Acceptable Use of Military Force
JunkYard Blog points out a huge double standard:
It goes almost without saying that most of the left didn't and still don't support our intervention in Iraq. Human rights abuses had been a fixture of that country for decades, where a bloody tyrant killed anyone who became inconvenient. He hated America, hated our power, hated everything about us. He also, according to the consensus of such right-wing bodies as the United Nations Security Council, failed to comply with binding resolutions aimed at depriving him of horrible weapons he could use to kill or blackmail people in Israel, Europe and America. But none of that mattered to the left--they didn't support intervention, even when the pre-war argument that our very national security was at stake was compelling. If we find more evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons programs, the national security case for war will be iron-clad, but the left will never admit it was wrong.Now, tiny and insignificant Liberia is embroiled in a civil war. It has been bloody, but by no means a threat to American security, and probably less bloody than the average day in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq. From the UN and elsewhere come calls for American intervention--from the same people who said we would fail in Afghanistan, the same people who didn't want us to use our military for its intended purpose of national self-defense.
Now, you can make a good case for involving the American military in these peacekeeping missions. Rev. Mike makes a compelling argument for such interventions (in this case, regarding Rwanda):
Contrary to those who would argue that peacekeeping and humanitarian missions are not part of the core mission for our military, I would argue that when other guys with guns are the root cause of the humanitarian crisis, then who else are we supposed to send?
Personally, I'm of two minds about this subject. Part of me agrees with Rev. Mike -- if we can do something, then perhaps we should. But then there's a part of me that says, "Why is it our job to be the world's rent-a-cops, especially since we get nothing but grief for it anyway?"
What gets me is the double standard pointed out in the JYB post. I posted about this in Rev. Mike's comments, and I'll reiterate my point here. What I want to say to those who whined about us going to Iraq, and are now whining because we don't go to other places is this: What on earth can America do to please you? It seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we dare use our military to actually defend our country (which is what the military is for), we are condemned as warmongers and imperialists. However, if we try to stay out of situations that don't directly affect our national security, we are condemned for being uncaring. You don't want us to be "imperialists," but yet you want us running around at your beckon call beck and call, putting out fires all over the place. Will you please make up your damned mind?
You've hit the ol' nail right on the head - those who disagree will continue to disagree no matter what we do. It's not about what we do, it's about who we are. Some people just cannot support a Republican president at war under any circumstances, ever.
Here's a good rule of thumb for deciding if a humanitarian military intervention is a good idea:
1) Does this mission defend a strategic national interest? If yes, GO.
2) If not, does the intervention require only the short-term use of military resources such as airlift and shipping capability? Do we have these resources available? Do we have lots of money sitting around that we can spend on this mission? If yes, GO.
3) In the absence of a strategic national interest, does this mission involve actually shooting people? Does it involve "bringing security" or "stabilizing" an area against any force more significant than casual looters? If so, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
Liberia may actually be a strategic asset - the war on terror will be moving into Africa soon, and we may have our own reasons to stash a few thousand troops there and build a nice airfield. However, if this is not the case, we should not touch this mess with a ten-foot pole. You can throw a dart at a map of Africa and you'll probably hit a place that's worse off than Liberia. Somalia, for instance...