There are hawks who masquerade as doves. Many justify military interventionism in foreign countries by saying that it’s necessary to save people from the tyranny and oppression at the hands of their own government. When a dictator is killing his people, they argue, it is up to other nations to invade the country, oust the dictator, and install a new, more benevolent ruler into office, thereby saving the lives of the people who the dictator would have killed but for the invasion. While such advocates focus solely on the dictator himself—and the need to get rid of him—a military invasion inevitably involves the killing of many people before the troops actually reach the dictator himself. These include ordinary soldiers who have been conscripted to serve in the dictator’s army and civilians. Thus, in the military attempt to get the dictator, many people who aren’t directly involved in the dictator’s killing of his own people are themselves killed as part of the operation to oust the dictator from power. Thus, in any humanitarian military intervention, there is a type of cost-benefit analysis that takes place within the mind of the interventionist. The interventionist is saying that the lives of those people who are being saved are worth the lives of those people who are being killed in the intervention.
And for Western governments a determining factor is whose blood is being spilled, "ours" or "theirs".
We saw this mindset in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any number of Iraqi deaths, no matter how large, would justify ousting Saddam Hussein from power and saving those Iraqis he would have killed. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, when she was asked whether half-a-million Iraqi children who had died from the sanctions were worth it. She responded that while the issue was a difficult one, yes, the deaths of those half-a-million children were “worth it.” By “it” she meant the attempt to oust Saddam Hussein from power.
They then called for a "humanitarian" no-fly zone in Libya and used it for regime-change.
We now get the very same arguments in regards to Syria to remove Assad.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who recently took charge as NATO supreme allied commander Europe, reveals the reality of any effort to dismantle Syria’s air defenses as part of enforcing a no-fly zone would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
“It is quite frankly an act of war and it is not a trivial matter...It would absolutely be harder than Libya,” said Breedlove, referring to NATO’s 2011 air bombardment that resulted in the ouster of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. “This is a much denser, much more capable defense system than we’d faced in Libya.”
Breedlove went on to say “I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is … it’s basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability”
Any no-fly zone plan would be further complicated if Russia goes ahead with plans to provide Syria with advanced anti-aircraft missiles. These are some very capable systems that are being talked about,” Breedlove explained.
Concerning the Syrian government stock-pile of chemical weapons retired Air Force Gen. Charles Wald, have suggested it would require about 50,000 troops to secure those sites. Securing chemical weapons would require more than simply dropping bombs on sites Breedlove emphasised.
And for Western governments a determining factor is whose blood is being spilled, "ours" or "theirs".
We saw this mindset in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any number of Iraqi deaths, no matter how large, would justify ousting Saddam Hussein from power and saving those Iraqis he would have killed. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, when she was asked whether half-a-million Iraqi children who had died from the sanctions were worth it. She responded that while the issue was a difficult one, yes, the deaths of those half-a-million children were “worth it.” By “it” she meant the attempt to oust Saddam Hussein from power.
They then called for a "humanitarian" no-fly zone in Libya and used it for regime-change.
We now get the very same arguments in regards to Syria to remove Assad.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who recently took charge as NATO supreme allied commander Europe, reveals the reality of any effort to dismantle Syria’s air defenses as part of enforcing a no-fly zone would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
“It is quite frankly an act of war and it is not a trivial matter...It would absolutely be harder than Libya,” said Breedlove, referring to NATO’s 2011 air bombardment that resulted in the ouster of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. “This is a much denser, much more capable defense system than we’d faced in Libya.”
Breedlove went on to say “I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is … it’s basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability”
Any no-fly zone plan would be further complicated if Russia goes ahead with plans to provide Syria with advanced anti-aircraft missiles. These are some very capable systems that are being talked about,” Breedlove explained.
Concerning the Syrian government stock-pile of chemical weapons retired Air Force Gen. Charles Wald, have suggested it would require about 50,000 troops to secure those sites. Securing chemical weapons would require more than simply dropping bombs on sites Breedlove emphasised.
No comments:
Post a Comment