Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[MikeF]

From a mentor

Mike, the future is less likely to be what "we" want and more of what others demand. Neither of these solutions, which appear to be two ends of a continuum of US intervention policies, appear to be workable from my perspective. Policy is likely to be grounded in context and the worldwide context is very different. The US will most likely be pulling out of certain regions, developing coalitions in others, and pursuing some unilateral interventions (broadly defined to include MOOTW) in others. We also are in Age where grassroots movements worldwide are toppling oligarchy. What will replace them is uncertain, but it will be a very different world and very difficult to make unilateral policy. The US not longer has the ability to "control" what is going on although our we will continue to try to shape things. The defense establishment (and I am including politician-hawks) needs to understand the limits of military power; my guess is that they haven't learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. If they drag us into more combat into Muslim countries or with China, we are done for

[MikeF]

From a Friend

1. I think Ms. Slaughter makes a good point of the rise in importance of SOF operations and more flexible options, however, I believe that she is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and is in fact making a key philosophical error in assuming that the nature of war has fundamentally changed. While the techniques and tactics certainly change and the frequency of large scale conflict may be far less than “small wars”, the idea that the world has moved beyond large scale conflict is both incorrect and has dangerous implications as we refashion the defense apparatus.

2. We (the royal, collective “we”) are often perpetrators of “Chronological Snobbery”, to use C.S. Lewis’ term, and somehow assume that the problems of today are unique and those before us were not as clever as we are nor did they have as good understanding of the topic (whatever it is) as we do now. While I am not arguing about technological issues (tanks are better than chariots), I would offer that the fundamental nature of war is a very human endeavor, has not changed much, and that the problems faced throughout histor, are essentially the same, albeit with different restrictions, enablers (constraints, restraints, etc.). e.g. How do we raise and pay for a military, defeat our adversaries, subdue a population, turn the win into a beneficial and sustainable endstate, etc. Until we change human nature, I do not think that this will change much.

3. Historically speaking, we are also off the mark as we look back at all the big wars that were never supposed to happen. But did.

4. So, while I believe that the military was far too force on force focused prior to 9/11, I also hesitate to advocate that we dispose of all of our tank and attack helicopters in light of a pure SOF force. In the end, I hope to see balance come the Force and that the nation ensures that it develops/maintains an array of options that can be used to achieve our ends in a flexible manner.

[MikeF]

From another friend

South African Albie Sachs wrote a prize-winning book called The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter. In 1988, an assassin found him in Mozambique, where he was exiled from South Africa, and blew up his car. Sachs missed death but lost a leg and an eye. Upon return to South Africa, he met the man who ordered the bomb. The man offered to shake his hand. Sachs said no. “I will shake your hand after you go through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Sachs went on to become responsible for constitutional protection for equality of marriage in South Africa. Why did he refuse the hand of his would-be assassin? Because, in his words, "seeing a future, that has a process by which to arrive at it, is much more beautiful than ordinary punishment. It is to bet on a huge transformation of our country that will validate everything we went through."