OK, quantify for me when the US should "interfere" with another country

[Godhumor]

It seems like people want a formula that says when we should or should not go into a country, so give me one (And I'm not asking for what you think this administration's formula is like "zOMG they have oil! +100 points!"...I'm asking for yours). Please note, never would be a vote for complete isolationism or non-intervention, your choice.

How do you weigh the factors? Is it based on current violence, economic ties, whether other countries or the UN is involved, natural resources, class disparity, type of government, etc. or something else entirely (Like, whether we have the money to do so or not)?

How do you make every decision the same way to show no favoritism for one country's plight over another's?

Edit: Tried to make this clear, but I guess I didn't. I'm not asking for support or no support for this admin's decision on Libya--I'm asking if you had to make the decisions how would you do so?

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Can't. As far as I can tell, it's arbitrary and capricious.

If the President is having a bad week, any nasty regime is fair game.

[Godhumor]

2. Again, not asking for the admin's asking for yours...how do you decide this kind of policy?

I'm just asking for people to explain how or why they would go into another country if they had the power to do so.

[brooklynite]

3. Who says you can't show favoritism?

When you're about to give money to a homeless man on the street, do you stop because there are other homeless people who you won't be giving money to and that would be unfair? Or do you make a decision based on the immediate need, your available resources and the likely outcome?

[Godhumor]

4. There have been a ton of posts asking why Libya and not x, y, z

My point is not an attack nor should it be construed as one--I'm really asking others how would you decide?

[KurtNYC]

5. when would I be comfortable with China interfering in another country?

If the other country launched an unprovoked attack on China maybe.

Objectively, why should the answer be any different for the USA?

edit: goofed the subject line

[Godhumor]

9. So how do you make the decision? Is the test "Would I be angry if China did this?"

Actually, that might work.

[gratuitous]

24. Or another country interfering in the U.S.?

Certainly we have a sizable number of citizens who feel like they're at war with our government. If they were to appeal to the international community of nations to press their grievances, what would our government's response be? What would we legitimately expect from the government of any country to a violent citizen uprising?

It's very useful to have some standards and principles before making these kinds of decisions. Unfortunately, when the know-nothings and the yammerers grab the stage, and people are gulled by their shrillness, all bets are off. Witness, just as an example, the Terri Schiavo affair. There is a process in place for making medical decisions for a person who can't make them for himself or herself. In the absence of a written directive, the decision goes to the spouse. If the person isn't married, then the person's parents. If the parents are no longer living or competent to decide, the person's adult offspring. As the decision goes down the line, it's obvious that the potential for messiness rises.

Right now, it appears that our foreign policy is driven by an ever-shifting set of rationales, in which the plunderability and profitability of a country's natural resources seems to figure unpredictably.

[EFerrari]

6. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x758299

[Godhumor]

7. I'm not asking for a history here, I'm asking how you'd decide to take an intervention stand

You pull the strings, how do you make the decision?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. We should "go in" (I assume you mean militarily) as often as Andorra does.

Or, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, and Luxembourg combined.

[Cleita]

10. If the French had not aided the revolutionaries in this

country, we would all be British or Canadian, maybe. If the allies hadn't helped European countries taken over by the Nazis, we might all be speaking German today. So it's hard to say when it's right or wrong. I would say your motivation could be a key. Raiding a country for it's oil assets like we did Iraq I would say puts us into a class of Colonial Imperialism. However, if a country's citizens are trying to rid themselves of a ruthless dictator and ASK for help, I believe it makes it a little more justified. I think only history will decide whether our involvement in Libya was a just involvement.

[defendandprotect]

22. Exactly -- !!

The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[TorchTheWitch]

61. the French only aided us with money, ammunition and advisers

all of which was done secretly. They only became "involved" militarily when Britain declared war on France immediately after France signed the Treaty of Alliance with us which formally recognized the colonies as an independent nation called The United States of America. Were it not for Austria protecting France on France's behalf due to an alliance between those countries France would never have waged their second front against Britain off of our shores. At the time Britain's navy was massive and France needed the combination of their own navy and ours in order to have a prayer of defeating Britain. ALL of France's military involvement had to do with THEIR OWN war with Britain.

And they didn't do it for love of freedom and other typical squishy reasons we (and they) pretend... their sole objective in getting involved at ALL even secretly with funds, ammunition, advisers, etc. was because of their desire to destabilize their old enemy Britain and establish an alliance with another independent country against Britain with whom they could also trade.

And we screwed France in the end. France went broke with all the money they poured into helping us - none of which we paid back - and was eventually paid on the backs of the working poor in France, and we secretly negotiated with Britain without France's knowledge at the end of the war to establish the bulk of our trading with Britain cutting out France ending the alliance with France.

Therefore,
A) France only helped us for their own personal reasons
B) France only helped us non-militarily until Britain declared war on France
C) France only became "involved" militarily when it became THEIR war with Britain
D) France only waged their second front against Britain in our waters because Austria was protecting France
E) France had to wage their second front against Britain in our waters because the only way Britain's navy had a hope of being defeated was the combination of France's navy and ours
F) France went broke due to their helping us and their own war with Britain that we did not pay back and was paid on the backs of France's working poor, and
G) France didn't even get any trade deals with the US out of it all nor did the alliance between the US and France hold up

See any similarities?

[elleng]

11. Impossible 'quantify' and 'interfere.'

That's why we select Prez, to make the difficult decisions with our 'interests' in mind, expecting him to keep in mind all of our interests, which are vast and varied.

[Godhumor]

12. I agree, it is an intellectual exercise, or supposed to be...if you were the person in charge

How do you make the decision? There seems to be a lot of outrage that he is supporting UN action in Libya but not supporting intervention in other problem areas. So, if you had to decide when and where, how would you do so?

[elleng]

19. Very difficult to decide in the abstract. Each case/situation/country

must be addressed individually, and I sincerely hope people will recognize this and enable PrezO to do this.

[LanternWaste]

13. Off the top of my head, I imagine it would need to fit three qualifications...

Off the top of my head, I imagine it would need to fit three qualifications...

1. It directly or indirectly affects American interests and/or perceptions of America.
2. It must fall within a particular window of morality (diaphanous stuff there though... conflict promotes economic and/or social freedoms, participating foreign military must be invited into conflicted region, etc)
3. The objective must be obtainable on a practical level, and deny a greater collective negative consequent from replacing the up-to-now status-quo.

Each one is obviously open to interpretation, inference, and basing off of one's own personal set of ethical rules-- to a point in which the circumstances dictate the action (or inaction) more than a set of rules could hope to afford.

ed: sp

[Godhumor]

14. Thanks, not a bad list--has checkboxes and room for ethics

My first pass would have been all formulaic and that struck, even me, as being incredibly heartless. Like yours better.

[wickerwoman]

15. The US shouldn't interfere with another country.

They aren't the world's police.

If the UN decides on an intervention, I'm fine with the US being part of a coalition that includes comparable numbers of combat troops from other countries.

I was OK with Bosnia, I'm tentatively OK with Libya (we'll see where it goes). We should have gone into Rwanda. Not OK with Iraq.

[Godhumor]

18. Just flat out saying, "We will only go as a coalition, but we will always go as a coalition"

Would be a pretty powerful policy. Your feelings on the conflicts actually sum mine up, as well.

[pampango]

59. Excellent. The US should not be the "world's police". "If the UN decides on an intervention,

I'm fine with the US being part of a coalition that includes comparable numbers of combat troops from other countries." As am I.

[SoCalDem]

16. Diplomacy is the key factor here, but when diplomats are chosen by their capacity to donate

money to campaigns, we end up with less-than-stellar diplomats in many cases. For a very long time now, we have been behind the curve when it comes to feeling the pulse of the international situations. We always seem to be behind, and then flailing about when we try to catch up.

Diplomacy works best when it's done QUIETLY, behind-the-scenes.

The problem we have always had, is that in a free-press nation , reporters are always ferreting out tidbits that they feel the public needs to know, and that's a good thing..except for when it isn't. There are MANY really creepy and dangerous leaders of countries around this world of ours, and oftentimes behind-the-scenes deals have to be cut with them. When these negotiations are ongoing, and parts of the deals become front-page/internet/cable shows fodder, negotiations halt, and are often never restarted.

We know very little about the Middle East because we chose to not learn about it. They have oil, we want oil.....that's as far as it went for decades. We cannot continue that pattern any longer.

[displacedvermoter]

17. When a Democratic President does it.

[Skidmore]

20. You've earned two snorts from me in 10 minutes time.

Very impressive.

[displacedvermoter]

25. Need a tissue?

[Skidmore]

26. Nah, not that

kind of snort.

[defendandprotect]

21. When it is on the side of citizens rising up to knock out a dictator ---

and only when INVITED to do so -- !!




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[zorahopkins]

23. Do Unto Other Countries

Ask the question this way, "Quantify for me when other countries should interfere with the US".

Would we welcome efforts of another country to come in and de-stabilize the Obama administration?

Would we welcome other countries deciding that the right wing in the US had a "legitimate" grievance with the Obama administration, and then, in response to requests from the right wing, launching a military attack against the US?

[LiberalAndProud]

27. Military force should not be employed unless a conflict expands beyond a country's borders.

Sanctions, blockades, negotiation and diplomacy are the tools to exert international pressure in cases of civil unrest.

That would be my guiding principle.

[Zanzoobar]

28. My three criteria

1) When our physical borders or interior are attacked
-including foreign navy forming off our shores, or an army near our borders

2) When our economic well being is attacked
-Including piracy, blockades, or conspiracies which affect vital national economic interests

3) When our citizens abroad are attacked
-Including illegal detention or other human rights violations

[Rex]

29. Well, first off I would

get a blindfold and a dartboard...oh and a dart...maybe two darts.

[Zanzoobar]

30. You'll need minimum three these days.

[Rex]

50. Dam, I just sold the third dart to the Chinese.

Cutbacks. :(

[The Magistrate]

31. The Standard Is Clear, Sir: When The Moon is In the Seventh House, and Jupiter Aligns With Mars....

"Your Honor, there are many burglars abroad in the city; even now, as we stand here, houses are being burgled! How can there be any justice in putting me on trial for burglary, while all these others go un-punished? It is only right that you dismiss the charge against me, until such time as every other burglar in the city has been apprehended and placed in the dock alongside me!"

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. +1 :)

Exactly, Sir. If the logic of those demanding consistency were to be applied consistently, it would FAIL bigtime.

We're through the looking glass, Alice. (Queuing "White Rabbit" for "now playing".)

http://youtu.be/XR8LFNUr3vw


:headbang:

[PVnRT]

43. +1

[The Straight Story]

32. When the people asking for it have themselves or their own kids as the ones going (nt)

[VoteProgressive]

33. When they are attacking a peaceful country or the USA.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. as libya proves it's a complex and gray issue and pretending there is an easy answer

is still pretending


there is iraq, where we had no international consensus, no immediate threat to the population of iraq and no good reason for occupying

there is darfur, where we are rightfully criticizes for not interfering in and not doing anything about a genocide

and then there is libya, where there is a fair amount of consensus and a threat to the population.


i dont envy Obama or any president who has to make decisions in these gray areas. How do we know this isn't going to become a Darfur? How do we know, we are not creating terrorists by going in? we don't.

[Godhumor]

36. And that was exactly my point, thanks. People want to see things in black and white, which it never

is.

So I wanted to ask a question that makes people think about how they'd go about dealing with the grey area. I admit, I'm a quant guy, so I tried to set up a formula (i.e. government killing x% of its population is worth a weight of y% in the formula), and, well, it sucked. Even as an exercise, I couldn't get past removing that grey area...turning lives into numbers.

I do not envy anyone who has to make this kind of decision. I certainly couldn't do it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. well done

:)

[Paradoxical]

38. All I know is that we should interfere during genocides.

I know what type of extreme circumstances we should get involved in. But I cannot answer for the controversial middle of the road circumstances.

[Godhumor]

39. Yup, it looks like a lot of people on this thread have concrete ideas for absolutes

The middle is not nearly as easy. Agree completely.

[Zanzoobar]

40. Should we have turned right around and went after Pol Pot?

It's not a rhetorical or sarcastic question.

I'm curious as to what you think we should have done.

[Paradoxical]

41. Hell yes we should have gone after pol pot.

[WatsonT]

44. Genocide is the deliberate elimination of some ethnic, racial, religious, or national group

Meaning that depending on the group that could consist of a few dozen people.

Whereas murdering tens of millions of your own people without consideration for their ethnic, racial, religious, or national origin would not rise to the definition of genocide.

Meaning that as long as they were merely political opponents being murdered the total amount wouldn't matter, it would not be genocide and would not require our intervention.

So trying to wipe out a group of 20 people: evil.

Trying to wipe out millions who are not clearly defined as belonging to one group in particular: acceptable.

Also what about situations like Zimbabwe were you have a poor black dominate population trying to wipe out (either through murder or forced immigration) the smaller but wealthier and more powerful white population? Who do we side with there?

[akbacchus_BC]

55. You are so funny, the US only intervenes when OIL is the major deal. Rwanda, not so much!

Bet you pick your fights eh?

[WatsonT]

42. Question 1: did they attack us

If no then question 2: did they attack a close ally with whom we a mutual defense pact?

If no then do not proceed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. even if they commit genocide?

[WatsonT]

46. Define genocide.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. per wiki

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

[WatsonT]

49. How large must such a group be to count?

Does a religious group of 2 people count?

Likewise does the fact that systematic torture and murder is carried out by the government *but* merely against political dissidents rather than any defined group mean that what that regime is doing is ok?

Killing all your nations wiccan population (let's say 4 people) would constitute genocide.

Killing a diverse group of hundreds of thousands of political dissidents: not genocide.

By your definition we must bomb an entire nation to save 4 people, but not to save a million.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. no, thats not my reason. i was just giving you examples

other than the ones you mentioned that may necessitate us to military force against a country

[pampango]

60. Genocide is only one of four crimes covered by the UN's Responsibility to Protect.

Yours is a good question.

"The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. you and i were voted some of the worst du'ers

on a website. pm me for details. :)

[akbacchus_BC]

56. Well when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they suffered for it!

[Modern_Matthew]

48. In retaliation for an attack within our borders...

or actions that may result in damaging a large portion of the world and cause deaths across many borders.

[moondust]

52. Geography matters.

Risks are much greater if you have to insert ground troops into an urban setting that precludes the use of air power.

Risks are much, much more acceptable if you can make a big difference out in open terrain with your far superior air power.

[Safetykitten]

53. By average height.

[akbacchus_BC]

54. You asked and am being honest, the US should not be intervening into

sovereign countries! The US needs to identify its problems and deal with them and get its armies out of foreign soil! The amount of money the US use to keep its MIC is unbelievable. Get the hell out of countries who do not want you!

[SpartanDem]

57. In the case of Libya

the rebels asked for international help. If you were president could you live with the consequences of saying no and Gaddafi massacring those who opposed him?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

63. This may seem obvious, but the US is a major part of NATO...

it is a treaty and the US is not the only nation participating in this.

This was not a unilateral action.

The intervention in Libya was discussed in NATO before there was a commitment, it was decided by NATO members that intervention was an option. We can disengage, unilaterally, but that might well upset the balance in NATO.

[TorchTheWitch]

65. the job of the Pres is to follow the law and ignore their personal feelings

We have laws that define when waging war is acceptable. Just because we've ignored those laws for a very long time doesn't excuse us continuing to ignore them and even broadening our abuse of the laws.

Further, anyone who believes that Obama's conscience is bothers is whistling Dixie. Purely selective conscience when it comes to a country whose resources you want is no conscience at all. Clearly, Obama's conscience is not bothered by all those other countries living under evil regimes that have killed far more people.

[Vinee]

62. It is nearly impossible for me to justify a preemptive war as it is a very slippery slope

if there is no threat to the US people or our allies, there is no casus bellum imo. When we are alreayd involved in 2 wars, it is even harder to find the justification. I would rather spend the money and resources on helping the Japanese than bombing the Libyans. Qaddafi could have been dealt with diplomatically.

[Fly by night]

64. When OUR oil is under THEIR sands. (Credit that caustic comment to Rep. Kucinich).

For the literal-minded or the pathologically argumentative (who seem to be proliferating here at DU), that was a joke.

[dipsydoodle]

67. Given the appalling record of US interference in Latin America

the US should stick to sorting out its own internal affairs - period.

[Nye Bevan]

68. When there is an international consensus, like a UN vote for action, with zero dissenters,

which was the case for Libya. It's a complex world and there is no simple formula, and I am much more comfortable with the UN making this decision than I am with US unilateral action.

[WatsonT]

69. There were 5 nations out of 15 that didn't vote for it

And even then those 15 do not represent the entire international community.

[Fire Walk With Me]

70. When freedom is a Trend.