Ivory Coast

[JMA]

The US certainly has its share of responsibility for screwing things up, but we aren't the only ones by any means. The idea that the US can somehow "fix" any of this seems to me extremely unlikely: our attempts to "help" in the past (like our noble crusade to save the world from Communism) often managed to make things a good deal worse.

I don't see any great enthusiasm among the places we screwed up for salvation coming form the US (I live in a place where the US screwed up royally). For the most part people would rather see us stay away, for excellent reasons: they haven't had great experiences with US intervention.

Have you noticed that East Asia and Latin America, both of which saw more than their share of American screwups, managed to put themselves in much better order once the US backed off and stopped messing around in their internal affairs?

The solution to the problems created by to dumb intervention isn't smart intervention: intervention that seems smart today often seems excruciatingly stupid tomorrow (the "Kirkpatrick doctrine" is a classic example). The answer to the problems created by dumb intervention is less intervention, IMO.

Do you see any evidence that the world at large wants the US - or anyone - to put on a superhero suit and go charging around trying to solve everybody else's problems, even the problems it had a role in creating?

I am going to let this conversation go as I can see the anti-anti-communist undertones of your position coming through. If you want to be intellectually honest you need to place the collapse of the Soviet Union in your timeline and connect the dots accordingly.

[Dayuhan]

I am going to let this conversation go as I can see the anti-anti-communist undertones of your position coming through. If you want to be intellectually honest you need to place the collapse of the Soviet Union in your timeline and connect the dots accordingly.

I'm not anti-anti-Communist at all... anti-Communism was necessary, especially as applied to the Soviet Union. The suppression of democracy and the installation and maintenance of an entire generation of crackpot dictators in the name of anti-Communism was another story altogether: in many places that policy helped Communist movements more than it hurt them, and it did untold damage in many parts of the world. Ceding the moral high ground of opposition to fading empires and mad dictators to the left was one of the worst mistakes the US ever made...

IMO, as always.

[JMA]

I'm not anti-anti-Communist at all... anti-Communism was necessary, especially as applied to the Soviet Union. The suppression of democracy and the installation and maintenance of an entire generation of crackpot dictators in the name of anti-Communism was another story altogether: in many places that policy helped Communist movements more than it hurt them, and it did untold damage in many parts of the world. Ceding the moral high ground of opposition to fading empires and mad dictators to the left was one of the worst mistakes the US ever made...

IMO, as always.

And this damage was caused only by the US? It takes two to tango.

If you look at Africa it was the ability of crackpots to play the West off against the Soviets that has left the legacy of destruction.

Do try to be balanced.

[Dayuhan]

And this damage was caused only by the US? It takes two to tango.

If you look at Africa it was the ability of crackpots to play the West off against the Soviets that has left the legacy of destruction.

Do try to be balanced.

We didn't have to play that game, and in many places we initiated that game, and did a lot of damage in the process. We are not accountable for what the Soviets or their proxies did. We are accountable for what we and our proxies did, which was in many cases completely unnecessary. If we prop up every despot who calls his opponents "Communist" (as once seemed to be the case), we can always blame the despots for manipulating us... but we also have to wonder what made us so easy to manipulate, for so long. Yes, the crackpots played us, and that's their responsibility. We let ourselves be played, and that's ours.

It is entirely possible that I'm a bit biased from living in one of the more egregious examples of this sort of American malfeasance... but there's no shortage of other examples around. About 2/3 of Latin America, to start with.

[Stan]

If we prop up every despot who calls his opponents "Communist" (as once seemed to be the case), we can always blame the despots for manipulating us... but we also have to wonder what made us so easy to manipulate, for so long. Yes, the crackpots played us, and that's their responsibility. We let ourselves be played, and that's ours.

Makes me wonder why we wanted to save the Ivory Coast from the French in 99 when there was clearly a lack of commies. Maybe it was cocoa

[RTK]

I see four questions of paramount importance prior to commitment and intervention:

What is our ability, with partner forces, to intervene?

What vital interests are contained within Ivory Coast?

What opportunity is there to increase the quality of life to the people of Ivory Coast given the current situation?

What is the best outcome of intervention?

If one or more of these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of intervening parties risks must be weighed with rewards. If the default answer is genocide prevention, than what elevates this to a status above genocide activites where we did not intervene? I do not see satisfactory answers yet to any of these questions.

[Ken White]

It is our hoomaniterian duty to intervene. Everywhere. Everytime (unless it would really hurt, then we can let it slide...). Regardless of logic.

The fact that such foolishness almost invariably creates more problems than it solves is immaterial. The similar fact that it more often than not results in more casualties, long term, than the nominal crisis might produce is immaterial; we must be seen as doing 'good.'

Seldom are but it's the thought that counts...

As for Stan's very accurate comment on Clintonian installations or this one anyway -- there were others -- too true. Clintonia giveth and Clintonia taketh away, Indian giver be the name of the Clintonians.

Drop Somalia, Rwanda and Darfur (a case of a seminal event inhibiting reproduction leading to an abortion...). However, I'll see your Haiti and raise you a Kosovo.

[Stan]

I see four questions of paramount importance prior to commitment and intervention:

What is our ability, with partner forces, to intervene?

IMO the time to act effectively is long over. But, as some have pointed out, we are not capable of responding before an upheaval or civil war becomes reality. Since we somehow decided that the Ivory Coast needed democracy and the ability to freely vote for whomever, we should have been in the hot seat ready to cover our words of wisdom with firepower. A sad disconnect from what I believe is State’s ultimate goal with foreign relations and our wiliness to get more involved when the goal has no backup plan for the “what ifs”.

What vital interests are contained within Ivory Coast?

We barely have any strategic interests other than coffee and cocoa. Well, there is that slight problem with jamming democracy down their throats with no balls to back up our language. Sorry, I don’t have a clear answer to that one.

What opportunity is there to increase the quality of life to the people of Ivory Coast given the current situation?

Significant depending on our budget: We could target all the trends or indicators of quality of life such as infant mortality, GDP and literacy, but the Ivory Coast is similar to typical Sub-Saharan State and success rates are limited. If we’re ready for a decade of funding and policing, then the programs would have a slight chance. Doesn't this question belong with the first such as: Why are we getting involved and what is our exit strategy?

What is the best outcome of intervention?

A bleak outlook - Years of PKO with the UN. We blew the chance to save a lot of people and preclude a humanitarian crisis that will ultimately cost us much more. A least we don't have to demine the place

If one or more of these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of intervening parties risks must be weighed with rewards. If the default answer is genocide prevention, than what elevates this to a status above genocide activites where we did not intervene? I do not see satisfactory answers yet to any of these questions.

I didn’t then nor now see genocide in its true sense taking place in the Ivory Coast, but I do see an endless civil war and humanitarian effort. Is the G word the only way to get the West moving effectively in Africa ? We already witnessed what happens when we sit back and watch the kettle boil over - bad idea !

[JMA]

I see four questions of paramount importance prior to commitment and intervention:

What is our ability, with partner forces, to intervene?

What vital interests are contained within Ivory Coast?

What opportunity is there to increase the quality of life to the people of Ivory Coast given the current situation?

What is the best outcome of intervention?

If one or more of these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of intervening parties risks must be weighed with rewards. If the default answer is genocide prevention, than what elevates this to a status above genocide activites where we did not intervene? I do not see satisfactory answers yet to any of these questions.

Out of this exercise should come the level or degree of intervention needed to address the problem. Risk in terms of casualties may also be a factor.

Those debating against interventions tend to allude to a Iraq situation which is a exaggeration (and clearly intellectually dishonest) while those for such humanitarian interventions fail to peg what the limits should be.

My position has been to target the "problem" people as soon the politicians can get the stage set. If Gbagbo and his "loyal" military had been targeted early and effectively a lot of grief would have been avoided.

I would have thought the military part of targeting the bad guys was the easy part but I learn from Libya that even the most seemingly simple of tasks can get screwed up. We will no doubt find out how this happened in the fullness of time.