Whom to Protect, Whom to Abandon
Why do we (continue to) justify humanitarian intervention when all we are into is another regime change that we just screwed-up a decade earlier ? :rolleyes:
I never really "got" why we argue about whether nations have the duty to intervene in the affairs of others. In fact, the meddling I witnessed leaves me wondering.
Libya is another can of worms we opened in Africa with one side arguing that international forces can prevent or end humanitarian suffering while others assert that intervention is based on the inconsistent application of bleak and puzzling principles which amount to little more than the US looking like oil-hungry imperialists.
IMHO when we stuck our noses into this mess under the guise of "responsibility to protect", we ran the risk of what comes next (assuming we ever end up successful at this FUBAR with a sound exit strategy).
Everyone and someone: Seems we've hashed this issue in Africa over four decades and some conclude "everyone" while the rest are content with just "someone" (being spared). As a pessimistic former NCO I'll accept "someone" knowing I can't realistically spare "everyone" when the town goes Tango Uniform.
When has there ever been an assessment from the ground prior to military operations in Africa ? We have the people and intel, but we let blind politicians lead us into a hamstrung operation in the middle of a financial debate over debt reduction and elections :eek:
Who has doctrine that outright justifies humanitarian intervention by a military force because the current dictator that we helped into power is no longer in our good graces and has to go :wry:
Give me a break already !