We can disagree on most of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Ken one should separate the motivation to intervene from the method of the intervention.
Sometimes possible, sometimes not. Sometimes driven by other factors not apparent to many. My point is simply that humanitarian interventions are rarely (read: almost never) successful, ergo they should be judged and /or entered into only very carefully. I'd also suggest the motivation no matter how altruistic to intervene can and usually will be hijacked to serve various other needs or desires and not just by the intervening party and / or those directly involved but by some nominal bystanders.
Quote:
I can understand such a cynical attitude given the poor results track record but suggest that instead of turning one's back on humanitarian interventions the US should address the methodology.
It's not cynical, it's rejecting an illogical and proven failed concept.
I strongly disagree with humanitarian intervention in general and particularly think the US should avoid them. That for a variety of reasons including world attitude -- yours is typical -- toward the US which imposes significant US domestic and international constraints on types of action ans even impacts on where they might be helpful or harmful.
Quote:
While the US intervention in Libya has been a screw-up it is beneficial as a case study in a limited intervention without boots on the ground. If the US generals can't promise to improve on this poor performance next time then the US has a bigger problem than at first thought.
You're mixing up your metaphors, as usual.
Not sure yet the US intervention in Libya is a screw up as viewed by you, we actually did a few things right on this one -- to include getting in and out quickly, getting Europe and the Arab League involved to at least an extent. Militarily unsound, politically quite well done.
The no boots on the ground (really silly term, that... :rolleyes:) was a political constraint imposed almost certainly by NATO consensus with UN connivance. So though your basic point -- that troops are required -- is correct, your rationale for why there are none is flawed as are many of your analyses which, as I've said before, are invariably militarily sound and politically naive. :o
Thus, the US and its Generals do not have a problem in this regard, both are really pretty good at doing what they should be doing -- I'll give you that they are not good at doing things they should not be doing. :wry:
Which is my point...
Humanitarian intervention by military force is an incongruous oxymoron. :mad:
Thank you for a great response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
It is not only possible to separate the motivation to intervene from the operational method but essential. The military commander needs to receive his mission with any limitations to plan the operation.
With which I totally agree. However, I do have one caveat -- while I agree with your entire post, my observation has been that the political will to do what you wisely suggest is too often lacking (unless pressured by the not always consistent news media).
Quote:
It is interesting that... A bit of spine at last?
Correct as nearly as I can determine and due to the current SecDef in large part, I suspect.
Quote:
... except in Libya where it is true Obama did not wait until the mass graves were filling (but then faltered on the implementation which has led to the French and British calling for a more agressive approach from NATO.)
Deliberately done; the long term political aspect from a US perspective and national interests (political reality again) outweighed the plight of the Libyans and the wishes of others in NATO...
Quote:
Interesting to note that supposedly under the guise of going after heavy weapons they (the French and rthe UN) did in fact target Gbagbo as I'm certain that the French if no one else realised that they needed to go for the head of the snake... and they did and had in the end to intervene to bring Gbagbo in.
That particular insight is not peculiar to you and the French. The French are notoriously unconcerned with public opinion in their foreign adventures (and good for them!). The US, in contrast, is excessively (and foolishly IMO) concerned with that. :rolleyes:
That sad fact is highly unlikely to change in the near term.
Quote:
So I say again that the problems with humanitarian interventions is that the timing is mostly too late and the methodology leaves much to be desired.
I agree -- however, I think that factor is unlikely to change and thus makes such intervention far from beneficial in too many cases. It's fine to say what should be, dealing with what is becomes far more problematical. :eek:
Quote:
The Somalia case study where what started as a humanitarian intervention ended up with a get Aideed dead or alive. So yes without the first principle of war being followed - the selection and maintenance of the aim - matters can soon get out of control.
Exactly. In that case the change of direction was precipitated by media reporting -- flawed, of course -- US domestic politics and two massive egos (three if one counts Aideed :D). The errors in execution were triggered by more US ego problems on the ground. Hopefully, Somalia was an exceptional case but the issue of politics will invariably significantly impact, usually adversely, any intervention and humanitarian interventions are peculiarly subject to political manipulation.
I have not said humanitarian intervention should not occur, it should -- however, I believe that only very rarely should that intervention be military. To change that and rely on a military solution, the politics of democratic nations would have to be modified and I don't believe that would be wise...
ADDED:
Quote:
Then we have what I see as the biggest problem today and that is it takes generals 30 years service and years of staff courses and the like to get into contention to command such an operation only to be tasked, overseen and second-guessed by a bunch of clowns whose only qualification is that their daddy contributed a few million to the President's campaign.
Yes -- that's the root answer to a number of your posts over the past months. Sadly....
And the Ivory Coast slips off the radar...
$billion of aid pledged, hundreds killed, thousands more brutalised (raped and assaulted) a million plus refugees or internally displaced.
Man, was this situation badly handled by the UN.