[Than]

When is military led humanitarian aid justified, a la Kosovo, Somalia, etc.? I'm doing a paper due tomorrow, and am looking for some 11th hour opinions.

[Ridley's Own]

This is a little late, but there is a Presidential Directive from the Clinton Administration that lays out the doctrine regarding humanitarian intervention by U.S. forces. To my knowledge, it hasn't been rescinded by the current admin.

Additionally, there is an excellant paper (the author of whom escapes me, but was written for the Nat'l War College) about the pitfalls of using military humanitarian interevention internal to the U.S. I think its called "The Military Coup of 2010" or something like that. I'm going to try to find both.

[Ridley's Own]

I found the thing on the coup.

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 by Charles J. Dunlap.

I haven't found the directive, but since it is... ahem... your paper, you should be the one doing the research, I suppose. But it is out there, cuz' I've read it.

Oh yeah. The Weinberger Doctrine talks about U.S. use of force doctrine. That might be helpful. Sythesize Weinberger and the aforementioned Pres. Directive.

[Than]

Ahh thank-you. Haha yes, I had the research done, but I was looking for more alternative p.o.v.'s to include in the paper...beef things up. Thanks for those links!

[+Donny]

I generally don't like it because of the massive debt we are in. We should be looking to but costs and reduce our deficit, which means reducing the amount of troops sent overseas.

If we had the money, I still don't favor it. Biblically, the military is defensive. One could make the case for sending troops overseas to defend oppressed peoples, which seems legitimate, but I would only do it if the people we are defending:

a)have not brought the situation on themselves
b)are not going to squander the resources we give to save them

I don't think aid should be sent to every country that happens to be having trouble.

[Than]

Yes, I argued that we should refrain from being the "world's policeman". However, we would be morally remiss if we stood idly by and allowed another Holocaust to happen.

[+Donny]

Its a tough issue and one that I don't pretend to know enough about. I could tell you the extremes, but I have no clue where the line is.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Than

Yes, I argued that we should refrain from being the "world's policeman". However, we would be morally remiss if we stood idly by and allowed another Holocaust to happen.

That seems to be situational ethics to me. We don't have the right to be the world's policeman, but if it is really bad and makes us very grieved we should therefore pretend as though we have that right?

[Travis]

I say the line is when we are attacked or when we are surely in imminent danger. The fact that it is very bad as opposed to pretty bad in other nations still doesn't give us the right to assume some sort of authority there which we do not have.

[Than]

Yeeaaaaaaaaah. That's the problem. It makes a slippery slope. How bad is too bad before we can intervene? Is there a specific body count where the line is drawn?

I'm still trying to work out my position. As of now, it's "intervene as little as possible, ideally not at all".

[JerryLove]

I generally don't like it because of the massive debt we are in. We should be looking to but costs and reduce our deficit, which means reducing the amount of troops sent overseas.

It does? Then how did the deficit go away completely under Clinton when we didn't close our overseas bases?

If we had the money, I still don't favor it. Biblically, the military is defensive.

Tell that to the Hittites et al.

a)have not brought the situation on themselves
b)are not going to squander the resources we give to save them

Don't feed a hungry man if he's just going to get hungry again? Is that Jesus's message then?

Yes, I argued that we should refrain from being the "world's policeman".

There are practical reasons to avoid doing so unilaterally... what other reasons can you offer for that position?

That seems to be situational ethics to me. We don't have the right to be the world's policeman, but if it is really bad and makes us very grieved we should therefore pretend as though we have that right?

Do you have the right to control what your neighbor has for dinner? Do you have the right to stop your neighbor from murdering someone? Sounds like situation ethics.

I say the line is when we are attacked or when we are surely in imminent danger.

If the Taliban had started making and stockpiling nuclear weapons... was that "immenant danger"? Who decides? What difference does "immenant" make?

There's an experiement where you put a frog in hot water.. he jumps out. Put him in lukewarm water and bring up the temperature, and he doesn't try to jump out till it's too late... people are the same.

And choosing who "we" are seems like another case of situation ethics. I don't remember God defining who is worth defending and who is not. Do you defend yourself from an attacker? Do you defend your wife from an attacker? Do you defend your friend from an attacker? Do you defend your neighborhood? town? state? country? world? You draw the line at "country"... why? Can you support it Biblically?

The fact that it is very bad as opposed to pretty bad in other nations still doesn't give us the right to assume some sort of authority there which we do not have.

Who said we lack authority? Who said we had authority when we were definding ourselves? You keep harping on this authority issue, but provide no support for your position.

I'm still trying to work out my position. As of now, it's "intervene as little as possible, ideally not at all".

You shouldn't intervene in a rape because there's only one victim? Your city shouldn't intervene in a riot in another city because there are only 100? You want slippery slope? You got it.

[Jeff]

what ever happened to give as you get but don't be too predictable? what about joining against common enemies when they arise? I think that covers humanitarian aid and the holocaust pretty well.

[Ridley's Own]

The problem with using military intervention for humanitarian reasons is that very rarely is use of force regarded as humanitarian by those at the receiving end. I would largely agree that military action is inappropriate in non-military situations (ie., intervention in Hati and Somalia), but in those two cases in particular, and certainly arguably in Rwanda and elsewhere, something needed to be done by the international community to prevent the huge loss of life taking place.

Military forces (and U.S. forces in particular) simply aren't usefully trained to do the type of "constabulary" (or civil affairs, if you prefer) and humanitarian operations that are probably going to be most useful in the future. I wonder if a new branch of a "semi-"armed force whose role would be to specifically operate in those circumstances would be a good idea.

[+Donny]

It does? Then how did the deficit go away completely under Clinton when we didn't close our overseas bases?

You know me well enough to know that I meant that as merely a small part of cutting costs. Our massive welfare and education spending would be first to go. I was primarily saying that the military spending, in addition to the other spending, definitely doesn't help our situation.

Tell that to the Hittites et al.

Okay..

Don't feed a hungry man if he's just going to get hungry again? Is that Jesus's message then?

1)That is speaking to us individually, not as a nation
2)I think we are speaking more about military intervention than sending food over to a hungry country.

[JerryLove]

You know me well enough to know that I meant that as merely a small part of cutting costs. Our massive welfare and education spending would be first to go. I was primarily saying that the military spending, in addition to the other spending, definitely doesn't help our situation.

Well, I wouldn't say "definately". Where do you think the money spent goes? How many people loose jobs in the US if you cut millitary spending? My point is that we had removed the deficit. That, and the fact that I am still amazed that a Christian thinks taking a formal interest in the welfare of your own citizens is a bad thing.

Okay..

Good luck, they are extinct, killed in wars of aggression ordered by God.

1)That is speaking to us individually, not as a nation

So 300,000,000 people is somehow better as a bunch of individuals than a nation? Where does Jesus restrict the language? Why would you impose a morality on a national level (say, making adultry illegal) and not act morally as a nation (say, helpingh your neighbor, or giving to the poor)?

2)I think we are speaking more about military intervention than sending food over to a hungry country.

Then change the metaphor. You wouldn't intervene in a fight if it your neighbor wasn't going to go take up martial arts? Or had stared at the guy's wife?