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

Savior

This wasteland cold and dark runs free Its fearful creatures speak to me One fateful day one nudged my hand To set my eyes upon a tree He knew I could not understand For I was in his native land His signs became our common speech To lead me through the deadly sand Now stuck I saw him me beseech He could not lift me out to reach The firm foundation of a cave Outside the boundaries of this beach Withal, the beast became more brave To risk his own my life to save To carry me, its life it gave To carry me, its life it gave. This poem was inspired by Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." That poem, like this one, has four four-line stanzas of eight syllables per stanza. Its rhyme scheme is AABA BBCB CCDC DDDD.
Post a Comment
Read more

Evil, According to Republicans and Democrats

Please note that the following thoughts are only my observations. Please consider the evidence you see in the behavior of both parties for yourself. In our politically polarized climate, I was thinking about how Democrats and Republicans are different, and where those differences come from. Democrats seem to place more hope in institutions, and seek to reform those institutions when there is something wrong in society. Hence, there is more willingness to levy taxes to offer more social services as a support to those with less than others. They see the state as a way to equalize society. Thus, evil, to Democrats, seems to be a social issue: if there is a problem in society--poverty, racism, climate change, etc.--it is a problem with the structure of society and must be addressed as such: repair the system, and you will solve the problem. They are generally accepting of a larger state bureaucracy because they believe that increased accountability within a state structure will prevent evi...
Post a Comment
Read more