Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
How do you decide which particular history is going to determine the future? And you've raised the bar by saying the goal is producing a strong government that respects human rights; the goal here is only to prevent the mass killing of people.
|
UT's questions and doubts are on target. Many lessons from history apply.
For example, for democracy to take hold, the people must ‘lead the charge’ with severe losses. Democracy is not handed to a nation by a larger power (ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam). It must be earned.
Second, a nation does not go in militarily until a smoking gun exists. Learn why Bosnia was so quickly and easily settled. It was left to fester. Then the solution was desired by all sides who wanted the solution. To understand that, find the decision that Clinton made in 21 July of that year – when military action was finally justified.
Be very careful about letting emotions force a decision. Where I am sitting, not enough Libyans have died yet. If you have better facts, well let’s see them with numbers. This is a nation with a massive power vacuum. And maybe without any clear consensus among its people as to where they want to go.
Never think military action is a solution. Always remember what the entire purpose of any military conflict is for. The negotiated settlement. The only solution. One that all parties must first want. This third reason may also say why international intervention could only be destructive.
Never let emotions appear in conclusions. Sometimes massive numbers of dead people will only create a better solution. Hard logic trumps feelings. UT's post so accurately demands actions justified by first learning lessons from history.
Ignore the carriers. Militarily, they are inert. Mostly only show. Could do almost nothing to enforce a no fly zone. To do a no-fly zone would require cooperation from either Tunisia or Algeria. And from Egypt. Are those countries ready to take sides?