How about the point up above above about the apparent contradiction between humanitarianism and military intervention which causes humanitarian crises? — Sapientia

It remains apparent.

It remains apparent. — Thorongil

Then you must have a poor understanding of what humanitarianism consists of, because it doesn't consist of causing the very problem it sets out to remedy.

That's correct about what it doesn't consist of.

Mongrel assumes she/he knows me well enough not to want to waste time on trying to understand me. Or, read charitably, knows himself well enough to know it won't amount to anything. — Benkei

Uh... The back story on that is that I had just been through a little discussion with Baden about his trepidation about "humanitarian military intervention." Was it the concept? The use of the terminology? I wanted to know. I walked away from the conversation pretty sure I don't understand Baden's viewpoint . Several times through the conversation it occurred to me that the gulf between us was wider than I realized.

When you asked why it would seem odd that a person is concerned about the health and welfare of people elsewhere, when that person is not contributing to his own defense... honestly my first response was: "How could you not know the answer to that?"

It seemed obvious to me that short-circuiting the conversation was a good idea.

And.. the Red Cross is awesome.

That's correct about what it doesn't consist of. — Thorongil

And since the sort of military intervention that you've cited as examples of so-called humanitarian military intervention cause the very problem that humanitarianism sets out to remedy, they aren't therefore humanitarian. So it is a misleading term.

But they haven't.

But they haven't. — Thorongil

They have. That you think otherwise, is, I suspect, a result of your warped understanding of humanitarianism.

The first thing that I found upon googling "humanitarianism" was the following paragraph:

Humanitarianism is a moral of kindness, benevolence, and sympathy extended to all human beings. Humanitarianism has been an evolving concept historically but universality is a common theme in its evolution.

Does so-called collateral damage sit well with this? These are fellow human beings, after all. Are the bombs and bullets which do such damage and cause such harm representative of acts of kindness, benevolence and sympathy? Are these human beings taken into full consideration when attempting to enact humanitarian principles, or are they just written off as collateral damage?

Perhaps there is humanitarian intent, but this is coupled with recklessness, incompetence, and a lack of foresight. Is that included in your notion of humanitarian military intervention? Based on your examples, I think it must be.

The way I see it, organisations such as the Red Cross, Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have more authority than the military - who cause death and destruction - when it comes to the meaning of humanitarianism and what it does and doesn't consist of. We should look to the former as prime examples.

Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? — Benkei

Sigh. It's sad to imagine that the discussions going on in this thread is probably not a long shot away from the actual discussions in halls of power. It's heart-breaking. [Connection to the OP established, now I can rant. :) ]

Its sad to see suffering of actual people on the ground as abstracted or taking secondary importance to some greater ideology that must be solved first before taking action.

What I get from Thorongil's comment is along the lines of: "Guys, there are [a lot] of people dying, in pain, have nothing to eat, are displaced, are made feel unwelcome as refugees, etc. etc. Is it not possible to resolve the immediate and obvious suffering first before resolving the ideological differences?"

What I get is that with the current state of affairs in Syria, intervening is better that doing nothing. It is out of control (does anyone disagree?) and needs outside intervention. Intervention would of course mean 'bloody intervention' -- what can one expect from the scale of the problem?

One of the reasons why I believe that a (hopefully benevolent) group of people should have monopoly of violence is precisely because of things like this. War is the natural evolution of unresolved politics and sad at it may sound, only a show of power will stop this.

It may be idealistic and impractical but a possible way forward is to provide military intervention to monopolize the violence, provide aid in reconstruction and setting up basic industries (agriculture, education, healthcare), and assist in setting up some form of government when things get a bit stable. Some might argue that this is not worth pursuing because it will eventually end up in shambles because the 'underlying problem' is not addressed. Err, wouldn't establishing peace and order first and foremost a prerequisite to this?

Perhaps there is humanitarian intent, but this is coupled with recklessness, incompetence, and a lack of foresight. Is that included in your notion of humanitarian military intervention? Based on your examples, I think it must be. — Sapientia

Eh... Why so preachy Sapientia? You are indirectly the recipient of humanitarian military intervention. Yep.. About a year prior to entry into WW2, the US was smuggling food and supplies to your little ancestors. That ended the American pretense of neutrality and precipitated American entry into the war. Believe it or don't. Idiot Americans were trying to help somebody.

Was there collateral damage? Oh yea.

When you asked why it would seem odd that a person is concerned about the health and welfare of people elsewhere, when that person is not contributing to his own defense... honestly my first response was: "How could you not know the answer to that?" — Mongrel

Ah.. Now I get it. Seems NATO doesn't think we spend enough. So in all fairness, we are contributing! I think that's neither here nor there though since I'm against military humanitarian intervention. We've (the world) had exactly one since the concept was introduced and plenty more where they claimed it was but it wasn't by any reasonable standard.

We've (the world) had exactly one since the concept was introduced — Benkei

I assume you mean Don Quixote. Yep. He was awesome.

Eh... why so preachy, Sapientia? — Mongrel

Because we're talking about a matter of life or death, actions which have and do cause severe devastation and destruction to the lives of innocent civilians, their home, their family, their health and well-being...

You are indirectly the recipient of humanitarian military intervention. Yep... about a year prior to entry into WW2, the US was smuggling food and supplies to your little ancestors. That ended the American pretense of neutrality and precipitated American entry into the war. Believe it or don't. Idiot Americans were trying to help somebody.

Was there collateral damage? Oh yeah. — Mongrel

Smuggling food and supplies is one thing, dropping atomic bombs is another. It's not like the one necessarily lead to the other. Humanitarianism isn't about trying to help some innocents at the expense of others.

Does so-called collateral damage sit well with this? — Sapientia

Collateral damage is tragic and ought not sit well with anyone.

These are fellow human beings, after all. — Sapientia

You don't say....

Are the bombs and bullets which do such damage and cause such harm representative of acts of kindness, benevolence and sympathy? — Sapientia

Who is firing them, and at whom, and for what purpose? These are questions you have naively neglected, or perhaps cynically neglected, to ask. Assad and ISIS care nothing for collateral damage. The concept is indeed foreign to them, since they seek to cause damage an sich. Military intervention, chiefly by the West, would seek to destroy these forces, in order to end their reign of terror and violence. By all means, let the Red Cross bring aid. Their work is impossibly brave and moral, but they are merely putting a band-aid over a cancerous wound. It is the tumor of these barbarians that needs to be extricated from the body of this region, post haste.

Are these human beings taken into full consideration when attempting to enact humanitarian principles, or are they just written off as collateral damage? — Sapientia

They most certainly are taken into consideration.

Perhaps there is humanitarian intent, but this is coupled with recklessness, incompetence, and a lack of foresight. — Sapientia

Quite so.

Is that included in your notion of humanitarian military intervention? — Sapientia

Why would it be? No, of course not. I condemn the mismanagement and incompetence of military humanitarian intervention to the utmost, but this does not besmirch the ideals and intentions behind such enterprises in the slightest, which, after all, are not all failures.

Smuggling food and supplies is one thing, dropping atomic bombs is another. It's not like the one necessarily lead to the other — Sapientia

Well, there's one way to be sure. Don't smuggle the food.

Who is firing them, and at whom, and for what purpose? These are questions you have naively neglected, or perhaps cynically neglected, to ask. — Thorongil

I didn't "neglect" to ask them. I didn't ask them because the answers won't alter the fact that these actions are authorised and undertaken by people who are aware of the consequence that innocent people will suffer and die as a result, which flies in the face of humanitarianism.

The concept is indeed foreign to them, since they seek to cause damage an sich. Military intervention, chiefly by the West, would seek to destroy these forces, in order to end their reign of terror and violence. By all means, let the Red Cross bring aid. Their work is impossibly brave and moral, but they are merely putting a band-aid over a cancerous wound. It is the tumor of these barbarians that needs to be extricated from the body of this region, post haste. — Thorongil

That's better. You should at least call it what it is: military intervention. Drop the humanitarian tag.

They most certainly are taken into consideration. — Thorongil

But then written off as collateral damage nonetheless.

Why would it be? No, of course not. I condemn the mismanagement and incompetence of military humanitarian intervention to the utmost, but this does not besmirch the ideals and intentions behind such enterprises, which, after all, are not all failures. — Thorongil

Okay, not included in the concept, yet you count the invasion of Iraq as an example, despite the known cost to innocent human lives it would and did entail. I wouldn't include it at all, although I accept that there were good intentions involved. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's actions that count, and they can't be reversed.

Well, there's one way to be sure. Don't smuggle the food. — Mongrel

That would seem to misdirect responsibility. If I do the right thing by helping someone in need and someone attacks me for it, who is to blame?

That would seem to misdirect responsibility. If I do the right thing by helping someone in need and someone attacks me for it, who is to blame? — Sapientia

Blame? There's no big Mommy and Daddy in the sky to do anything with blame.

By the time you need valor, you've already seriously screwed up.

which flies in the face of humanitarianism — Sapientia

It is an even greater affront to human dignity and rights not to intervene with the appropriate measures to end injustice and barbarity. You appear to be a status quo fetishist who apparently thinks that it's okay to leave things as they are, as long as doing so doesn't increase the sum total of human misery. Well, that sum is sometimes ballooned to a greater enormity by not acting forcefully and decisively. It's all well and good to send aid workers to places like Syria. But what if they start being murdered and bombed, as is now happening (several hospitals have been destroyed in the last week alone)? We do nothing? I'm sorry, but that is a grotesque position. We in the West have the capability to deal a decisive military blow to Assad and ISIS but refuse to do so due to the absurd isolationist opinions of people like you. Genocide must continue because you're worried about collateral damage. How shameful.

Drop the humanitarian tag. — Sapientia

No, I won't, because that is their purpose. Are you a pacifist? I get the distinct feeling I'm arguing against a latent assumption in your position you have yet to disclose.

But then written off as collateral damage nonetheless. — Sapientia

What would you prefer to call it? If you conceive of the accidents in war to be on a par with deliberate murder, then you possess no moral sense at all. The intentions of actions determine the degree of their justice and morality. You may disagree, but this is the principle on which the law is founded.

yet you count the invasion of Iraq as an example, despite the known cost to innocent human lives it would and did entail. I wouldn't include it at all, although I accept that there were good intentions involved. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's actions that count, and they can't be reversed. — Sapientia

Actions do matter, yes, but that's all the more reason not to abandon our fellow human beings in Iraq and Syria to the scourge of militant jihadists. They cannot defeat the latter on their own, at least not quickly. Or do you object to their military actions too, on account of the collateral damage involved in protecting themselves through the use of force?

It is an even greater affront to human dignity and rights not to intervene with the appropriate measures to end injustice and barbarity. — Thorongil

And there's the rub: What IS the appropriate measure that will end injustice and barbarism at minimal cost (cash, lost lives)? A lot of people are impatient for something effective to be done: I wish it were just a little more obvious what that was.

For instance, suppose we sent a cruise missile into Damascus and killed Assad (and his retinue) in a lucky strike. We thought that the death of Muammar Gaddafi would improve the situation in Libya. Apparently it didn't. Maybe killing Assad would lead to a beneficial shift in power in favor of a more civil government. And maybe not.

We can be fairly certain that American troops would have difficulty identifying who was who in the urban guerrilla fighting in Aleppo and other Syrian cities. Would the multi-lateral European Union Force do better? Nato? I don't know who would best save the day here. Dutch troops led by the Israeli Defense Force, maybe?

What IS the appropriate measure that will end injustice and barbarism at minimal cost (cash, lost lives)? — Bitter Crank

Hi Bitter Crank,

Are you implying that doing nothing is better than military intervention? Or that military intervention is needed but the 'devil is in the details'. Because I think this is one of the fundamental questions that needs to be addressed.

Sure, we have limited information but we have to make do with what we have, act in good will, and hope for the best.

The particulars may vary but I suppose intervention is needed given the scope of the problem, not only in terms of the number of casualties in Syria but also its effects on neigboring countries in the Middle East and Europe in terms of "refugee divide".

We thought that the death of Muammar Gaddafi would improve the situation in Libya. Apparently it didn't. — Bitter Crank

This is because we never allocated the proper resources to help stabilize the country. Obama didn't want to go through congress to get approval to declare war against Gaddafi's regime, which would have enabled greater resources, since he wanted to maintain his image as the anti-war senator who voted against the Iraq war. So he was forced into employing very limited military operations so as not to call it a war. It's all the more ironic because the failure of post-liberation Iraq had to with the same paucity of resources and planning on the part of the US in the beginning of the conflict (which necessitated the surge and so on).

Maybe killing Assad would lead to a beneficial shift in power in favor of a more civil government. And maybe not. — Bitter Crank

It would undoubtedly lead to this if we but wanted it to.

We can be fairly certain that American troops would have difficulty identifying who was who in the urban guerrilla fighting in Aleppo and other Syrian cities. Would the multi-lateral European Union Force do better? Nato? I don't know who would best save the day here. Dutch troops led by the Israeli Defense Force, maybe? — Bitter Crank

We ought to listen to the Kurds, who have probably the best intelligence on the ground.

Maybe killing Assad would lead to a beneficial shift in power in favor of a more civil government. And maybe not. — Bitter Crank

It would undoubtedly lead to this if we but wanted it to. — Thorongil

If only certain political figures have the decency, they would have stepped out of power just for the mere fact that the situation is already out of control.

What I get is that with the current state of affairs in Syria, intervening is better that doing nothing. — OglopTo

It's a false dichotomy to suggest there's only military intervention or nothing.

It sure is a false dichotomy. There's the possibility of peace talks (traditional politicking) but I think a show of force is still needed before any such event.

There's the possibility of peace talks (traditional politicking) but I think a show of force is still needed before any such event. — OglopTo

Maybe we can think of other ways. How about this; cordoning off the entire area that no weapons can enter Syria any more (it's after all not that big)? Or obligate weapon's manufacturers to put non-removable gps chips (charged by the excess heat of firing them) so that we can start tracking the black market and disband it.

Maybe that can work too. The common thread between military intervention and limiting the availability of firearms is the control of violence.

Blame? There's no big Mommy and Daddy in the sky to do anything with blame. — Mongrel

Then why bring them up? There doesn't need to be.

By the time you need valor, you've already seriously screwed up. — Mongrel

It's not about valour. It's about doing the right thing, and it's about understanding context and extenuating circumstances, and it's about understanding the slippery slope fallacy, and it's about rightly attributing or apportioning blame - which clearly plays a key role in ethics, and has nothing to do with big nonexistent Mommy and Daddy in the sky.

Are you a pacifist? — Thorongil

For the most part, yes. I'm certainly not as willing to readily endorse military intervention as you are. I can't help but find the thought condemnable when I consider the consequences in terms of civilian casualties and destruction.

What would you prefer to call it? — Thorongil

I would prefer to call it what it is, but without the vague formality which conveniently obscures its significance and conveys the wrong message. That these are human beings and civilians should be at the forefront of peoples minds whenever they hear these events being referenced.

If you conceive of the accidents in war to be on a par with deliberate murder, then you possess no moral sense at all. — Thorongil

I certainly do not. You've pulled that one out of thin air.

The intentions of actions determine the degree of their justice and morality. You may disagree, but this is the principle on which the law is founded. — Thorongil

If you think that there are no other factors which contribute to that determination, such as the consequences of actions, then yes, of course I disagree. Intention alone is woefully insufficient and can be superseded in terms of moral import by other factors. If, on the other hand, that's not what you were suggesting, then you're not stating anything there that I find controversial or objectionable.

Actions do matter, yes, but that's all the more reason not to abandon our fellow human beings in Iraq and Syria to the scourge of militant jihadists. They cannot defeat the latter on their own, at least not quickly. Or do you object to their military actions too, on account of the collateral damage involved in protecting themselves through the use of force? — Thorongil

I don't think that anyone here is of the position that we should do nothing or abandon them. Those sort of comments or questions - whether rhetorical or otherwise - are ill-considered and offensive. Military intervention isn't the only possible course of action, nor necessarily the best. If it were the only option, just think of all the wars and conflicts and acts of terrorism which would have been aggravated and prolonged. Not all of them, of course, but a significant number.

It is complicated, and I am open-minded to a degree. I have read what you've had to say, and I have spent time contemplating these things, and will continue to do so, but I remain unconvinced of your position.

Self-defense is another matter, and was obviously not the target of my criticism. But yes, I believe that there are situations where self-defense is necessary, and in which actions taken in self-defense are justified (although there are exceptions).

It's not about valour. It's about doing the right thing, and it's about understanding context and extenuating circumstances, and it's about understanding the slippery slope fallacy, and it's about rightly attributing or apportioning blame - which clearly plays a key role in ethics, and has nothing to do with big nonexistent Mommy and Daddy in the sky. — Sapientia

Suppose the roles were reversed in 1941. The US is struggling. It could use help. Would the British government act to help the US? Yes. It would see what it could do to help the US cease to exist. We can guess that by its actions just a few decades earlier when it supplied the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It did that for one reason: to undermine the US and fragment North America.

But the US government says, "No, let's risk life and limb to bring food to Britain." So obviously this quest we've been on to see just how big a bunch of chumps we can be has been going on for a while now.

This is isolationist talk. One of the reasons I think it's going to grow is that to some extent... it's based on the truth.

The end result of the US intervening with aid and eventually entering WWII was it becoming the richest and most powerful country in the world. By far. So, it worked out pretty well for you from a purely selfish political and economic perspective. Even if it hadn't, this harping on about ungrateful Brits would be completely irrelevant. Sapientia didn't personally ask the US to intervene so he has zero reason to factor the fact that they did into this conversation, which you seem to want to steer towards making swipes at anyone from a country that you think isn't sufficiently grateful for America's munificence. Well, sorry but we're quite aware in Europe that what America does, it doesn't do out of some deep moral sense of obligation, but out of pure self-interest. Despite the PR. Just like pretty much every other country on the planet.