Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
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.
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.
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... ) 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.

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.

Which is my point...

Humanitarian intervention by military force is an incongruous oxymoron.