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

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more

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

Experiment

My social studies students and I are studying Islam right now. The other day, we were reading about one of the Five Pillars, zakat (charity in Islam that means "that which purifies"). Muslims believe that giving away money helps to purify it and also "safeguards [them] against miserliness" (1). I asked the class if this was true, that giving money away makes us less greedy. They generally agreed that it does. I wanted to test whether or not they really believed this, so I handed a volunteer a $10 bill. I told the class that I would ask for the bill back the next day. I said that they should pass the bill around among their classmates, and that as a result, there would be no way for me to know who had the bill. For that reason, whoever wanted to keep the money could keep it. Even if I did learn who kept it, I told them, I would not punish that person. I wanted them to be motivated by their own honesty. The next day, I asked for the bill, and a student handed it to me...
Post a Comment
Read more