Thursday, April 21, 2011
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Razor Doctrine
Yesterday, I sat in on Prof. Joel Nichols' class on International Human Rights and totally lost my head and talked too much. It was just so fascinating, though... I couldn't help myself.
One topic (which, actually, I might have brought up myself out of nowhere) was the ability of superpowers to prevent human rights abuses through direct military action. This was part of our justification, after all, for invading and taking out the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
At one point, I wondered why we don't just narrowly target Ghaddafi in Libya, invade for the single purpose of removing him from the country and prosecuting him, and then leave. Oddly (to me), the students balked at this, even though many of them seemed comfortable with the full invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings in Libya. Why would a narrow approach be any worse? It certainly would be shorter, cheaper, and less dear in lives. Of course, it might be difficult-- but so has been the task in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Personally, I don't think we should invade any other countries that haven't attacked us. However, if we ARE going to invade other countries (and historically we have a penchant for that, be it Iraq and Afghanistan or Grenada and Panama) we should articulate the basis on which will do so before any crisis and resulting invasion occurs. Let's call that the Razor Doctrine: Either resist the urge to invade other countries who have not attacked us, or articulate the reasons we would do so before a particular situation arises.
What say you, Razorites?
Comments:
<< Home
Osler, are you suggesting that wanting pizza is cause for an invasion? Because if you are, I'm with you, and Italy is easy to invade.
# posted by 
: 12:14 AM
: 12:14 AM 
This post is a little confusing. Are you suggesting that we should wait on our friend Ghaddafi until he wants some pizza?
Was anyone here in that class?
Was anyone here in that class?
# posted by : 8:04 AM
: 8:04 AM
In general, invasion is a bad policy; it very much flies in the face of "small-r" republicanism.
The problem for the United States during the post-WWII era (and especially acute during the post-Cold-War era) is the confusion between being the most powerful military entity in the world and having the power to accomplish anything we want. These are two different things. We are the former but we lack the latter. So, we suffer from a sanguine self-appraisal of our capacity to do good--and often "write checks our military can't cash." Or we wisely demur and not engage in the myriad situations all over the world where something horrible is happening and suffer from tremendous guilt over the sense that we are "letting" some tragedy occur.
I think our action against Libya was not a horrible idea--and could actually, believe it or not, still turn out okay. However, we should NOT invade. We should NOT commit American ground forces.
The problem for the United States during the post-WWII era (and especially acute during the post-Cold-War era) is the confusion between being the most powerful military entity in the world and having the power to accomplish anything we want. These are two different things. We are the former but we lack the latter. So, we suffer from a sanguine self-appraisal of our capacity to do good--and often "write checks our military can't cash." Or we wisely demur and not engage in the myriad situations all over the world where something horrible is happening and suffer from tremendous guilt over the sense that we are "letting" some tragedy occur.
I think our action against Libya was not a horrible idea--and could actually, believe it or not, still turn out okay. However, we should NOT invade. We should NOT commit American ground forces.
I believe the US is engaged in a much different kind of war. A war on funny hats. Check out the leader of the Taliban:
http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/taliban-leader-mullah-omar.jpg
See. Or how about our old friend Saddam Hussein:
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/saddam_hussein.jpg
And now, Moammar Gadhafi:
http://apusa.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Moammar-Gadhafi.jpg
In fact, we can even go back to Manuel Noriega:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/2009/cia_assets/noriega.jpg
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it seems clear to me that if you're the leader of a country, and if you happen to enjoy religious and or paramilitary headwear, then we are gunning for you.
http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/taliban-leader-mullah-omar.jpg
See. Or how about our old friend Saddam Hussein:
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/saddam_hussein.jpg
And now, Moammar Gadhafi:
http://apusa.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Moammar-Gadhafi.jpg
In fact, we can even go back to Manuel Noriega:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/2009/cia_assets/noriega.jpg
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it seems clear to me that if you're the leader of a country, and if you happen to enjoy religious and or paramilitary headwear, then we are gunning for you.
# posted by : 9:43 AM
: 9:43 AM
Its not really technically possible to go in, grab a dictator, prosecute him and then leave. That's what some of the neo-cons thought we could in Iraq. For better or worse, Saddam Hussein and Quadaffi (Ghadaffi, whatever) provided structure and stability in their respective countries. Removing them is like removing a key block in a game of Jenga -- you create a mess.
The pieces are almost back together again in Iraq, but at a huge cost.
Going after Quadaffi because he's a despot means we should also be looking at half the countries in Africa, at least and a few in Southern Asia. Zimbabwe, Myanmar (Burma) come immediately to mind.
It was a tragedy that Ike turned his back on the Hungarian rebels in 1956, but it was the right decision for the U.S. Ditto Cambodia in the 70's and Vietnam when the North overran the South after U.S. Troops left. Lots of people died, were tortured and had their lives ruined. But U.S. intervention probably wouldn't have "fixed" things. Going in to snatch Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot would have just added to the chaos.
The pieces are almost back together again in Iraq, but at a huge cost.
Going after Quadaffi because he's a despot means we should also be looking at half the countries in Africa, at least and a few in Southern Asia. Zimbabwe, Myanmar (Burma) come immediately to mind.
It was a tragedy that Ike turned his back on the Hungarian rebels in 1956, but it was the right decision for the U.S. Ditto Cambodia in the 70's and Vietnam when the North overran the South after U.S. Troops left. Lots of people died, were tortured and had their lives ruined. But U.S. intervention probably wouldn't have "fixed" things. Going in to snatch Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot would have just added to the chaos.
I have a question for you Osler. You say, "I don't think we should invade any other countries that haven't attacked us." So, assuming Pearl Harbor never happened, should we have stepped in to stop the Holocaust? Should we have stepped in to stop the genocide in Rawanda? Should we step in now to stop the ongoing genocide in the Sudan?
The Spiderman doctrine says that, "with great power comes great responsibility." Do we have an obligation, a moral one, to stop human atrocities where they are taking place?
I have an answer, but I'm intrigued, based on your statement, to hear yours, and anyone elses for that matter.
The Spiderman doctrine says that, "with great power comes great responsibility." Do we have an obligation, a moral one, to stop human atrocities where they are taking place?
I have an answer, but I'm intrigued, based on your statement, to hear yours, and anyone elses for that matter.
# posted by : 9:48 AM
: 9:48 AM
Yes, Osler, Mick Jagger has worn some bizarre stuff. But, he is in the Rolling Stones, which means he gets a free pass from me for all crimes he has committed against fashion. Even this one:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hE3tphkOBX4/SgknajtWDkI/AAAAAAAAAY0/ZbI7bad2UcM/s1600-h/mick_jagger.jpg
It is the same reason that Keith Richards has been able to get away with dressing like a pirate drag queen for the last 30 years. You played on "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main Street", you can do no wrong.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hE3tphkOBX4/SgknajtWDkI/AAAAAAAAAY0/ZbI7bad2UcM/s1600-h/mick_jagger.jpg
It is the same reason that Keith Richards has been able to get away with dressing like a pirate drag queen for the last 30 years. You played on "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main Street", you can do no wrong.
# posted by : 9:54 AM
: 9:54 AM
RRL-
We didn't stop the Holocaust, even though we were involved in that war. We didn't stop the genocides in Rwanda or Sudan.
I AM saying there are two principled options:
1) Don't invade another country unless we are attacked, OR
2) Decide in which circumstance we would invade, then act consistently on that. For example, to prevent a major genocide.
My preference is option 1.
We didn't stop the Holocaust, even though we were involved in that war. We didn't stop the genocides in Rwanda or Sudan.
I AM saying there are two principled options:
1) Don't invade another country unless we are attacked, OR
2) Decide in which circumstance we would invade, then act consistently on that. For example, to prevent a major genocide.
My preference is option 1.
Osler - I didn't say we stopped the Holocaust (though we certainly played the most important role in stopping it from continuing), or the genocide in Rawanda, or the ongoing genocide in the Sudan (I mean, I'm dumb and ignorant, but I'm not that dumb or ignorant). But should we? I mean, there is some cause to believe that the USFG knew about concentration camps far before entering the war, but did nothing. The UN, and by extension the US, knew what was going on in Rawanda, but did nothing. We all know what is happening in the Sudan, but we do nothing. Should we?
If I was walking down the street and I saw someone attack another person, I would like to think I would do something about it. When the United States sees something horrible happening, should we likewise step in? Is that our obligation?
If I was walking down the street and I saw someone attack another person, I would like to think I would do something about it. When the United States sees something horrible happening, should we likewise step in? Is that our obligation?
# posted by : 11:56 AM
: 11:56 AM
For RRL: I am not sure we played the most important role in keeping the Holocaust from continuing. The Soviets, who had little humanitarian interest in stopping the Holocaust, probably played the most important role in defeating Hitler's Germany.
For Osler: I am against a consistent policy in re humanitarian interventions. To quote Emerson, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
For Osler: I am against a consistent policy in re humanitarian interventions. To quote Emerson, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
WF-- Principled consistency is my second choice. My preference is consistent non-intervention.
RRL-- Consistent with what I have said so far, my preferred option is not to intervene.
I'm with the Farmer on the Holocaust, too. We didn't prevent it, got there very late, and the camps were reached first by the Soviets, who paid a much higher cost for that war on the whole. (plus, I always defer to historians like the Farmer on stuff like this-- my understanding is that you are very busy as an associate at a large law firm, and that you are also very conservative).
RRL-- Consistent with what I have said so far, my preferred option is not to intervene.
I'm with the Farmer on the Holocaust, too. We didn't prevent it, got there very late, and the camps were reached first by the Soviets, who paid a much higher cost for that war on the whole. (plus, I always defer to historians like the Farmer on stuff like this-- my understanding is that you are very busy as an associate at a large law firm, and that you are also very conservative).
One more quick note:
While the statistics along the Eastern Front are just too compelling for me in re WWII, in order to curry favor with RRL and upset my friend Mark Osler, please allow me to switch to another historical argument, somewhat indirectly analogous:
it is my opinion that Ronald Reagan, more than any other person, including Mikhail Gorbachev, contributed to the peaceful and successful resolution of the Cold War.
While the statistics along the Eastern Front are just too compelling for me in re WWII, in order to curry favor with RRL and upset my friend Mark Osler, please allow me to switch to another historical argument, somewhat indirectly analogous:
it is my opinion that Ronald Reagan, more than any other person, including Mikhail Gorbachev, contributed to the peaceful and successful resolution of the Cold War.
I'm with Christine on this one!
Another historical note to the Soviets and the Holocaust...they had no humanitarian effort whatsoever in stopping the Holocaust as Stalin had his own Holocaust going on since the 1930s... which actually continued until he died, sometime in the 1950s.
Another historical note to the Soviets and the Holocaust...they had no humanitarian effort whatsoever in stopping the Holocaust as Stalin had his own Holocaust going on since the 1930s... which actually continued until he died, sometime in the 1950s.
One interesting thing happening with the NATO action in Libya is that the Europeans who have been talking big (France, UK) are finding out that without the US in the lead they are hard pressed to accomplish much.
I also agree with IPLaw's 9:48 post.
~Just a thought~
I will add that the rebels in Libya were certainly emboldened after watching Egypt, Tunisia and the like. A rebel failure may be of some benefit (if Ghaddafi doesn't kill them all) as they will better understand what they need to prepare, have some type of internal leadership that will position them better to replace that Jenga block.
I also agree with IPLaw's 9:48 post.
~Just a thought~
I will add that the rebels in Libya were certainly emboldened after watching Egypt, Tunisia and the like. A rebel failure may be of some benefit (if Ghaddafi doesn't kill them all) as they will better understand what they need to prepare, have some type of internal leadership that will position them better to replace that Jenga block.
As it relates to who liberated what camps, I think this map is illuminating:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_nm.php?ModuleId=10005131&MediaId=381
Obviously Germany's failure in Russia was a huge impetus in ending the war. But the US effort in turning the war into a two front affair has to be considered just as important in either ending the war, or bringing and end to the war and the NAZI occupation of Europe much quicker than it otherwise would have happened.
Irregardless, I must say, these are difficult questions. On the one hand, I'm an old school realist. Every foreign policy choice, every engagement, should simply be a question of what is in our best interests, and only when it is in our best interests to fight should we do so. And it will never be in our best interests to engage in a war purely to stop someone form oppressing their people.
At the same time, I find it hard to stomach that we would sit idly by and watch as people who are genuinely struggling against the yoke of oppression for some sense of freedom are murdered and their rebellion quelched. I also find it hard to stomach the idea that we allow genuine human tragedies to take place and do nothing about it. I'm not saying we should, but I do think that if I was the kind of person making those decisions it would keep me up at night. And I often wonder if Madeline Albright ever sits alone at night thinking about Rawanda, and all of the people that died there while the US and the world sat by and watched.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_nm.php?ModuleId=10005131&MediaId=381
Obviously Germany's failure in Russia was a huge impetus in ending the war. But the US effort in turning the war into a two front affair has to be considered just as important in either ending the war, or bringing and end to the war and the NAZI occupation of Europe much quicker than it otherwise would have happened.
Irregardless, I must say, these are difficult questions. On the one hand, I'm an old school realist. Every foreign policy choice, every engagement, should simply be a question of what is in our best interests, and only when it is in our best interests to fight should we do so. And it will never be in our best interests to engage in a war purely to stop someone form oppressing their people.
At the same time, I find it hard to stomach that we would sit idly by and watch as people who are genuinely struggling against the yoke of oppression for some sense of freedom are murdered and their rebellion quelched. I also find it hard to stomach the idea that we allow genuine human tragedies to take place and do nothing about it. I'm not saying we should, but I do think that if I was the kind of person making those decisions it would keep me up at night. And I often wonder if Madeline Albright ever sits alone at night thinking about Rawanda, and all of the people that died there while the US and the world sat by and watched.
# posted by : 5:22 PM
: 5:22 PM
I guess it should be noted that the French intervention in our own revolution played an important role...
three things to say:
1. rrl, please properly spell rwanda. rawanda-- not a country.
2. rrl, irregardless-- not a word. regardless and irrespective-- words.
3. fantasy football.
now, i'm in no way comparing fantasy football to invading a country, but it has taught me some valuable lessons that will serve me well when i am the leader of this fine nation. or not the leader of this fine nation.
i've played fantasy football for years. every year, i go into it thinking you've seen every possible scenario and the rules are all-encompassing. every year, i'm wrong. inevitably, some situation arises that poses a unique quandary and a judgment call must be made by the league's commissioner. also inevitably, that decision adversely affects one or more people in the league. the commissioner makes the decision he or she feels is best for the league. sometimes, those decisions are put to votes by the entire league, depending on the setup.
again, i'm not comparing the decision to go to war with a game for grown men looking to kill time at work and make every game on sunday interesting, but i think the same idea applies-- you can say ahead of time that these are the rules we're playing by, but then something not covered by those rules somehow comes up.
what would really irk me, though, is if we had a president who essentially unilaterally decided to invade without congress' blessing. thank goodness THAT's never happened....
1. rrl, please properly spell rwanda. rawanda-- not a country.
2. rrl, irregardless-- not a word. regardless and irrespective-- words.
3. fantasy football.
now, i'm in no way comparing fantasy football to invading a country, but it has taught me some valuable lessons that will serve me well when i am the leader of this fine nation. or not the leader of this fine nation.
i've played fantasy football for years. every year, i go into it thinking you've seen every possible scenario and the rules are all-encompassing. every year, i'm wrong. inevitably, some situation arises that poses a unique quandary and a judgment call must be made by the league's commissioner. also inevitably, that decision adversely affects one or more people in the league. the commissioner makes the decision he or she feels is best for the league. sometimes, those decisions are put to votes by the entire league, depending on the setup.
again, i'm not comparing the decision to go to war with a game for grown men looking to kill time at work and make every game on sunday interesting, but i think the same idea applies-- you can say ahead of time that these are the rules we're playing by, but then something not covered by those rules somehow comes up.
what would really irk me, though, is if we had a president who essentially unilaterally decided to invade without congress' blessing. thank goodness THAT's never happened....
# posted by : 9:18 PM
: 9:18 PM
Let's stay out of Libya. First, even though we could target Gadhafi, conflicts like that have a way of spiraling beyond the original intent, and we're left wondering how we're gonna exit. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan - we've been in Afghanistan almost ten years and in Iraq for eight. Did anybody at the Pentagon or in the White House really think we'd be over here this long?
Second, we're stretched way thin as it is. I'm on my first deployment - I consider myself lucky. There are servicemembers out there with three, four, sometimes five deployments under their belts. Think about the toll that takes on a fighting force. Opening up a third front in Libya will only increase the stress upon the Armed Forces.
Third, what happens after we take out Gadhafi? Do the rebels have a government ready to go? Or are we expecting a power vacuum and probably some type of insurgency there as well? If we create the power vacuum by taking out Gadhafi, are we obligated to stay behind and clean up that mess as well?
Just some thoughts from Bagram, Afghanistan
Post a Comment
Second, we're stretched way thin as it is. I'm on my first deployment - I consider myself lucky. There are servicemembers out there with three, four, sometimes five deployments under their belts. Think about the toll that takes on a fighting force. Opening up a third front in Libya will only increase the stress upon the Armed Forces.
Third, what happens after we take out Gadhafi? Do the rebels have a government ready to go? Or are we expecting a power vacuum and probably some type of insurgency there as well? If we create the power vacuum by taking out Gadhafi, are we obligated to stay behind and clean up that mess as well?
Just some thoughts from Bagram, Afghanistan
# posted by : 10:43 AM
: 10:43 AM << Home
