Humanitarian Intervention
rwe: I agree with you that the US military should not be a global constabulary. During Clinton's years in office it seemed the litmus test for action was the absolute selflessness of the mission, and I disagreed with it strongly then.
However, I would submit that "interests" can be narrowly and broadly defined. Who would have thought that the bad governance, the bigotry, and the failure of the Arab world would be a national security issue for the United States?
In a very specific sense, we are safer when the world is less chaotic; we are more powerful when the world is free. Because of our singular characteristics as a global hegemon, there is a very real argument to be had in favor of humanitarian intervention.
Once you make that step, the dispositive terms are "cost" and "benefit", a coarse and bothersome way to weigh human life, but in the end a more humane approach than proscribing any humanitarian interventions altogether.
However, I would submit that "interests" can be narrowly and broadly defined. Who would have thought that the bad governance, the bigotry, and the failure of the Arab world would be a national security issue for the United States?
In a very specific sense, we are safer when the world is less chaotic; we are more powerful when the world is free. Because of our singular characteristics as a global hegemon, there is a very real argument to be had in favor of humanitarian intervention.
Once you make that step, the dispositive terms are "cost" and "benefit", a coarse and bothersome way to weigh human life, but in the end a more humane approach than proscribing any humanitarian interventions altogether.
posted by John Aristides at 9:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home