- This topic has 4 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Look at this map/timeline that shows the number of U.S. military deaths from wars under Democrat and Republican leadership. But given the evolution of the political parties throughout U.S. history, does this kind of categorization really matter? Certainly no one is arguing that the Democrats or Republicans who sent people to war in the 19th century have much in common with their modern counterparts, are they?[html][/html]
Why not? The Democratic party has existed since the early 19th Century and the Republican party was founded in the 1850's. There is a semblance of commonality in the doctrine of both parties throughout each parties history.
Is there a continuation of ideology? That is something that I should probably try to educate myself about, though from what I recall of the past it seems like the parties of the past are quite different from what they are today.I'm guessing you have certain things in mind when you refer to such continuation. What are these things?
I would say yes. There is a commonality of ideology throughout the history of the two parties with some change due to circumstances. Ironically enough the Democrats have always been the anti-war party even though far more Democrat presidents have led America to war than Republicans.
Neat map, but I'm not sure of your premise…Are you saying that more Americans have died during wars / conflicts started by Democratic Presidents than wars / conflicts started by Republican Presidents? Is there really any historical correlation? Would fewer Americans have died in World War II if a Republican had been in office then? While the numbers may be accurate, I'm not sure of their relation / relevance to history.
The correlation is in the democrat predilection to lead the nation into war. I find it ironic that they seem more willing to lead the nation to war than Republicans while supposedly being an anti-war party. A better look would be to examine the administrations and policies in the years immediately preceding American entry into war.I do take issue with the maps placing democrat responsibility for the Deaths in Somalia, it was the first Bush that got us into that mess.
I do take issue with the maps placing democrat responsibility for the Deaths in Somalia, it was the first Bush that got us into that mess.
Ahh, a subject near and dear to my heart.While Bush the Elder did lead us into Somalia, that operation was a rousing success. We were able to open the lines of communication, restore secured resupply routes, open ports and airfields for international aid, made it safe for NGOs and international relief operations to conduct the business of feeding the people and starting a humanitarian operation. By April, after four and a half months on the ground, you could walk through the Bakarra Market with little to no fear. Thousands (if not ten-thousands) of lives were saved.Then, under some misguided policy beliefs, the early Clinton White House shifted the mission. Operation Restore Hope ended, the majority of US combat troops were withdrawn, and the UN was brought in and given a prominent role. That was UNOSOM and Operation Continue Hope. That one failed miserably. With minimal combat troops and no clear command on the ground, aggressive around the clock patrolling ended and the rats started to crawl back out of the sewer. With a power vacuum in the city, the tribal leaders (warlords the press called them) asserted their influence to try and fill that vacuum (the UN certainly wasn't going to do it). As the "warlords" gained in power, they naturally grasped for as much power as they could. Eventually, two rose to prominence in the capital - Mohammed Farah Aidid and Ali Mohammed. They realized that power came through money and money came from relief aid and supplies. In order to increase the size of the aid that they received the their tribal sections of the city, they sought to 1) increase the number of people (refugees) in their sections of the city and 2) decrease the population in the other parts of the city. In order to increase the population, they would send squads of thugs out into the countryside to drive the farmers and villagers into the city. They'd tear up crops, shoot livestock, and poison wells (they poisoned the wells, at least in my experience, by shooting the village chief/mayor and his family in the back of the head and dumping their bodies down the well. Also, with no aggressive combat patrols in the city or countryside by the US or UN, relief convoys started being hijacked again.Rightfully, the White House determined to reduce the power of the "warlords", but they decided to do this with the forces at hand, and they tried to do it by force. This included then Sec Def Les Aspin refusing to send the forces that the commander on the ground asked for, such as M1 tanks. This ended in the well documented October 3rd battle (Blackhawk Down). That ended UNOSOM and Continue Hope. What followed was UNOSOM II and Continue Hope II -- that is, exit with grace. Of course, when the Marines went ashore a couple of weeks later, we had those M1 tanks that Sec. Apsin had said weren't needed.So, from my very humble opinion, the failure of the operation in Somalia rests squarly on the governor from Arkansas and his rookie administration.Just my 2 cents.
You are certainly correct in your recounting of events, thus rightly placing the blame for the October firefight in Clinton's hands. My issue with Bush the Elder is our involvement in Somalia in the first place. What vital strategic interest of the United States was served by the Presence of American ground troops in Somalia in the first place? I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this question.BTW, I question American involvement in Iraq on the same basis. I contend that Iraq was well contained and no threat before the invasion. The way Saddam caved when we started rattling sabers tended to prove his innocence not guilt. His innocence of the ostensible invasion charges has since been proved.
Scout – I have to agree with you in principle.I guess the question is whether or not humanitarian interests count as being "vital strategic interests" for the U.S.If there was a strategic interest of the United States being served in going into Somalia in December 1992 then why were not these same intersts to be served a year or so later calling for US intervention in Rawanda? How about committing US military forces to the tsunami relief in the Indian Ocean? The same argument is being made now about Dafur. So, two questions for you:1 - Is it worthy of US military intervention solely to relieve human suffering from natural or man-made disasters, strictly from a humanitarian standpoint?or2 - Is US military intervention only justified in humanitarian situations on the grounds of regional political stability? As in, we're going to commit US military forces in this instance because a) they are our friends, b) if we don't, the area could be helped by our enemies, or c) the lives in this region are worth saving while the lives in this other nation are not (wrong religion, wrong alliances, not suffering enough)?Of course, the answer is not that simple. We have to way in the cost in US blood and treasure vs. the ability to successfully complete the mission. No easy answer, but do we, as a/the world leader have a moral obligation to step in sometimes? If so, how do we determine which situations warrant our help and which don't?
Simple answers, but probably harsh in their execution.
1 - Is it worthy of US military intervention solely to relieve human suffering from natural or man-made disasters, strictly from a humanitarian standpoint?
No, While aid can and is provided. Aid itself is not a vital interest.
2 - Is US military intervention only justified in humanitarian situations on the grounds of regional political stability? As in, we're going to commit US military forces in this instance because a) they are our friends, b) if we don't, the area could be helped by our enemies, or c) the lives in this region are worth saving while the lives in this other nation are not (wrong religion, wrong alliances, not suffering enough)?
A qualified maybe. Every case is different. I do not subscribe to the theory that America is or should be the world's policeman. Vital interests are those issues and actions that absent US intervention could potentially lead to repercussions for American citizens abroad or impact the very working or survival of America as a nation. Vital strategic interests are not always overseas either.
Duly noted.How do we reconcile this focus on "vital national interests" with our Judeo-Christian / Western heritage? Is there not a moral imperative to intervene to prevent genocide or mass suffering?In most cases, it is easier to define when there is a government in power, such as in Iran. We respect their national sovereingty and don't meddle in their internal affairs. But in a case like Somalia, there was not central or national governement. In Rwanda and again in Dafur, there were/are militarily led "governments" that were/are slaughtering tens of thousands - men, women, and childern - because they are the wrong tribe or wrong religion. Should we stand back and impose sactions, saying "shame on you" or should we take action? Just playing devil's advocate here... ;D
I guess it depends on an individual's theory of the role of government. Personally, I am a Realpolitik type of person. Charity is an individual decision, not a national one. I think the US has meddled in a lot of places where we shouldn't have. To that extent I agree with the left that we have caused some groups to dislike, even hate, America. Where I disagree with the left is what, if anything, we should do about it.
If conservative presidents didn't gut USAID, then they could be doing what they were meant to do instead of having to use the military. The only thing the military can do and not a civilian agency is when it comes to something that requires logistics on a grand scale. I don't think civilian US agencies could have assisted after the tsunami if it wasn't for the navy's logistical capabilities (unless USAID has aircraft carrier-sized ships that could transport food and supplies for millions of people).And yes, I think we should assist in even non-US natural disaster situations if the countries involved can't handle it themselves. We are the leaders of the world (for now) whether you like that role or not. It's not so much a question of moral responsibility, it's more a 'because we can.'
What responsibility does the US have to ensure the rule of law in the wider world? I would say mostly none.I am not saying we should not provide aid, I am saying we should not bein the usiness of regime change for anything other than issues that directly impact America. Yes, I think Iraq was a mistake, while Afghanistan was a vital national interest. Iraq was contained, Afghanistan was not. Call me heartless, but I could care less what Saddam did to his people as long he could not harm mine. The Taliban however, harbored a group (Al Qaeda) that directly attacked the US thus meriting payback. Attacking and ousting the Taliban sent the message to not mess with the US, attacking Iraq sent the message that the US is a bully that does not respect sovreignty.The thing going on in Honduras right now is a case in point. We have no business sticking our nose in Honduran internal affairs. How would the US react to foriegn countries telling us how to run our own house? The same principal shouls apply both ways. After the irregularities in 2000 maybe we should have OECD monitors for our elections too. I would argue that American elections are just as subject to fraud as any 3rd world countries where we insist on monitoring the fairness, why can't they come to the US and do the same?
The Hondoras and even Iran I agree we shouldn't meddle right now. BUT, failed governments can breed some things that could lead to bigger (global) issues such as harboring terrorism. I don't care what anyone says, I still think that Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda terrorism were tied and we did the right thing.
