When should the US ever get involved?

[blackangst1]

Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Our policy should be to stay out of other nations COMPLETELY, except for two situations:

1. The people of a nation ask us for help against an abusive government. In these cases we should offer asylum for the people, offer humanitarian aid, offer training and support for the citizens, impose sanctions against the other government, etc...but under no circumstances should we ever set foot on their soil.

2. A nation outright attacks another. In that case direct military action is allowable...IF it is an attack against us, or if the nation attacked requests our direct military involvement.

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

 

[NeoV]

we shouldn't have gone into Iraq for the lies we spread - I'd have been fine if we simply went in to remove Saddam.

Invading Darfur is not the correct term - saving Darfur might be closer. I'd be fine with troops in there now.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

It's a good question I'm going to defer answering for now, but to make one small point, that we need to recognize the temptations to get involved wrongly.

They are well represented by Madeline Albright's evil question to Colin Powell, 'what good are all these shiny military forces you brag about if we can't use them for anything?'

Thomas Jefferson wrote at length about the inherent dangers of a standing military, how just having all those forces readily available created the likelihood of using them where they should not be used. The modern situation where standing forces are needed doesn't change the risks Jefferson spoke of - they merely remove the option he recommended of not having the standing forces, and leave the need to find other inhibitions for abuse.

For a rich and powerful nation, the temptation to misuse force, because it's so 'cheap' as part of the economy, is all but irresistable.

The neocons, forming an ideology around the idea of 'the US is the force for good in the world, so our policies should do all they can to increase its power', shows this well.

That's pretty much the road all nations fall into as they become powerful, which is why the saying about 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely' is so widely repeated.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Our policy should be to stay out of other nations COMPLETELY, except for two situations:

1. The people of a nation ask us for help against an abusive government. In these cases we should offer asylum for the people, offer humanitarian aid, offer training and support for the citizens, impose sanctions against the other government, etc...but under no circumstances should we ever set foot on their soil.

2. A nation outright attacks another. In that case direct military action is allowable...IF it is an attack against us, or if the nation attacked requests our direct military involvement.

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

If you run for POTUS in 2012, you've got my vote.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Our policy should be to stay out of other nations COMPLETELY, except for two situations:

1. The people of a nation ask us for help against an abusive government. In these cases we should offer asylum for the people, offer humanitarian aid, offer training and support for the citizens, impose sanctions against the other government, etc...but under no circumstances should we ever set foot on their soil.

2. A nation outright attacks another. In that case direct military action is allowable...IF it is an attack against us, or if the nation attacked requests our direct military involvement.

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

So how would "the people" request help? Via rebel groups? Or do we take polls in said country? As I've said, we've tried the "arming the rebels to overthrow the evil sitting government" route with no success.

As far as your point #2, I think the days of "declaring war" are a thing of the past. I could list dozens of mini-wars, occupations, etc we've been involved with since the 1970's where a declaration was never issued.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Our policy should be to stay out of other nations COMPLETELY, except for two situations:

1. The people of a nation ask us for help against an abusive government. In these cases we should offer asylum for the people, offer humanitarian aid, offer training and support for the citizens, impose sanctions against the other government, etc...but under no circumstances should we ever set foot on their soil.

2. A nation outright attacks another. In that case direct military action is allowable...IF it is an attack against us, or if the nation attacked requests our direct military involvement.

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

I'm with POW here. The system of voting by a declaration provides and important check and balance which insures a clearly defined mission and popular support as well.

Iraq would be no, Darfur would be no, hundreds of bases all around world would be no.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


As far as your point #2, I think the days of "declaring war" are a thing of the past. I could list dozens of mini-wars, occupations, etc we've been involved with since the 1970's where a declaration was never issued.

Tell us something we don't know - you asked a hypothetical and we answered it. We all know how it is, an imperial presidency - you asked how it should be and justification for our views.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: blackangst1


As far as your point #2, I think the days of "declaring war" are a thing of the past. I could list dozens of mini-wars, occupations, etc we've been involved with since the 1970's where a declaration was never issued.

Tell us something we don't know - you asked a hypothetical and we answered it. We all know how it is, an imperial presidency - you asked how it should be and justification for our views.

I understand. What do you do in the case of a multi-nation organization such as Abu Sayaff? Or Al Qaeda? Declare war on any country that harbors them? That would cause our "at war" countries list to pretty large.

 

[ericlp]

But...Iraq had a A LOT of OIL! Maybe that will give you a clue or two?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: blackangst1


As far as your point #2, I think the days of "declaring war" are a thing of the past. I could list dozens of mini-wars, occupations, etc we've been involved with since the 1970's where a declaration was never issued.

Tell us something we don't know - you asked a hypothetical and we answered it. We all know how it is, an imperial presidency - you asked how it should be and justification for our views.

I understand. What do you do in the case of a multi-nation organization such as Abu Sayaff? Or Al Qaeda? Declare war on any country that harbors them? That would cause our "at war" countries list to pretty large.

Sometimes it's case by case as it should be since every case is different but more probably you'd hunt them down and kill them though their own govt and with people assets from locals to US special forces to CIA assets. There are lots of people who would help since these orgs are brutal on native population. It's only when you invade do forces galvanize against US. Think of it like the Israelis got all those former Nazis crimminals spread out after WWII.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I have a crazy idea...how about the US uses force when it actually complies with international law in regards to the use of force. How shocking!

 

[Jiggz]

With modern non-symmetrical wars even the UN has a hardtime justifying the use of force. Sometimes US in exercise of its leadership skills, just has to move forward even if such action is unpopular or not supported by the international community.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Something Ive always wondered. There are so many people who are FOR the US getting involved in the genocide in Darfur, yet think we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, no matter the reason. Obviously Darfur is less of a threat to the USA Iraq was, yet people think invading Darfur is the right thing to do. Im curious why? But for those who are FOR going into Darfur, and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq, Why? How can that be justified? Or should we adopt a policy of not setting boots on the ground UNLESS that country IS a threat? And how do we define a "threat"? Militarily? Financially?

Personally I dont like our practice of removing sitting governments and funding rebel groups aspiring to power, although we have a long history of it. The exception is if that country has substantial financial ties to the US, oil for example. But for the sake of removing leadership because we dont like them, is wrong IMO.

So what is ATP&N's consensus as to when we should get involved?

Actually, I would say most folks who say we should "Save Darfur" would be horrified at the thought of anyone using any military force at all to achieve that goal, much less invasion. They're naïve enough to believe they can use diplomacy to talk anyone out of violence, and that given enough time to present their case they'll show them the only reasonable approach is to talk things out rather than fighting. Then when that doesn't work, they secretly long for someone else to do the dirty work, then denounce them after the fact so they can feel superior.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
With modern non-symmetrical wars even the UN has a hardtime justifying the use of force. Sometimes US in exercise of its leadership skills, just has to move forward even if such action is unpopular or not supported by the international community.

There's a log in your eye, if you didn't notice.

And on another note, your signature is absolute tripe; I hope you don't take it seriously. It's the equivalent of someone quoting Michael Moore on a drunken tirade; full of drama and lacking of any true factual assertions. It sits in the same spot that someone better than yourself could use for an insightful comment, but you use it to brandish a childish attack that tries and fails miserably to masquerade as something worthwhile. If it makes you feel any better, you could replace "librul" with "conservative" and my feelings would remain the same.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

Your world of absolutes fails to account for two scenarios:

1. What about peacekeeping, nation building or intervening to stop a civil war...those scenarios could require troops on the ground, and combat operations, but who would you be declaring war against? The Balkans are a great example...we offered all of the assistance you suggested, but it wasn't until American tanks rolled into the region that things stabilized.

2. Fighting enemy combatants that do not align to a sovereign nation. Al Quaida is a perfect example...we may suspect nations of harboring Al Quaida, but Bin Laden is not the leader of a sovereign nation...even if we were to declare war against Al Quaida or Bin Laden, how do you justify invading nations or sending special operations in to take out Al Quaida targets hiding within sovereign nations.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Our policy should be to stay out of other nations COMPLETELY, except for two situations:

1. The people of a nation ask us for help against an abusive government. In these cases we should offer asylum for the people, offer humanitarian aid, offer training and support for the citizens, impose sanctions against the other government, etc...but under no circumstances should we ever set foot on their soil.

2. A nation outright attacks another. In that case direct military action is allowable...IF it is an attack against us, or if the nation attacked requests our direct military involvement.

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

So how would "the people" request help? Via rebel groups? Or do we take polls in said country? As I've said, we've tried the "arming the rebels to overthrow the evil sitting government" route with no success.

As far as your point #2, I think the days of "declaring war" are a thing of the past. I could list dozens of mini-wars, occupations, etc we've been involved with since the 1970's where a declaration was never issued.

It's always been possible for people (even average citizens) to manage to get in touch with other national governments and request aid. It's even easier in the modern communication age. The requirement for congressional oversight will help ensure that it's a valid request, and not just someone whining.

I think the issue with our 'arming the rebels' is that we've never done so based on moral issues, but political and economic ones. We seek to overthrow democratic governments in order to get puppet dictators in power, or those who will take a stance against communism or allow us to exploit their resources. These are NOT acceptable reasons to become involved.

I agree that it's been done that way, I disagree that it should be allowed. Ever. The military should be kept behind locked doors unless Congress pulls out the key. Period.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Both of these situations should require congressional vote...military action should NEVER be allowed without a full declaration of war properly voted on.

Your world of absolutes fails to account for two scenarios:

1. What about peacekeeping, nation building or intervening to stop a civil war...those scenarios could require troops on the ground, and combat operations, but who would you be declaring war against? The Balkans are a great example...we offered all of the assistance you suggested, but it wasn't until American tanks rolled into the region that things stabilized.

2. Fighting enemy combatants that do not align to a sovereign nation. Al Quaida is a perfect example...we may suspect nations of harboring Al Quaida, but Bin Laden is not the leader of a sovereign nation...even if we were to declare war against Al Quaida or Bin Laden, how do you justify invading nations or sending special operations in to take out Al Quaida targets hiding within sovereign nations.

We're not the world's police. We shouldn't be nation building. We have no place in a civil war beyond providing humanitarian aid, or maybe training.

Al Qaeda IS a perfect example...of why we should require a declaration and a clear target. The 'war on terror' is an impossibility. You cannot fight an idea with force. It cannot work. We're wasting money, and lives, and taking the world down a dark path in the attempt. In the end we will have made things significantly worse in every possible theater.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
1. What about peacekeeping, nation building or intervening to stop a civil war...those scenarios could require troops on the ground, and combat operations, but who would you be declaring war against? The Balkans are a great example...we offered all of the assistance you suggested, but it wasn't until American tanks rolled into the region that things stabilized.

George W. Bush himself said that US troops should not be used for nation building...

I don't think there is a simple answer. I believe that the current policy of preemptive attacks does nothing more than cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and foment counterattacks which would not have occurred prior to our first move, and I believe that the military could fulfill all of its vital roles on a fraction of its current budget, however, I don't advocate a strictly isolationist policy. A military (or peacekeeping) response should (a)be duly authorized by Congress, (b)be discussed in the UN prior to actual boots on the ground (obviously the US, like every other country in the world, will only follow the UN's recommendations to a certain point), and (c)have enough oversight and monitoring to ensure that a minor peacekeeping operation doesn't turn into a drawn-out full-scale war. Sabre rattling is a lot cheaper than actually fighting, and often just as effective.

All in all, I think that the US can't afford an isolationist stance in a global age, and often early, small-scale intervention will prevent future catastrophe. But we should strive to maintain as light a touch as possible with regards to actual troops. More troops in a country at a given time just means more cost, less mobility, and greater chances for a tragic accident to occur and become a PR nightmare.

 

[Starbuck1975]

We're not the world's police. We shouldn't be nation building. We have no place in a civil war beyond providing humanitarian aid, or maybe training.

Humanitarian aid or training is sometimes not enough to contain conflict that could spread into a regional war...similarly, those rather limited measures cannot prevent civil war from escalating into genocide. The UN is perhaps the appropriate forum for authorizing military intervention for these cases, but boots on the ground is sometimes the only alternative.

Al Qaeda IS a perfect example...of why we should require a declaration and a clear target. The 'war on terror' is an impossibility. You cannot fight an idea with force. It cannot work. We're wasting money, and lives, and taking the world down a dark path in the attempt. In the end we will have made things significantly worse in every possible theater.

Al Quaida has been rather quiet since we went on the offensive and took the fight to the region. There has not been a significant Al Quaida terror attack since 9/11, and we have managed to disrupt their operations significantly. I agree that you cannot fight an idea or an ideology with force, but you can contain or disrupt the militant arm of an ideology with force. Afghanistan was a justified use of force to fight the conventional militant arm of the ideology...Iraq was irreponsible and impetuous.

All in all, I think that the US can't afford an isolationist stance in a global age, and often early, small-scale intervention will prevent future catastrophe. But we should strive to maintain as light a touch as possible with regards to actual troops. More troops in a country at a given time just means more cost, less mobility, and greater chances for a tragic accident to occur and become a PR nightmare.

Ditto...we should rely more heavily on special operations forces and intelligence to engage 21st century conflicts...the days of mass armies and occupational forces are over.

 

[theflyingpig]

Whenever it benefits us.

 

[Genx87]

As a country we still have the hangover effect from WWII and the atrocities we let happen while sitting on the sideline until it was nearly too late. We have this percieved moral agenda to help the helpless.

The problem is we cant commit to every single instance of abuse because it is impossible. We dont have a lot of true allies in this regard. Europe is the closest thing we have but they had to be shoved into the ring to stop another genocide happening right in their underbelly.

The United Nation is useless in this regard as well.

I have also heard other theories that we should let these factions fight it out and eliminate each other so it brings order to the region. Because the current situation is we or the United Nations will get involved enough to slow the bloodshed or stop it for a moment. But then they resume right after we leave. Where as if we just let them finish the terrible deed a single faction would have control and bring stability.

I for one am not interested in seeing marines being shot up in Darfur. I saw enough of that in Iraq and it has me jaded towards using our military on these types of missions with no clear cut exit strategy or goals.

 

[StageLeft]

There is no hard and fast on this.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

as an individual nation, we should only attack when our soil is endangered (foreign regime attacks US soil)

if you want to be moral police, stop genocides and dictators, US troops MUST act under an international umbrella, in an environment where ALL the worlds power and population can agree on the atrocity. otherwise you are just going to piss people off.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We're not the world's police. We shouldn't be nation building. We have no place in a civil war beyond providing humanitarian aid, or maybe training.

Humanitarian aid or training is sometimes not enough to contain conflict that could spread into a regional war...similarly, those rather limited measures cannot prevent civil war from escalating into genocide. The UN is perhaps the appropriate forum for authorizing military intervention for these cases, but boots on the ground is sometimes the only alternative.

I agree that usually force will sway an outcome better than other methods...that doesn't address the question of if it's worth it. I already outlined a method of direct involvement that could be used to prevent genocide, and I'm fine in those instances. It should be carefully considered, however, lest we lay down with the wrong side of a two-way set of abuses.

Look at our own civil war. If you backed the north you would be opposing slavery (arguably a good thing), but also opposing the right of people to choose their own political course (arguably a bad thing). If you help the north win you MAY improve the condition of slaves, but you WILL hurt the condition of slaveholders (and thereby the entire southern economy and everything it touches). If you're France or England and you support the South you're supporting the idea of rebellion against against government power. However, you're also countering northern industry and manufacturing which could compete against you economically, while supporting the resource rich south where you would obtain your own raw goods. Both sides committed terrible atrocities.

Al Qaeda IS a perfect example...of why we should require a declaration and a clear target. The 'war on terror' is an impossibility. You cannot fight an idea with force. It cannot work. We're wasting money, and lives, and taking the world down a dark path in the attempt. In the end we will have made things significantly worse in every possible theater.

Al Quaida has been rather quiet since we went on the offensive and took the fight to the region. There has not been a significant Al Quaida terror attack since 9/11, and we have managed to disrupt their operations significantly. I agree that you cannot fight an idea or an ideology with force, but you can contain or disrupt the militant arm of an ideology with force. Afghanistan was a justified use of force to fight the conventional militant arm of the ideology...Iraq was irreponsible and impetuous.

* April 2002: Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia leaves 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.

* January 2002: Kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

* May 2002: Car explodes outside Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French naval engineers.

* June 2002: Bomb explodes outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.

* October 2002: Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, including 88 Australian citizens and 23 Britons.

* November 2002: Coordinated attacks in Mombasa, Kenya; 16 killed in a suicide bombing at a hotel, while surface-to-air missiles were fired at a chartered Israeli airliner.

* May 2003: Suicide bombers kill 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

* May 2003: Four bombs targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 33 and injuring more than 100.

* August 2003: Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.

* November 2003: Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 18 and wounding 122, including many workers from Egypt and Lebanon.

* November 2003: Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.

* November 2003: Two truck bombs explode outside the British consulate and the headquarters of the London-based HSBC bank in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26 and injuring hundreds.

* December 2003: Attempted assassination of Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff.

* March 2004: Train bombing in Madrid, Spain, kills 190 and injures more than 1,000.

* March 2003 - March 2004: ongoing attacks against civilians in Iraq, especially large bombings in Najaf and Karbala against Shi'a pilgrims.

That's more attacks AFTER 9/11 than they successfully completed BEFORE 9/11. In other words, not only are they now attacking more than they did, they now have more sympathy and support because of our actions. We are making them stronger with every passing day we continue in this farce.

All in all, I think that the US can't afford an isolationist stance in a global age, and often early, small-scale intervention will prevent future catastrophe. But we should strive to maintain as light a touch as possible with regards to actual troops. More troops in a country at a given time just means more cost, less mobility, and greater chances for a tragic accident to occur and become a PR nightmare.

Ditto...we should rely more heavily on special operations forces and intelligence to engage 21st century conflicts...the days of mass armies and occupational forces are over.

I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between isolationist, and non-intervention.