When should the U.S. intervene in situations of global conflict?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: When should the U.S. intervene in situations of global conflict?

This is essentially a NY Times poll, slightly modified. I'm curious how DUers would vote or what they think of it. The actual Times poll is at the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/ezpoll/20030907mag-intervene.html

[JHB]

1. How about "Some of the above"?

n/t

[BurtWorm]

2. A and C, but not B?

Which would you think justified intervention?

[NewGuy]

3. I'm with BurtWorm N/T

[JHB]

24. In decending order...

...A, e, d, b, and c.

[sandnsea]

4. Intervene?

That's kind of a sketchy word. It all depends on the circumstances, our long term relationship with the country, and what 'intervene' means. Too vague to answer.

[BurtWorm]

11. I take it to mean any military action against a foreign military

or government. Any action in which the US tries to address a problem using force.

[wuushew]

5. Reason's for intervention can be numerous...

however I do not support in any way the right of the United States to arbitrarily remove or destroy the government of any foreign nation. That is a decision that should only be made in the United Nations.

This was essentially the Clinton policy, look at Kosovo which was in many ways illegal. The goal of intervention was met, and the Serbians reformed their government from WITHIN.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Even in times of war?

If the UN had been around, would you have waited for them beforen attacking Japan after Pearl Harbor?

[Maple]

7. Who cut off

the Japanese oil supply?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. You mean oil that didn't belong to Japan?

You seem to think boycotts are a reason for a sneak attack and war and years of butchery. They aren't. Boycotts are legal ways nations have of telling other nations that they don't like their actions.

[berry]

28. Boycotts maybe yes. But naval blockades are against internat'l law,

I believe. At least, now they're illegal. I'm not sure about the law in 1940. But that's why some nations are opposed to the US plan for blockading N Korea. It also sets a bad precedent, and N Korea *would* consider it a declaration of war.

[wuushew]

17. Don't forget the cut-off of scrap metal supplies as well

Japan had zero natural resources, it doesn't take a genius to predict what their militaristic government would do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. That was their choice

Another would have been to rein in their attacks on China and Korea and act like a peaceful nation.

[wuushew]

20. Maybe we should not been allies with them in WWI

allowing them to fill the power vaccum in the aftermath.

As you can see the United States has a long history of foreign policy failures.

[Zuni]

33. Not really true

Japan was involved in WWI mainly during the early stages of the war in 1914-1915. Their largest action was the seige of the German held Chinese port of Tsingtao.
Japan's main ally was the UK at the time, and they got involved to seize territory and to help the UK fight Germany.

The US enetered WWI on April 6, 1917 but did not fight in any battles until 1918, and then only large numbers of US troops were committed in only the last few months of the war.

Also Japan in 1915 was very different than Japan in 1937--In 1937 fanatical militarists controlled the government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Every nation

That lasts any amount of time has a list of foreign (and domestic) policy successes and failures.

I don't blame WWII on U.S. policy, I blame it on untamed and psychotic aggression on the part of the Axis.

[berry]

27. I agree, Maple. And multiple chances for slowing down and maybe

stopping Japan's aggression in Asia were lost with the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance (which the US went along with). Britain was eager to see Japan keep Russia busy in the Far East, and thrilled when J won the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-5, with British support. That's when Japan grabbed Korea as a colony. The Koreans were outraged, but the Great Powers thought it was a nice gift for Japan, and the path was set for-->Manchuria, China and SE Asia. At the end of WWI, as a late-joining "ally", Japan got Germany's foothold in NE China (really a mini-colony, what we'd call a free-trade zone today only fully run by the foreign powers)--all with the blessings of the UK and US and France. The Netherlands, too, I think.

As for the oil blockade of Japan, that was "a declaration of war"--as I believe is now codified in international law (though I'm not sure that it was at that time). China desperately needed help and even the Dutch in Indonesia were begging for support vs. the Japanese--so we'd probably have gone in anyway, especially with our stake in the Philippines threatened. It's pretty complicated. But there is no question in my mind that different decisions along the way could have headed Japan off long before. Unquestionably, Japan behaved badly, but the Great Powers were complicit almost to the moment of going to war in WWII. In some ways, as with Saddam's Iraq, the monster was of our own making (at least with our acquiescence, and our encouragement even at times).

To oversimplify, the Cold War was nothing new, just a continuation of the British Empire's battle-of-the-titans with Mother Russia, going back to the Crimea and the Afgan Wars, with the added fuel of anti-capitalist class revolution to fan the self-righteous flames of enmity toward Russia after 1918. And at first, Japan was seen as a useful ally/puppet. Talk about lessons never learned from history....

Sorry for the self-indulgent rambling--I get pretty heated when I hear the posturing of "Western Civilization" as something innocent and blameless. Hah. At one point in the Cold War, India tried to organize the minnows of the world into a non-aligned block, just to avoid being sucked in to the madness. But then the US (and UK too probably--don't remember this perfectly) did what it could to punish these nations. The point was to make them choose--you're with us or against us, no middle ground. Familiar, huh?

(THE END--I'm forcing myself to stop. Really! I'm sorry for this tangent I've gone off on. This didn't start out as an attempt to hijack the thread....)

[Zuni]

32. Because Japan

was waging a truly genocidal war in China.

[htuttle]

8. Defending against an attack on your own territory...

...is fully within the bounds of Article 51 of the UN Charter, so that's not a problem.

Invading Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq are not, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are 'covert' actions, as in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Columbia, etc...

[wuushew]

10. Thats a poor example

The United States had adequate intelligence and force to meet and repeal a Japanese attack on our Pacific forces. Thanks to a series of human errors a breakdown in communication occured.

Don't you think the chances for a negotiated peace would have been higher if the attack had failed and forced the Japanese on the strategic defensive?

By using the Bush doctrine of premptive attack all you accompish is a guaranteed bloody Pacific war. Taking the risk of being attacked offers a greater chance for peace(Or if you are a FDR-tinfoil nut you believe the attack was allowed on purpose to mobilize public opinion).

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. It's a great example

The attack happened. Now what do you do? Do you dither at the UN or do you retaliate and fight back?

[redeye]

9. I voted genocide...

...but I'm generalizing to human rights abuses, e.g. Saddam's regime post-Gulf War 1.

Note: I don't endorse the murder of innocent civilians in the name of saving those same civilians from death or abuse, nor in the name of any other goal - this kinda contradicts the whole idea of saving lives, doesn't it?

[Mz Pip]

12. A & D

If we're attacked or there is genocide being committed.

THe other reasons are issues that should be explored through diplomatic channels.

MzPip
:dem:

[quinnox]

13. If intervene

means going to war, it depends on the situation. Kind of hard to answer that generally.

But in general, I would approve of war if the U.S. is attacked without hesitation.

On whether I would support war if an ally is attacked, it would depend on the ally and the aggressor. If it was Great Britain, then yes at all times. If it was some minor ally, I would have to assess the strategic position first.

I would also agree if a critical strategic interest was attacked, like if for instance our ports were being blockaded.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Treaties

You must not be very good at believing in keeping one's word. You would defend allies only if it was in our strategic interest? Even if we had treaties obligating us to do so?

[quinnox]

19. Like I said it depends

on who is the ally and who is the aggressor. For example, if China attacked some minor ally of ours that was close to its borders I would not go to war with China because I believe the costs of such a conflict would most likely be greater than letting that minor ally fall.

[wuushew]

23. Excellent point

South Vietnam was an ally of the United States, some people on this thread would insist that it is our duty to defend them regardless of cost.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Some minor ally close to its borders?

Well, there are only two -- South Korea and Taiwan. China is much more likely to attack Taiwan. Are you saying we should leave millions of people to tyranny -- millions of people I might add, that we have promised to defend?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. That Would Be Callous

As I understand the U S supports a one China policy but insists the reunification should be peaceful....

That's where I'm at....

Also, one of the reaons North Korea attacked South Korea is because there was a State Department list of nations we would come to the aid of and South Korea wasn't on that list....

The surest way to encourage China to make revanchist moves against Taiwan is to let them think we won't come to the defense of it...

I would use force in these situations:

to halt genocide

to help an ally who has been attacked (and)

to defend the borders of the nation

I also subscribe to the just war theory that war should be waged in a matter consistent with reducing casualties to civillians as well as enemy combatants....

[Zorba607]

21. some of these

I can buy. If attacked, genocide and an ally in danger make some sense, but 'strategic interests'? What bs. Let's spill blood rather than change our behavior.

[BurtWorm]

22. It's gratifying to see (as of this second) DUers shunning that choice

What the hell are US strategic interests, anyway?

[berry]

29. And vague as "strategic interests" is as a pretext/justification for war,

it's usually wrapped in one extra layer--"national security", and who can be against that? (heavy irony here)

[IndianaGreen]

31. strategic interests = Wall Street

Many crimes have been committed under the guise of "national security, national interests, and strategic interests." it is time to reign-in the usurpation of war powers by the Presidency.

[Zuni]

35. Strategic interests can mean alot of things

but they are supposed to mean things that keep the country afloat.

Lets say the USSR decided to blockade the Atlantic to keep supplies from reaching the US---that would be a strategic interest.

Or if the Soviet Union invaded Mexico---that would be strategic.

Perhaps the Nazi Navy blockading the Panama Canal in 1940.

Strategic interests can be defined as the things that an enemy power would want to seize or cut off to screw us over.

[AP]

25. Other: when it's to establish a bulwark against fascism

just like WWII.

If you don't understand, read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Pallast describes why his father was so proud of his service in WWII fighting undemocratic, imperialist, fascist nations, and why he gave his medals to his son to lose among his toys when the US became a imperialist fascist nation in Vietnam.

[leftofthedial]

26. 3 reasons

we're attacked,

genocide

our allies are attacked

[burr]

30. You forgot to include the interests of Kissinger and Halliburton

Lieberman supports any reason provided by shrub as the truth, and Arab nations are considered guilty until proven innocent.

I selected two or more of the above. To me America being directly attacked by organized government armed forces merits military involvement, as well as stopping genocide in a cooperative effort with the international community. Other reasons would include assisting endangered U.S. citizens abroad with diplomacy, as Carter succeeded in using with the Iran Hostage Crisis, and only when diplomacy made no headway would military force be worth the risk. However, this could mean increasing the peril to the lives of endangered citizens while also risking lives of U.S. special forces.

Finally, I would want to see a complete repeal of shrub's taxcuts even before a single additional dollar is expended on current military deployments.

[Avalux]

34. One and a half of the above

Attacked, definitely. Genocide, in certain cases.

[Zuni]

36. well

Strategic interests and allies being threatened is conditional. depends on how important the interests are and why they need to be protected and who the allies are and if its worth it.
Genocide yes---if there is a legitimate case of true genocide going on, like in Rwanda in 1994 then all governments who are able to help stop it must do whatever is in their power to end or prevent it.
If Us citizens are in danger and this no other recourse then I say yes. The government is responsible for protecting American citizens. that is a primary responsibility.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. The Carter Doctrine

was predicated on strategic interests... That the United States would guarantee free shiping (of oil) through the Persian Gulf...

Carter was reluctant to use force but he was spot on on this.

I'm all for energy conservation; just not overnight....

[sangh0]

37. You left one important choice out

WHen the UN approves

[renegade000]

38. genocide and when attacked...

eom

[BurtWorm]

39. Compare DUers with NYTimes.com readers

When should the U.S. intervene in situations of global conflict?

If America has been attacked:
25%

If American citizens abroad are in danger:
2%

If American strategic interests are in danger:
7%

If genocide is taking place:
22%

If an ally is being threatened by another country:
3%

All of the above:
36%

Never:
6%

[bemildred]

40. Hmmmm.

If attacked, we should defend ourselves.

If US citizens are threatened, we should try to extricate them.

"Strategic interests" is a bullshit category, it means whatever
the current administration says it means, so unless if fits some
other good reason, I'm not for it.

If genocide is occurring, we should try to stop it, we should try
to rescue the victims. (What would you want to happen if it was
your family?)

"If an ally is threatened" is another bullshit category that means
whatever the current administration says, if it cannot be made to
fit some other valid reason, I'm not for it.

I would add, "In support of a UN authorized peace-keeping or
enforcement effort".

[mlawson]

43. A or D.

US attacked, or to stop genocide. Iraq was neither.

[mvd]

44. Hmmm..

I'd say when a serious and imminent threat against the U.S. is confirmed. We can't just lay down and be attacked. If an ally is attacked, we should come to their aid if it won't start an entire region to flare up.