Gelisgesti,
Thanks for the link to the Human Rights Watch article. Good article and it brings up valid points and well thought out suggestions and criteria to be used when deciding to use forceful intervention to prevent humanitarian abuses in sovereign states. Problem is that its rightly narrowly focused attention towards humanitarian abuses as reason for such intervention in Iraq is of little significance.
The article is correct in its insinuation that the Bush Admin's shift towards a humanitarian rationale for the Iraqi invasion was disingenuous. The Admin's overall policy involving MEI (The Middle East Initiative) was the driving force behind the invasion. In this the Admin had a policy in search of implementation. The fact that Saddam not only had WMD, had demonstrated his willingness to use them time and again, and his nose thumbing at the global (UN) demand that it divest itself of such weapons (manifested by his refusal to comply with UNSCR 1441) served as the tripwire for the Admin to proceed towards the noble goal of not only ridding the ME region of Islamic radicals but the sovereign states that sponsored them and threatened not only the area but the stability of the world economy. Was this imperialistic? Maybe to some, but the goal was to seed the area with the kernel of democracy, not to plunder its resources. In short the goal was not only to drain the ME swamp of tyrants and radical Islamists but to prevent such "business as usual" by the establishment of a more democratic "state of mind" that would snowball and force the democratization of all regimes in the area.
But Mr. Roth, the author of this article, informs us how the U.S. went terribly wrong by not using UN backed legitimacy to validate its decision to clean up the Dark Ages mentality of the ME, even given such humanitarian atrocities. So we see that, in principle, Human Rights Watch:
Quote:"can only welcome this renewed concern with the fate of faraway victims. What could be more virtuous than to risk life and limb to save distant people from slaughter? But the common use of the humanitarian label masks significant differences among these interventions (Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone). The French intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, later backed by a reinforced U.N. peacekeeping presence, was most clearly motivated by a desire to stop ongoing slaughter. In Liberia and Côte d'Ivoire, West African and French forces intervened to enforce a peace plan but also played important humanitarian roles... All of these African interventions were initially or ultimately approved by the U.N. Security Council. Indeed, in each case the recognized local government consented to the intervention, though under varying degrees of pressure."
Contrarily,
But we find that UN legitimization in some of these interventions was after the fact ("ultimately"). Are we then to believe that when the UN finally enters Iraq, again, the action then falls under an international legal umbrella?
But further along in our reading Mr. Roth informs us that:
So such intervention sans UN approval is OK. But I am still fuzzy on exactly who is so empowered to make the final judgment. The author seems more comfortable using the power of hindsight and the always wise counsel of second guessing after the fact.
Mr. Roth is right in condemning the Bush Administration's weasel like rationale substitution regarding humanitarian reasons for "regime change". However he too easily falls into the trap of assuming the UN's approval to such actions gives them some sort of global approval that they would never have otherwise.
The Iraq situation, however, has moved on. Important now is Iraq's political future. On this hinges the fate of all those in the ME and those of the West. We must use massive amounts of time, money, and personnel to use this last chance to get it right. Senator Joe Biden of DE has laid it out for us:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48295-2004Apr3.html
As Sen. Biden points out, the US, Europe, and all those in the ME have a large stake in getting this right. If G.W. Bush has any sense of responsibility he must finish the job-- the invasion was the easy part. Ordering the world's most powerful military to send in 2-3 Divisions of troops to conquer a medieval society possessing mostly 20 year old outdated military equipment does not demonstrate leadership. Organizing allies and UN resources and combining it with the security potential of the U.S. to create a Democratic Iraqi Island in a sea of tyrants who fear change and ignorant murders whose biggest dream is to become such despots will call for real leadership. I have not seen such leadership so demonstrated by Bush. Indeed, the Bush White House always seems to slip so easily into a siege mentality merely presenting defenses when criticized. Offensively this Admin seems capable of little more than ad Hominem, especially towards those it feels has wronged it. In Addition, the most powerful leader on the planet appears weak and impotent when agreeing to appear before the 9/11 panel only if his surrogate Daddy, Dick Cheney, is able to hold his hand. Perhaps the commission should eliminate the middleman altogether and just question the Vice President.
Read Biden's thoughts, do your own research, form your opinion, and then write the White House explaining your concerns. America has picked and is responsible for the lemons. It is now up to us to make the lemonade...or not.
Respectfully,
JM
