As a means of trying to organize the discussion going on in this thread, I think that the discussions about interventions flows along three separate, but perhaps related paths. That is, the issue of whether to intervene in some affair in a “God-forsaken hell hole half way around the globe”may be viewed from at least three perspectives: practicality, legality, and morality.
1. The question of practicality is little more than the economic cost-benefit analysis that Fuchs has been pushing. In other words, the following question must be answered affirmatively by a government before it pushes the execute button on the intervention op plan: “Does intervention by my country’s armed forces yield an adequate positive return on the investment of the nation’s blood and treasure? The hard parts here are defining what counts as value to the nation, determining what an adequate ROI would be and deciding how soon that ROI must realized. Of course, national leadership can always “cook the books” when assessing the values and ROI. That comes with the territory of any representative form of government. I think we are all aware of the failure of the checks and balances most countries have in place to rein in their leaders.
2. The question of legality is rather straightforward and aligns with much of Dayuhan's thinking/postings. But it is complicated by whether a given nation feels bound to live by the strictures of the UN or the World Court. Some countries may feel big enough that they can ignore the summons to appear. And of course we then can find ourselves in a spiral of interventions: Country X choose to intervene in Country Y illegally. Country X also chooses to ignore the UN demand to stop the intervention. So, Country Z now intervenes in Country X, Y, or both to enforce the UN demand.
3. On the moral plane, I would argue that interventions are not morally obligatory; they are at, at best, only morally permissible. That is, no country is required to intervene in the affairs of another country to right moral wrongs or prevent the continuation of moral wrongs in another country. The duty to intervene is what Immanuel Kant would describe as an imperfect duty to others. Whether a country chooses to intervene is not a moral issue, however when one does choose to do so, moral strictures apply as to when and how that intervention may happen. (I am here focusing on the distinction between justice of war (interventions may be morally justified) and justice in war (evaluation of the tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by the intervening forces.
Bookmarks