Perhaps I'm wrong, not for the 1st time, nor the last
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Fuchs is correct, others had the capability. Even had they not we could have done what I got to do in '64 -- hop on a US C-130 and ferry and jump Belgique paratroopers in the Congo. We've provided airlift for many people going many places we did not send ground troops.
LINK,
LINK,
LINK,
LINK.
We didn't even offer airlift to others, and airlift is the one thing that we do better than anybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The mood in the US after the Mogadishu screw up by Delta and the Rangers -- and make no mistake, they're the ones that screwed the pooch -- was totally opposed to any intervention anywhere. Rwanda was the victim of two pieces of bad luck: Timing and not one single US interest. You may think stopping genocide is in the interest of the US. The folks who'd have gotten killed and their parents, wives and kids might disagree.No it's not a fallacy. A thing is either right or wrong. The issue with both China and Russia is not that we could not have stopped it because we could have -- the issue is the cost. What you're saying is if it appears * the cost won't be too high, we should go in, OTOH, if it might be too great, we just cannot. :confused:
A lot of ideas in the above paragraph. I would say the inside the beltway crowd was in no mood to do anything after Mogadishu. The Americans, if told that we were going to make a small effort but decisive effort to stop a genocide by the knife, would have been up for the effort. We are a great people handicapped by poor leaders, especially in that case.
It is true that 800,000 sliced and brain shattered to death Rwandans not dying was not in the vital interest of the US. The internet still worked, gas prices were low, beer was cheap and the Indians didn't win the world series. Life went on as pleasantly as before. But we could have kept most of those people from dying a wide eyed terror stricken death and that would have benefited them, humanity and thereby us.
The question of the human cost when viewed on an individual basis is unanswerable. What is worth a child? Has any war we've fought since the days of Indian attacks really been needed? We have oceans between us and them. It is my opinion that the men who would have gone, volunteer combat soldiers, if told that they were going to risk in order to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from having their heads bashed in; they would have been willing to chance it.
It is obviously a matter of cost. If a great good can be done with very little cost, you are rather less than justified in not doing it. Cost of course is a relative term. What is small cost for us is great cost to another and they cannot be blamed for not trying. If the 5 year old sees the 14 year old snatch the purse of the old lady, he isn't blamed for not helping. If the 27 year old olympic track star sees the same thing, he is blamed. It is not wrong that the track star is blamed because he didn't help and the 5 year is not blamed. We were the track star.
Do you really think we could have stopped Mao's China from causing the famines and the other evils? That track star can't be blamed for not going up to a pair of grizzly bears that are eating the mailman and punching them on the nose
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
So you're willing to interfere because the target is weak but not to do so if it is strong. I didn't present a fallacy because a wrong is a wrong -- you are engaging in moral equivalency -- do 'what's right' only if it might not hurt too much... ;)
No that is not moral equivalency. That is a recognition of the practical realities of life. We do what we can when we can and mourn when we can't, if we genuinely can't. In the case of Rwanda, we could have but we didn't and we rationalize our failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
How can you say with any degree of assurance that stopping the killing in Rwanda would be a "relatively small effort?"Oh? How so? Please tell me of what the US -- or I -- should be ashamed.
Are you looking for certainty? It won't be found anywhere. As for a guess as to the magnitude of the effort required to stop the slaughter, I say that from the history of the continent in the last 70 years, that chances were good that effort would have been relatively small. Also the slaughter stopped because the RPA stopped it, light armed, foot mobile troops who were outnumbered by the killers. That may be another indicator.
You don't have to be ashamed. The Americans don't have to be ashamed, they would have responded if asked. America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act. I am ashamed because of that.
Many here say others were capable of helping the Rwandans live. In an absolute physical sense they were. But that overlooks the relative likelyhood of somebody helping if the cost is small vs. large. For us the cost would have been relatively small. But even that overlooks something much more important; the heart for it. When I say we were the only ones, it is as much a matter of us occasionally having the heart for it vs. the others not having the heart for it. We would have had the heart for it if our leaders had not been feckless and had asked. The other countries would probably have followed. That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.
It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.
The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.
...and while circulating the battlefield...
Quote:
If you can dream-and not make dreams your master;
If you can think-and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:
Gulf states send force to Bahrain following protests, 14 March 2011 Last updated at 11:58 ET, at BBC
Quote:
Troops from a number of Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have arrived in Bahrain in response to a request from the small Gulf kingdom, officials say.
Quote:
The troops are part of a deployment by the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), a six-nation regional grouping which includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
It is believed they are intended to guard key facilities such as oil and gas installations and financial institutions.
Quote:
The intervention from Bahrain's predominantly Sunni neighbours may deepen the rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Bahrain and beyond, says the BBC's Middle East analyst Magdi Abdelhadi.
France and Libya, Sarkozy's Libyan surprise, Mar 14th 2011, 13:12 by S.P. | PARIS at the Economist
Quote:
AS HILLARY CLINTON prepares to discuss Libya with President Nicolas Sarkozy this afternoon, she could be forgiven for a touch of confusion about what exactly the French are up to. In an attempt to make up for complicity and dithering in Tunisia and Egypt, France has stuck its neck out over Libya. After initial hesitations, it has become the most vigorous advocate of a no-fly zone over the country, and is working with Britain on a UN Security Council resolution to this end. So far, so commendable. But its apparent decision last week to recognise the Libyan opposition—the first big western power to do so—surprised not only France’s allies but members of Mr Sarkozy’s own government.
Energy markets braced for shock, By Javier Blas, commodities editor, Published: March 13 2011 16:56 | Last updated: March 13 2011 16:56, at the Financial Times
Quote:
Japan has shut down 9,700 megawatts of nuclear capacity, which equals about a fifth of the total. The country no longer influences energy markets as it once did because of its shift away from oil but the loss of nuclear power will force Tokyo’s utilities to scramble for crude, thermal coal and LNG as replacements.
Quote:
If the country were to replace all its shutdown nuclear capacity with oil, it would have to import 375,000 barrels a day more on top of Japan’s expected purchases this year of about 4.25m b/d.
Carl, neither you or JMA are convincing an old cynic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
We didn't even offer airlift to others, and airlift is the one thing that we do better than anybody.
Not least because no one wanted it. You might consider that and wonder why...
Quote:
A lot of ideas in the above paragraph...We are a great people handicapped by poor leaders, especially in that case.
Perhaps. I'm not all that sure we're such a great people. If we were, then as JMA likes to point out, we wouldn't elect such feckless leaders... :D
Quote:
It is true that 800,000 sliced and brain shattered to death Rwandans not dying was not in the vital interest of the US...But we could have kept most of those people from dying a wide eyed terror stricken death and that would have benefited them, humanity and thereby us.
Another perhaps. The likelihood is that we would have stopped some deaths but not all that many -- takes time to deploy nationwide, even in a small nation. Then we would have been castigated for not doing it right or doing enough -- and would have had an indeterminate number of US casualties in the process. You and JMA can dismiss those casualties, politicians in a democratic state cannot. Commanders of Armies in such nations should not.
Quote:
The question of the human cost when viewed on an individual basis is unanswerable... they would have been willing to chance it.
Had they been ordered to go they would have -- not quite the same thing as your comment. That, however misses the point that to get them to Rwanda under any circumstances requires an order. The reluctance to issue that order was very sensible IMO. You and JMA do not agree -- your prerogative. It was not in our national interest to do that and, once more, one cannot ascribe human traits to a nation. Nations are not and should not be altruistic.
Quote:
It is obviously a matter of cost. If a great good can be done with very little cost, you are rather less than justified in not doing it.
That's one way to look at it and as you say, cost is relative -- and a judgement call. :wry:
Quote:
We were the track star.
That statement may be the crux of our disagreement. I disagree that we are that. We do have some capabilities -- we also have some very significant shortfalls. It is my sensing that you and JMA do not care about those or are not fully conversant with them. Those shortfall also had an effect on the decision to not go. Without going into excruciating detail on those problems, they were highlighted by the experience in Mogadishu -- at that time fresh in everyone's mind. Particularly in the minds of those with the responsibility to make the decision. Many with no responsilbity in that regard disagreed at the time as you now do.
Quote:
Do you really think we could have stopped Mao's China from causing the famines and the other evils?
Yes.
Quote:
That track star can't be blamed for not going up to a pair of grizzly bears that are eating the mailman and punching them on the nose.
Moral equivalency -- either one has a perceived duty to intervene if evil is being done or one does not. It is not a conditional thing.
The fact is that we could have stopped either Russia or China but the cost would have been ferocious, perhaps unsustainable -- certainly true if we had tried to interfere in both. The cost of interfering in Rwanda would probably have been less but there would still have been a cost. You are willing, you say, to have asked Americans to underwrite that cost. Whether you -- or JMA -- would have done so with the actual responsibility is not known. :wry:
What we both are saying there, regardless of morality, is that intervening in China or Russia does not pass the cost:benefit test. You believe Rwanda does pass that test, I do not. JMA may also believe it does or he may be frying other fish, either way it is -- was -- a judgement call as was that on China and Russia and it was made as it was, ergo, you two are in a minority position. That doesn't mean either of you is wrong or that I an others are correct -- just that a judgement was applied and a decision made. For good or bad, it's now history and isn't gong to be changed.
Quote:
No that is not moral equivalency. That is a recognition of the practical realities of life.
Actually it's both...
Quote:
We do what we can when we can and mourn when we can't, if we genuinely can't.
And that is rationalizing the unfairness of having to adjust to practicalities... ;)
Quote:
In the case of Rwanda, we could have but we didn't and we rationalize our failure.
Who is this "we." You aren't rationalizing it, you just believe it was a bad decision. I'm not rationalizing it, I believe it was the correct decision, therefor I do not see it as a failure. Some may, they certainly can do so if they wish.
Quote:
Are you looking for certainty? It won't be found anywhere.
Heh. After 45 years in a trade that knows no certainty, I'm certainly neither looking for it nor do I expect it. What I can do is assess probabilities and look at that same 70 years and determine that interventions there have not ended well -- for anyone.
Quote:
You don't have to be ashamed.
That's nice.
Quote:
The Americans don't have to be ashamed, they would have responded if asked.
That's one thing we can agree on. The issue is whether they should have been 'asked.'
Quote:
America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act.
Hmm. That's one opinion. Mine differs.
Quote:
I am ashamed because of that.
Also your prerogative.
I'm not one bit ashamed about Rwanda -- I am however ashamed of the way this Nation, America, your paragon of virtue, has treated those from other nations where it has intervened. The plight of the South Korean agents and operators we shipped north, of the Hmong and the numerous south Viet Namese we employed for various things, of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and Southern Iraqi Shia among others we have abandoned. Those things are something to be bothered about...
As JMA has said, correctly, America has proven it cannot be relied upon ( * )...
Quote:
Many here say others were capable of helping the Rwandans live...That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.
I believe that statement to problematic on many levels but this is no place for an ideological discussion. Suffice to say IMO we were not the only chance by a long shot but other nations did not intervene as they did not believe it was in their interest to do so. So also did we decide that was the case. You disagree. That's okay.
Quote:
It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.
As they always have and likely always will. Unfair world.
Quote:
The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.
I do not agree with that assessment. The JMA position stated above ( * ) applies.
I think it has never been fully correct, is excessively idealistic and is even a bit romantic. I realize that many in the US and around the world believe -- or want to believe -- in that to one extent or another but I see it a flawed wish with little basis in fact or history. People will not follow our lead, they will do what we pay for (to include provision of airlift, equipment and personnel costs as we did for the Koreans and Thais in Viet Nam and have done elsewhere to include Iraq and Afghanistan) or accompany us for no pay if they see it as in their interest to do so. I also suggest that attitude, that misperception, has led us into numerous foreign adventures since WW II and NONE of them have been unqualified successes while all of them have lessened our status in the eyes of many to one degree or another.
People can be led and will give of them selves. Nations cannot be led and they don't give anything without a reason that provides at least some benefits to themselves. It is IMO very unrealistic to wish that were not so nor am I at all certain the world would be better off for such an attitude. Depends on one's attitude toward what government ought to be doing -- and bicycle helmets -- I suppose.
As I said, unfair world.
To return to our regularly scheduled programming, Libya is also not in our interest. IMO, of course.
Bob's World often says we need to drop the Cold War mentality.
Hard to disagree with that. He contends, accurately I believe, that we do not need to be overly concerned about what type of government others have. However, he also proposes a variation on part of that old cold war mentality, to wit, assisting in the provision of good governance. I've tweaked him often about the dichotomy of not interfering but assisting...
Which brings me to what constitutes interference (good) and interference (bad). Quite simply, I think the difference is a matter of individual opinion. However, I am convinced that ANY intereference of one nation into the affairs, bloody or not, of another which is based on nominal moral and / or humanitarian grounds is fraught with applying ones (or one group) judgement to a situation that one might not fully comprehend. That is not to say one cannot or should not so intervene.
It is to say one should be very well informed of all the potential pitfalls as well as all the apparent benefits. It is not enough that the intervention be seen as in the best interest of mankind (or subsets thereof).
I have no hesitation to advocate the use of force, all for it in fact -- however, I do think force carries with a responsibility to be used wisely and inappropriate amounts and I do think it should be used only after it is obvious other methods have failed. It is, in our case, a national asset and should be used only for those activities where it is appropriate, in the proper amount and in the national interest.
I first heard the phrase "We must do what we can..." in relation to fixing other nations in the early 1960s from a WH staffer who came to Fort Bragg to tell us why were were going to Laos. Unfortunately, that one didn't work out too well for us. I've heard it in variations many times since -- and none of those worked out very well either. Viet Nam in particular was a major drag. Iraq was not a 'cake walk.' We're still in Afghanistan -- and Kosovo -- remember that one "It'll only take a year..." Kosovo is an absolutely brilliant example of moral triumphalism overcoming common sense for no coherent reason.
In these 'failed state' and humanitarian imperatives' interventions, what a lot of well intentioned people are really try to do is shoot for the low hanging fruit and fix a few ills. Some are doing that solely for the potential publicity and pats on the back, most are truly sincere and well meaning.
A problem arises when we go after those 'we can' and reluctantly do not pursue or even mention where possible those in the too hard box. That's hypocritical in the eyes of many. That "many" are both in the US and in the wider world and if you think that little trick escapes notice from those in other nations, you need to get out on the street and talk, really talk, to the locals.
That unintended consequence is not in the national interest. Ever.
Well intentioned people who advocate 'fixing' wrongs, particularly when they have no intention of getting involved in the actual doing of that and will likely not be personally affected are, frankly, not helpful. While most truly mean well and are sincere, they often do not fully comprehend the forces they are likely to set in motion. In fact, I'm convinced such well intentioned types have done more harm to the US over the last 70 or so years than all the evil people, crooked politicians, chicanery and natural disasters combined.
Carter got snookered into going into Afghanistan while Clinton got snookered into going into Kosovo and Bush into Iraq. Will Obama get snookered into Libya? Stay tuned...
Though Moammar seems to be doing well enough that the issue may be moot. Some can then decry the failure of the West to react forcefully. I'm sure most are advocating that we do something forceful about Iran. At least, I guess they are...