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

Popular posts from this blog

Ghosts

Exercising at a gym seems to be pretty important in our culture, but it's kind of weird to see the social dynamics when you're there. Usually, if you're running an errand, you see others doing the same thing, going about their days and focusing on what's in front of them. The same thing happens at the gym, only everyone is relatively stationary. They don't really go anywhere, except from one machine or area to another. One might think this lends itself to lots of interaction between members, especially since they're all there for the same purpose, but it isn't true. Not only do people generally avoid talking to one another, but they also avoid even looking at one another. It is as though there is no one else there, even though there are dozens on any given day. Most people follow this unwritten rule, unless something in the environment-- say, two people wanting to use the same set of weights-- gives them common ground to interact, or unless they've alr...

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.

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...