Skip to main content

Military Intervention

Think about these events:

Event One:
In 1992, the United States sent its military to help deliver food to the people of Somalia (a country in western Africa). One of the leaders of Somalia did not like that foreign soldiers were challenging his power, and as a result, he attacked them with rocket propelled grenades and road bombs. Because of this, the U.S. military sent a mission to capture this leader. By the end of the conflict, however, forty-two American soldiers had been killed, and many more wounded.

Event Two:
In July, 1995, a group of Dutch troops in Bosnia failed to defend Bosnians who were being attacked by Serbian soldiers. These soldiers eventually killed over 8,000 Bosnian people, mostly men and boys.

Event Three:
This year, Britain, France, other European countries, and the United States used air strikes against Libya (a country in northern Africa) when the Libyan government was committing acts of violence against its own civilians. In part because of this help, the Libyan leader was removed from power and the violence against Libyans ended.

Event Four:
Over the past eight months, the country of Syria has experienced protests by civilians and others to remove the current leader and government from power.  The Syrian government has responded with violence, including the beating and killing of unarmed protestors.*

In light of just these few examples of military intervention in other countries, should NATO or individual countries intervene in Syria? Are we morally obliged to end violence against civilians, even at the cost of our own lives and resources?

*Human Rights Watch. “Syria: ‘Shoot to Kill’ Commanders Named.” New York:  15 December 2011. Web. 19 December 2011.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparison

Psychologists and others have studied ways in which we compare ourselves to each other. One man named Leon Festinger argued that we tend to compare ourselves to other people when we don’t know how good or bad we are at something (like football or playing the guitar). One way we do this is when we compare ourselves to those who are not as good as we are, to protect our self-esteem (called “downward social comparison;” example: we’re playing basketball and miss most of our shots, but we feel okay because a teammate wasn’t even given the ball). Another comparison we make is when we compare ourselves to others who are doing much better than we are (called “upward social comparison”). When we see others who appear to be doing better than we are, we can respond by trying to improve ourselves, or by trying to protect ourselves by telling ourselves it’s not that important. There was a study published in 1953 by Solomon Asch, who asked students to take part in a “vision test.” The par...
Post a Comment
Read more

Learning and Change

In a recent article in National Geographic ( "Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science "), Joel Achenbach attempted to explain why humans have trouble believing the evidence laid out in scientific research. In the article, he cited a phenomenon called confirmation bias , our tendency to adopt the evidence that fits what we already believe. Now, I am a feeling person by nature. Subconsciously, I make choices in my environment based on my emotional reaction to it. Similarly, I have found that the information I remember most is the information I respond to with strong emotion, whether that emotion is humor, anger, shock, or something else. This is why I believe confirmation bias exists: we respond to facts emotionally. However, sometimes we learn information that, instead of confirming what we believe, has the opposite effect. We are introduced to facts that shock us out of our complacency. That shock can jar us into questioning long-held beliefs, and even entire worldviews...
Post a Comment
Read more