By and large Americans are
good-hearted. They do not like to see others suffer. They loathe cruelty and
oppression. Therefore, it is only natural that many Americans favor military
intervention for humanitarian reasons. When there were stories of Iraqi
soldiers murdering Kuwaiti babies in incubators during the
Iraqi invasion in 1990, many Americans wanted the United
States military to intervene. While these
stories turned out to be false, one can understand the desire to help. When
Qaddafi was allegedly murdering civilians and giving his soldiers Viagra
so they could rape innocent women, one could understand the desire to
intervene. Of course, it turned out that these stories were untrue and that it
was the Libyan rebels who were seeking to commit genocide
against black Libyans who had been loyal to Qaddafi, but that is neither here
nor there. When the Islamic State was allegedly set to massacre Yazidis, many
Americans again wanted President Obama to risk American blood and treasure for
humanitarian purposes.
Among the important questions
that arise concerning humanitarian military intervention is where one draws the
line. Consider the following.
1. The Egyptian military junta led
by President el-Sisi has been oppressing members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Should the United States
intervene militarily against Egypt
on the behalf of these Islamists?
2. In Syria,
both the despotic regime of Assad and the bloodthirsty Jihadist rebels have
been committing atrocities. Should the United
States intervene and attack both sides in
this civil war?
3. Sunnis in Iraq
have been massacring Shiites and Kurds. However, Shiites have also been
oppressing Sunnis. Both Sunnis and Shiites have been oppressing Christians. Kurds
have also oppressed Christians in Iraq.
Should President Obama send American troops back into Iraq and simply kill
everyone on all sides to make all this oppression stop?
4. Members of Hamas in Gaza
have been killing Israeli soldiers and civilians. However, Israeli soldiers
have been killing scores of civilians in Gaza.
Should the United States
intervene and go to war against both Palestine
and ally Israel?
5. Many American allies such as Saudi
Arabia, Yemen,
Bahrain, and Kuwait
are oppressive totalitarian regimes. Should the United
States go to war against these nations?
6. China
has long oppressed the Tibetans, members of Falun Gong, Chinese Muslims, etc.
Should the United States
intervene on humanitarian grounds and go to war with China
despite the fact that this would set off a nuclear conflict?
7. Russia
has long oppressed Chechens. Should the United
States heroically defend the Chechens even
though it would set off World War III and a certain Apocalypse?
Where do we draw the line? Are
some human beings more equal than others? Do some have more of a right to life?
Are the lives of Christians somehow worth more than the lives of
non-Christians? Are the lives of Africans somehow worth less than the lives of
others? Is killing large numbers of a group of people likely to make them more
tolerant of others? Or is it more likely that many innocents will be killed and
create unforeseen blowback? Perhaps the nation is best following the advice
of John Quincy Adams:
Wherever the
standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will
her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She
will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the
benignant sympathy of her example.
Military intervention nearly
anywhere at any time can be justified on humanitarian grounds. If one follows
this Wilsonian strategy, then it will lead to Orwellian continuous war.
Ultimately, far more innocents will wind up suffering than being saved.
No comments:
Post a Comment