Justification of "Humanitarian" Military Intervention

I am shocked no end, JW. This one deserves discussion. Why don`t you lead off(qm)

I am always interested in hearing all sides of an issue.

Quote:

I am always interested in hearing all sides of an issue.

Then how did you miss this, JW?

The American national identity revolves around the belief that we’re on the right side. Though that’s been proven false on more occasions than we’d like to admit, Americans are ever steadfast in their conviction that the world is theirs to improve — facts be damned. The United States is John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” We are manifest destiny and American exceptionalism, right?

Whereas arming the Taliban represented the fight against communism,

He only wants to retain power for himself and his followers, and will kill anyone in his way.

A Dead-End Pursuit Not Worth Pursuing: Syria and the Question of Intervention
(Rana B. Khoury, HuffingtonPost.com, February 27, 2013)

The question of intervention in Syria is a hotly debated topic, largely thanks to the insistence of the dominant elements of opposition on its pursuit. Of course, had a regime not answered to peaceful calls for reform with criminal and excessive force nearly two years ago, and unrelentingly ever since, nobody would be counting more than 70,000 killed, 700,000 in refuge and 2 million displaced, or the pros and cons of intervention. By intervention, I am referring to the prospect of outright intervention, such as no-fly zones and air defense, cross-border exercises and/or the deployment of foreign troops. Yet I also understand the situation to be characterized already by other de facto forms of intervention, including the arming and funding of rebels, the provision of technical and "nonlethal" support and the presence of foreign fighters. As opposed to the pursuit of intervention, the most important objectives at this point of the conflict should be to bring an end to the bloodshed and to pursue a negotiated transition toward democracy. A negotiated transition will require a willingness from both sides of the conflict to engage in a political settlement. Neither side has shown genuine efforts toward this end. My focus is on one side -- the opposition -- and its strategic failures in the pursuit of intervention, in addition to the negative trajectory based on path dependence that intervention will lead the country on.

The dominant elements of the opposition have failed in their pursuits related to intervention externally, militarily and internally. On the world stage they have been squandering money, time and political capital on the question of intervention. Their diplomatic energies have been focused on this pursuit in direct conflict with the realities they are facing: They have not secured the external intervention they have spent over a year appealing for. The Obama administration is not choosing intervention. President Obama opposes even the limited forms of intervention supported by some U.S. allies and members of his own administration. In his recent articulation of his views on Syria, he explained, "How do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?" The significance of this statement is in its blunt articulation that the United States will not intervene on humanitarian bases. That's because states act on their interests, not on their emotions, so one must question the interests of the states that are advocating intervention and recognize the distinction between their motives and those of activists and opposition members. Though the opposition and intervening states are both interested in the overthrow of Bashar al-Asad, intervening states are much less interested in the development of a democratic Syria. Rather, they are intent on removing a hindrance in their balance of power against the Iranian regime, and many of them are keen on the emergence of a Sunni-dominated government. They are not in it to quell the humanitarian crisis nor to promote democracy.

Although the U.S. is not choosing intervention, its ambivalence has put off any meaningful political initiatives in its place. Other powers, however, are less ambivalent. It was back in October 2011 that China and Russia vetoed the UNSC resolution that might have opened the door to intervention. As unsavory as their motives might be, the reality is that they are both powers with significant influence in world affairs. For the dominant elements of the opposition to believe that they are righteous enough to ignore world powers (not just China and Russia but even an ambivalent U.S. and a UN advocating a political solution) is to ensure that a new Syrian government enters an international arena with little political capital. The U.S., furthermore, is becoming less ambivalent of late and seems more eager to pursue a political solution. The administration was obviously excited by Moaz al-Khatib's offer of negotiations with the regime and is itself in talks with the Russians and the Iranians. If the U.S. can talk to its rivals, then the opposition can do so as well.

Militarily, the record already shows that political opposition groups do not and will not have control over the distribution of arms and the events in battle. I anticipate the response that if only U.S. intervention and support were increased, then these military activities would be better directed and controlled. However, it seems that the most moderate groups that the U.S. might choose to support do not themselves have robust support on the ground. Furthermore, selective arming is already among the factors dividing the opposition; more selective arming will mean more fissures. If the dominant elements of the opposition want to exhibit their moderation, they should distinguish themselves from the armed and violent regime and the armed and violent extremists by not being armed and violent.

Internally, the dominant elements of the opposition are failing strategically as well. By advocating for foreign intervention, they are forgoing a broad coalition of support across Syrian society. There are two segments of society that the opposition is neglecting to bring into a broad-based coalition because of their focus on intervention: the "silent majority" (or maybe we should call them "silent minorities") and the disunited elements of the opposition, including Kurdish opposition groups, secular regime opponents, minority regime opponents and much of the educated and liberal class. It should not have been hard to unite a society against a regime like Asad's, but the dominant elements of the opposition have failed to do so, in no small part thanks to their narrow focus on foreign intervention.

Path dependence is a concept in social science that simply means "history matters." The events and circumstances that occur at a point in time are determinant of the institutions and norms that follow. Path dependence is a critical concept in transition periods.

Foreign intervention in Syria will set the country on a course of path dependence that gives outside powers undue influence in its affairs and severely diminishes its sovereignty and unity. In the best-case scenario, in which foreign intervention "goes well," Asad is overthrown. And then what? Those who have intervened from all sides will vie for their proxies to come into power so as to see the country fall into their preferred regional alignment. If anyone "wins" in this struggle, it will be to the loss of all other groups. (Even if it happens through elections, it would be a more pronounced version of Egypt's current political turmoil, in which one dominant group has managed to malign and marginalize all others).

But foreign intervention is hard-pressed to be surgical in a country with the demographic diversity and population densities of Syria. If further control is lost and anarchy increases, the proliferation of arms and heavy weaponry will create the circumstances in which warlords, extremists and covert foreign interference thrive. We can expect to get used to the sectarian attacks that dog Iraq and Pakistan daily, and to the sounds of drones in Syrian skies. It is not hard to envision these violent struggles, buoyed by easy access to arms, leading to the physical breakup of the country along ethnic and/or sectarian lines. We can also expect to ignite further violence in neighboring countries, with the easy movement of arms across borders. Syria will always struggle to thrive in a region consumed by violence and conflict.

Yet foreign intervention is neither the only nor even the most important factor that will set Syria on a negative course of path dependence. The very way in which this uprising is being conducted -- that is, violently -- is anathema to a peaceful, just and democratic future for all Syrians. The Asad regime came into power and maintained it through the constant threat and occasional use of force. That is why it answered peaceful calls for change with force. To again have another government come into power through force will severely diminish chances of success in democracy and regular peaceful transitions of power. It could potentially make Syria an unwelcome place for its minorities and any segments of society that diverge in their views from the dominant power. Furthermore, it will be nearly impossible to restrict the most extreme jihadi elements for years to come.

After all these years, Syria deserves better. There are many elements of the opposition that are pursuing peaceful and nonviolent means of change and preparing for a transition. They recognize that Syria's problem was a failed political regime and are working toward a better political future and thus are pursuing political solutions to the crisis. The opposition calling for intervention should give up on a failing strategy that portends more violence and bloodshed and get on board for a democratic and just future. After all, that is what I've always understood to be the purpose of the uprising, not merely the overthrow of Bashar al-Asad.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says the United States doesn't know how or when chemical weapons were used in Syria or who used them.

Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday he's got to make sure he has the facts before deciding how to respond to evidence that chemical weapons were used.

Obama has said there is "some evidence" that President Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against his people. But he said that's a preliminary assessment based on intelligence information.

Obama repeated his statement that the use of chemical weapons would be a "game changer" in the region. But he said the international community has to be completely confident in the assessment.

Welcome to A2K, Olivier5.

The essay writer goes on to say: "But Syria seems different. Whereas arming the Taliban represented the fight against communism, Cold War rhetoric doesn’t inform Bashar al-Assad’s decisions. He only wants to retain power for himself and his followers, and will kill anyone in his way. Intervention seems to be less of a political decision and more of a moral one this time around."

The killing of a math prodigy
by Nada Dragic (7-10-00)
Translated by Gordana Simovic
Edited by Jared Israel

www.tenc.net [emperors-clothes]
col·lat·er·al
col·lat·er·al (ke-làt¹er-el) adjective
Abbr. collat., coll.
1. Situated or running side by side; parallel.
2. Of a secondary nature; subordinate: collateral target damage from a bombing run.
A question from emperors-clothes: If Sanja Markovic's death was secondary, what was the primary target?

***

"Don't be crazy, mum. Who's going to drop bombs on a small town?"

These were the last words Sanja Milenkovic spoke before she left for a walk Sunday, May 30, 1999. No ordinary day. Day 68 of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia.

It was a sunny, busy shopping day, Pentecost. Young people strolled on the streets, some went onto the local bridge they liked so much because it offered a magnificent view of the Morava river and surroundings. The roar of warplanes cut short the life of the bridge and of those residents including Sanja Milenkovic.

Sanja and her family, whom she loved most in the world besides math, led a quiet life. As a gifted child, who had been given many awards, she came from her native village of Donji Katun near Varvarin, to the capital, Belgrade, to enroll, without an entrance exam, in the Mathematics High School. There were, as publicized in numerous interviews, no insolvable math problems for her. She had won many Yugoslav and international prizes, and she was preparing for the Mathematics Olympiad and surely for another of her trophies of world importance. She could explain everything logically or in terms of mathematics. The New York Times and the Washington Post wrote about our Sanja, a Serb girl from Varvarin, describing her as the greatest math talent of today, killed by NATO bombs.

Sanja was very close to her mother Vesna. Vesna was 21 when she gave birth to her first child. At fifteen, Sanja was a pretty and bright girl. "Sanja was like younger sister to me; she was also my best friend," says Vesna.

When the NATO aggression against our country started, Sanja traveled back to Varvarin to be with her parents. Vesna and Sanja's dad, Zoran, believed Sanja would be much safer in a small place in the country where there were no military installations. But NATO targetsincluded hospitals, schools, kindergarten, roads and bridges. Cynical news of "collateral damage" came out of NATO headquarters every day. So Sanja was one of several thousand ordinary Serbian people who died of missiles targeting even insignificant bridges in small towns throughout Yugoslavia.

One of them was the bridge in Varvarin. It led to the local Christian Orthodox church and therefore innocent civilians, who happened to be on it that sunny May day, on the Christian holiday of Pentecost, were killed. Sanja and two of her friends were among the victims.

It was a little past noon. The shopping day attracted more crowds than usual. The memorial liturgy was in progress at the Church of the Holy Mother at that moment. No one knew that up in the skies there were warplanes that already had the bridge in their sights and were ready to rain down death. In the 68 days of the aggression, people were used to being bombed by night. So, very few believed that the 52-year old bridge that was the town's lifeline and that did not straddle any of the major transport routes, would be picked. It is a three-hour drive to Kosovo and Metohija from there. It was exactly five minutes past one p.m. Vesna and Zoran were fixing lunch for their daughter when they heard a strong blast nearby. Vesna's mum immediately picked up the phone to check if it was still working. The telephone lines ran across the bridge. The phone was dead. She dashed into the car and headed for the bridge. She looked through the window searching for the loved face.

The river bank was deserted. The crowd had rn away fearing another strike. Vesna stood alone on the bank, calling out her daughter's name. And then she saw Sanja. She lay on a broken slab of the bridge, motionless. It was much later that she was told what had happened and how Sanja died. As the first missile hit the bridge, its footpath collapsed into the river. Sanja and her friends fell into the water, as well. Sanja was unharmed, while one of her friends had her arm broken and the other a leg. Like the rest of the pedestrians, Sanja could have reached the bank, but she chose to help her friends. Ten minutes after the initial attack, the NATO pilot came back to finish his job. The explosion had cut the bridge in half. The religious service in the church stopped and everyone rushed to help the wounded. The explosion stopped them in the process. Another seven people were killed. Sanja was struck in the back by a shrapnel. They put her into an ambulance. Her eyes were open for a few more minutes. Her father encouraged her to fight for her breath. A couple of minutes later Sanja's eyes closed. "I knew it was for ever," said her dad Zoran, "I was hopeful, nevertheless." The fight for Sanja's life went on in hospital, where she was injected with adrenaline shots. But death got the upper hand. Sanja lay motionless in the pink T-shirt that she had put on that morning. She was 15 and a half. The following day Jamie Shea held his regular press conference in faraway Brussels, as he did every day .

Sanja Milenkovic will not dream out her dreams. However strongly she felt about numerals and the logic of life, there can be no explanation for her premature death. Sanja's teachers and peers believe that, if it had been according to the laws of mathematics, Sanja's name would have been predestined to become famous and be inscribed in international yearbooks of the greatest mathematicians.

Those who died early and whom we were indebted to during their lifetime oblige us to remember them always. The name of Sanja Milenkovic will always be in the minds of those talented like herself. That was the reason why a Fund, named after her, was set up. The Fund serves to award scholarships/fellowships to young gifted secondary school students and university undergraduates in the field of math and technical sciences. The Fund was established at the initiative of Mr. Zivadin Jovanovic, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the FR of Yugoslavia, and Mr. Milutin Mrkonjic, Director-General of the Country Reconstruction Directorate.

Sanja's granddad, Ljubomir Milenkovic, was appointed an honorary member of the Fund.

Twenty young people were awarded scholarships from the Fund on November 5, 1999. In addressing them, Minister Jovanovic said that this Fund was set up to keep the memory of Sanja alive and by keeping it alive to demonstrate our attitude towards the highest achievements and greatest successes in learning and studies. The talents now financed and yet to be financed by the "Sanja Milenkovic" Fund will keep alive the memory of a youth cut short prematurely and of wishes and dreams left unfulfilled.

They will also keep alive the name of Sanja Milenkovic.

[Note from emperors-clothes: At the suggetion of a reader from California we're inquiring about how people outside Yugoslavia can contribute to this fund.]

Surely, surely, gunga, you're not trying to advance the notion that only Democrat administrations are responsible for all the war crimes/terrorist acts committed by the US.

Every prez since FDR has been a war criminal and terrorist. It's not at all unreasonable to assume that this applies to all presidents before FDR but there's more than enough to concern ourselves with the more "modern" ones.

Please disregard poor Oral boy;

he doesn't have all his head in functioning order.

I don't see how the West could intervene and not feel very sorry for it a couple of years down the line. At this point, the option would mean helping radicalised sunni groups close to AQ in their fight against minorities such as Christians, Kurds or Alawites. Who wants to be held responsible for precipitating another Lebanon civil war, in a much larger country? Plus Lebanon would plundge in civil war too. As much as it costs me to say, it seems the best is to wait at this point.

I used you as a tool on Yahoo.

You're the ultimate bad guy.

we should refer both sides to the ICC.

oralloy wrote:

we should refer both sides to the ICC.

Who would "we" refer to, in your sentence? Cause if you mean the US, it's not a party to the ICC, AND thus can't refer cases to it.