? Should I turn my head when I cough?

DR

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

You should probably also ask yourself what kinds of violence you would sanction against innocent people before it becomes "necessary" to start a war.

This is probably an appeal to emotion, but this image has always haunted me (warning-graphic). The thought of that child sitting in her bathrobe and then getting sliced up like that is truly one of the more awful things one could imagine. Could you personally do that to that little girl? What would it take before you'd see that as justified? For me, it's take a lot more than mere speculation, or fear mongering, or some US-centric notion of "democracy". It'd take a solid argument that failing to act would be worse than causing that.

Which is what "necessary evils" are almost always about, aren't they?

Do you have further information on that occurence?



sis tsV/W18

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I'll see what I can do to alleviate my affliction's impact on our discourse. Should I wear gloves? Should I turn my head when I cough?

DR

You can hack into your hands and then rub it in my face, then at least the cold spit of reality can soak into my idealistic pores

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Caspian88

I concur. Conducting foreign policy based on ideas of morality, rather than practicality, will only cause problems.

The problem is that ignoring morality for practicality can have massive consequences. Look at Iran, in the 50's we took the practical but not really idealistic approach of helping the Shaw return to power and he was a great ally for years. Now that appears to not have worked out so well.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Free people always have the right to free non-free people.

You and I believe that, but in the wider world scale, is there really an ideological consensus that freedom is the ultimate right that comes before all others?
While I can understand the unlikely and impractible situation of such a military intervention (Given my previous thread on the issue) in Burma, lets see this as idealistic for a moment.
Aung San Suu Kyi won with 80% of the vote around 20 years ago. That is the people saying they want to be free, they want to have their voices heard. Since this didnt happen, and she has been under house arrest since with one of the worst military dictatorships controls the population of Burma. While such military intervention is unlikely to happen, would we be, from an ideological perspective, justified?

I guess what I ask is at what stage does it cease being a rather nationalist value issue and become an ethical consensus?

[Beerina]

Quote:

You and I believe that, but in the wider world scale, is there really an ideological consensus that freedom is the ultimate right that comes before all others?

No lack of gigantic lines to get into the US from all non-free countries?

The fact that the only ones defending the "right" of the power hungry in these countries to murder their way to the top are either those in power over there, or people sitting safely in free countries wringing their hands over whether they should get involved?

In any case, I also do not hold "the vote" as an ultimate value per se -- it can, and has been, regularly used by charismatic leaders to install laws that oppress freedom. I've long noted that politicians in my own country regularly mention "democracy", but rarely "freedom". We see this idiocy come to a head in places like Iraq where many Western political philosophers, who hold democracy as a value above all others, including freedom, sit back and wonder where they went wrong, baffled, as Iraqis install mandatory state relgions "democratically".

Well, it's clear your theory, "vox populi, vox dei", is wrong, as it leads to bad things. In drug research or muffler repair, they'd change their tune. In this, they buckle down and rationalize even harder that something else must be wrong.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Do you have further information on that occurence?



sis tsV/W18

I don't know where it was first published, but I saw it first on a news item during "Shock and Awe" and it claimed that the child was killed during a US bombing raid. Robert Fisk then posted it on his website. I'm not sure how to search the image file for more information than that, and I don't recall what paper that was.

ETA: Found it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884769.stm

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Free people always have the right to free non-free people.

Yikes. That false certainty of messianic manifest destiny is bizarre and frightening to those of us in nations not quite so armed to the teeth as you are.

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Hello. I was having a discussion with my housemate today about military intervention. He brought up a good few issues such as
1: When is it our right to say how the political system of another nation should work?
2: What makes it our right?
3: Shouldn't we just let it sort out itself, not even give help to pro-western campaigners in Tehran?

There's a old saying; Nations do not have permanent friends, but they have permanent interests. And it is those permanent interests that should (note that I say should) be what a nation uses to decide if war/peace/negotiation/
etc. is the proper policy.

An example or two. The US does not have a permanent interest in the Middle East. We have an interest, yes, based on oil and lasting about 100 years (~1950-2050) but not a permanent interest in what happens there (and yes, somebody will bring up Iran/nukes, but bear with me a bit). We do have a permanent interest in seeing that no other Great Power controls nations/regions in the Americas (James Madison got that right early on), which is why we endedup eye-ball to eye-ball with the USSR in the Cuban Missile crisis. But if Iran gets nukes in 5 or 50 years (I sadly consider this particular evolution in human history inevitable), unless they acquire the capability to devastate our country, it is not in our permanent interest to destroy/invade their country.

(To the above, I expect a lot of disagreement, which I will be unable to answer as I am refereeing at a youth soccer tournament in Tennessee all weekend)

Iran does not have a permanent interest in the US either; we just happen to be the Great Power that is jostling their elbow. Iran does have a permanent interest in maintaining it's role as the predominant power of the Gulf/Central Asia and, in line with that, keeping the Arabs divided and weak (if you think the terrorism that Iran funds--Hizbollah and it's ilk--are all because of anti-Isreal, then I suggest you are less cynical than I...or the rulers of Iran)

The Rus have a permanent interest in making sure none of their neighbor states have the ability or will to invade them--Russian history is full of invasions from East, West, North and South. Russia could live without the Baltic States and the other breakaways, as long as they stayed weak; let them get to close to Europe, well, see the reaction to Bush's plan for missile defense?

Others have discussed morals, and there is no doubt that moral issues play a role...but morals (and what constitues bad morals in a prospective enemy) is something that is so easy to spin (see Kuwati baby incubators) that it can lead one to do things that are not necessarily best for the permanent interest of the nation state. Getting Spain (albeit a second-rate Great Power at the time) out of Cuba and France out of Mexico in 1866 were justifiable and opposing the Soviets in Central America (despite our allies not having the greatest of morals themselves) were part of our permanent interest. Displacing a morally corrupt but useful ruler who kept the oil flowing may well not have been in our permanent interests.

I know the above sounds like a Machavelli shot with a Bismarck chaser, but I have grown old and hardened in my study of the history of humanity; best we decide what our permanent interests are and act upon them, rather than giving into emotional causes that usually just increase the body count.

There, UW, if that doesn't depress the heck out of you, nothing will...

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by webfusion

It is expensive to get into military action.
The USA is stretched pretty thin at this point.
The POTUS demanded more $$$ for the troops and obtained it for a while longer, but that 'bank window' is now shut.

Look at GAZA, for instance. Should we place US Marines into that cauldron of misery, to straighten out a horrible mess which is clearly out of control and cannot be assuaged by our ally, rael?

Quote:

The USA is stretched pretty thin at this point.

What an understatement!

http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/

Maybe this will help put it into perspective.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Hutch

There's a old saying; Nations do not have permanent friends, but they have permanent interests. And it is those permanent interests that should (note that I say should) be what a nation uses to decide if war/peace/negotiation/
etc. is the proper policy.

An example or two. The US does not have a permanent interest in the Middle East. We have an interest, yes, based on oil and lasting about 100 years (~1950-2050) but not a permanent interest in what happens there (and yes, somebody will bring up Iran/nukes, but bear with me a bit). We do have a permanent interest in seeing that no other Great Power controls nations/regions in the Americas (James Madison got that right early on), which is why we endedup eye-ball to eye-ball with the USSR in the Cuban Missile crisis. But if Iran gets nukes in 5 or 50 years (I sadly consider this particular evolution in human history inevitable), unless they acquire the capability to devastate our country, it is not in our permanent interest to destroy/invade their country.

(To the above, I expect a lot of disagreement, which I will be unable to answer as I am refereeing at a youth soccer tournament in Tennessee all weekend)

Iran does not have a permanent interest in the US either; we just happen to be the Great Power that is jostling their elbow. Iran does have a permanent interest in maintaining it's role as the predominant power of the Gulf/Central Asia and, in line with that, keeping the Arabs divided and weak (if you think the terrorism that Iran funds--Hizbollah and it's ilk--are all because of anti-Isreal, then I suggest you are less cynical than I...or the rulers of Iran)

The Rus have a permanent interest in making sure none of their neighbor states have the ability or will to invade them--Russian history is full of invasions from East, West, North and South. Russia could live without the Baltic States and the other breakaways, as long as they stayed weak; let them get to close to Europe, well, see the reaction to Bush's plan for missile defense?

Others have discussed morals, and there is no doubt that moral issues play a role...but morals (and what constitues bad morals in a prospective enemy) is something that is so easy to spin (see Kuwati baby incubators) that it can lead one to do things that are not necessarily best for the permanent interest of the nation state. Getting Spain (albeit a second-rate Great Power at the time) out of Cuba and France out of Mexico in 1866 were justifiable and opposing the Soviets in Central America (despite our allies not having the greatest of morals themselves) were part of our permanent interest. Displacing a morally corrupt but useful ruler who kept the oil flowing may well not have been in our permanent interests.

I know the above sounds like a Machavelli shot with a Bismarck chaser, but I have grown old and hardened in my study of the history of humanity; best we decide what our permanent interests are and act upon them, rather than giving into emotional causes that usually just increase the body count.

There, UW, if that doesn't depress the heck out of you, nothing will...

Nominated.

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by Comrade Ogilvy

Hmmm...do you ever have any discussion about who gets to be on top?..just asking.

Quote:

FarmallMTA--Intervention is ONLY justifiable when liberals surrounding JFK say it is, and only then when their disasters can subsequently be blamed on Richard Nixon 10 years later.

And since both are dead, intervention can NEVER be justified. Only sitting in circles singing Kumbayah is justifiable

*raises hand*

Is it permissable under the new playground rules in Politics to have a poll on which of the above posters has the greater signal-to-noise ratio?

Geez, they're making Vanderlay look competent...


whats that....OK, I'll be good now...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ranillon

Okay -- we get it -- whenever any subject comes up (where applicable) we will all assume you take the strong pro-conservative/libertarian position or at least take the opportunity to bash liberals. We can all accept that without having to actually read it -- repeatedly.

Now, can we just concentrate on useful dialogue? This sort of overblown rhetoric really doesn't help.

Just like some people around here bash conservatives every chance they get.

Works both ways.

And its annoying both ways.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Hutch

*raises hand*

Is it permissable under the new playground rules in Politics to have a poll on which of the above posters has the greater signal-to-noise ratio?

Geez, they're making Vanderlay look competent...


whats that....OK, I'll be good now...

I have them both on ignore and can only see that they posted if someone quotes them. It makes them so much easier to tolerate.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Hutch

*raises hand*

Is it permissable under the new playground rules in Politics to have a poll on which of the above posters has the greater signal-to-noise ratio?

Geez, they're making Vanderlay look competent... whats that....OK, I'll be good now...

Without characters, this forum would be boring.

Quote:

I know the above sounds like a Machavelli shot with a Bismarck chaser, but I have grown old and hardened in my study of the history of humanity; best we decide what our permanent interests are and act upon them, rather than giving into emotional causes that usually just increase the body count.

There, UW, if that doesn't depress the heck out of you, nothing will

Yeah, preach it brother Hutch!

DR