Skip to main content

In yet another screed to advocate for an Imperial USA to commit to a "duty to protect" civilians across the world, Michael Ingatieff launches an OpEd in the New York Times

A friend, perhaps unaware of Ingatieff's long advocacy for US imperialism around the world, recommended this OpEd to me as a justification for the US' preparation for strikes against Syria.

This diary is my response to my friend, an answer to that column, an answer to the apparent unawareness of Ingatieff's history, and to the very concept that the USA must intervene in every nation where civilians are at risk.

To be clear, international law and international decision-making must be respected. The USA should stop acting unilaterally and seek to reinforce coalitions, diplomacy, international pressure, sanctions targeted against leadership not civilians, and avoid a default to warfare.

No one will step forward, or need to, if the USA always acts first and negotiates later.

Is there nothing that war cannot solve?

Ignatieff complains about the public being deceived into war being one of the reasons our citizens are reluctant to intervene elsewhere. Perhaps he should have been more honest and disclosed that he was a loud cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps he should admit that he is an advocate for torture, but only "torture lite" as if that makes it OK. Perhaps he should confess his writings on how the rule of law and civil rights must be set aside in order to combat terrorists.

In 2004, he published The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, a philosophical work analyzing human rights in the post-9/11 world. Ignatieff argued that there may be circumstances where indefinite detention or coercive interrogations may need to be used on terror suspects to combat terrorism.[20][21] Democratic institutions would need to evolve to protect human rights, finding a way to keep these necessary evils from offending democracy as much as the evils they are meant to prevent.[22]
...

His definition of torture, according to his 2004 Op-ed in The New York Times, does not include "forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods)."[38]

What could go wrong with that? Perhaps the very first issue might be: "Who defines who is a terrorist and who isn't?" An environmental protester? Iraqi war veterans protesting the looting of our national treasury by Wall Street? Check with the DHS and see who they've defined as terrorists lately.

Should we invade Egypt? What about Libya? Just because we stopped bombing doesn't mean the killing has stopped. What about Rwanda - 2 million dead? What about the Congo - 5 miillion dead? What about the Sudan - 2 million dead? What about Somalia - 1.5 million dead? What of the Chinese forced relocation of Tibetans and intentional destruction of their culture?

Is it even possible that the USA can end the suffering of civilians everywhere? And, again, who defines which are "civilians," which are "rebels," and which are "terrorists" or even "the right civilians" in a conflict?

Has anyone noticed the decades' long international human rights abuses committed by Israelis against the Palestinians, in violation of numerous UN resolutions? Let's invade Israel! We have a "duty to protect" human rights!

What of Mexico? 100,000 dead, nearly all civilians. Shouldn't the USA intervene in Mexico with a "duty to protect" these civilians right next door?

This Canadian author has never found a place where he wouldn't love for the USA to send our troops to die. He's been an enabler of Bush administration policies for years. He advocates for "Imperial rule" (his words) to "protect civilians" but avoids the complicated issue of how to decide who to protect when you cannot protect everyone.

Do invasions automatically equal human rights and protection? Don't tell that to the perhaps 1 million Iraqis who are dead, most of whom were civilian men, women and children directly killed by the USA or by our utter failure to maintain order in a nation we invaded and thus were responsible for.  Iraq has yet to recover anything like their former standard of living after a decade. Yes, that was protection all right, Ignatieff.

In the meantime, perhaps leaders from other nations should stop being so willing to demand that the USA invade anywhere and everywhere.

Or a better idea: Stop using "War!" as a default.

Civilians always, always suffer disproportionately in war. Invasions kill people -- men, women, and children -- even when we target only military installations. Even our supposedly very accurate drones have killed hundreds of women and children throughout numerous countries in the middle east.  Our "surgical strike" cruise missiles have a 15% failure rate - failure to hit the intended target.  One thousand pounds of high explosives landing "off target" creates "collateral damage."  

Another phrase for the Pentagon-speak is "civilian casualties."  Ignatieff argues we must invade to protect civilians. Is killing civilians to protect them the 21st century version of "destroy the village to save it?"

Let's discard Michael Ignatieff and his "reasoning" every bit as much as we have discarded Bush's wars of aggression and preemptive wars.

Stop using "War!" as a default.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:00:28 PM PDT

  •  So when the serious alternative to (0+ / 0-)

    the neocons, when he finds that our backs against a wall against a son of a bitch who slaughters tens of thousands of his own citizen, with the rest of the civilized world taking a "pass" on dealing with Assad, formulates a restrained, focused, minimal effort to stop the slaughter, without putting a worse butcher in his place, is opposed by the "anti-war" left who find common cause with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Vlad Putin, and Bashar Assad?
    That sucks.
    How about something different.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:16:01 PM PDT

    •  Well, if "something different" is more bombs, (12+ / 0-)

      More missiles, more killing, and more destruction...then it's pretty much "more of the same".

      "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." --Townes Van Zandt

      by Bisbonian on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:27:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the slur. IMHO, your comment, asserting (14+ / 0-)

      that I am aligned with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Valdimir Putin or Bashar Assad is despicable.  Nothing like being a dick in the first comment.

      Let me help you with these words from the introduction to the diary:

      To be clear, international law and international decision-making must be respected. The USA should stop acting unilaterally and seek to reinforce coalitions, diplomacy, international pressure, sanctions targeted against leadership not civilians, and avoid a default to warfare.

      No one will step forward, or need to, if the USA always acts first and negotiates later.

      Maybe you'd like to explain how
      our backs against a wall against a son of a bitch
      like Assad?

      Our backs?  He's attacked us?

      Then, take a shot at explaining which of the dozens of other nations who are also led by ruthless dictators we should bomb, invade or attack next.

      What is the level of murder which triggers our missiles?  100,000 sounds pretty high. Let's fire away at Mexico!  It is convenient. The human rights abuses are obvious, the killing rampant.  Shouldn't we send special forces to take Calderon captive? Since Peña is continuing the policies of Calderon, albeit more quietly, let's grab him up too. What's not to like?

      The killing in Syria and Mexico are at very similar levels. Let's attack them both!  

      Hell, let's just attack all the nations in the world with brutal murdering dictators, even those we've been endorsing.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:29:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All of those are good points. Normally I would (0+ / 0-)

        agree with you totally. However, in this instance, we're dealing with Syria. The President has avoided getting mired down in Syria because of the "problematic" nature there. Meanwhile he's being hammered as "dithering" on the right and left. Then when there's convincing evidence of Assad's use of CW, the left here claim that it was the rebels.
        Then after it is clear that the evidence points to the Syrian gov., they're claiming that it was a 'rogue general" and that Assad is totally innocent, (according to German intel. )
        Bottom line, equating Bush with Obama is wrong.
        Either you agree, or you disagree.
        It's possible that the one thing he needed to square the circle and demonstrate resolve to Assad was at least a fair hearing from the country.
        Yes, I'm tired of war, and I don't want another. I don't think Obama would have gotten us into another.
        When Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is elected Pres., I promise you we will be in another war.
        As for being a dick, I'm sorry, but I really think that many here are susceptible to being played by Putin. There's nothing peaceful or non-murderous about that guy. You make a lot of serious points.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:25:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  More help: (9+ / 0-)
      Civilians always, always suffer disproportionately in war. Invasions kill people -- men, women, and children -- even when we target only military installations.
      All those killed by a focused attack will surely be appreciative of our efforts to protect them.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:44:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People die when something isn't done, as well. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        I share your worry about civilian deaths. I understand the ramifications of action and non-action. It's a very serious situation.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:04:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really. People *might* die if nothing is done. (8+ / 0-)

          People will die, certainly, if missiles are launched and bombs dropped.  And the blood would be on our hands, not Assad's. That's a quantitative and qualitative difference.

          If we don't execute murderers more people might die at the hands of other murderers. Might.

          But if we execute the murderer, we know for sure there will be more death: the convicted murderer. The state will have been a killer as well as a "protector."

          Does the possible deterrence effect of executions justify the execution - the certainty that the executed will be dead?

          I don't think so. I don't think we ever have that certainty. Not in capital punishment. Not in war.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:13:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  " 'Anti-war' left who find common cause..." (9+ / 0-)

      "...with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Vlad Putin, and Bashar Assad."

      That's some stupid shit you just said right there.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:55:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, how about something different? (12+ / 0-)

      How about:

      not getting involved in another country's civil war?

      not supplying arms to rebels linked to Al Qaeda, whom we have been fighting (unsuccessfully I might add) in Afghanistan for 12 years?

      not toeing the line dictated by the most autocratic, theocratic, feudal, anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East: Saudi and Qatar?

      not being the country that has started more unilateral wars of aggression than any other since 1950?

      not being the country that has wrecked Iraq and Libya and caused endless death, misery, displacement of people, and wholesale destruction for the last 12 years?

      not being the world's biggest supplier of arms?

      not being a non-ratifier of the ICC, so that our own war criminals will get away scott free?

      not being the country that has castrated the UN by vetoing every motion concerned with Israel?

      not being the country which used agent orange in VN, white phosphorus and depleted uraniam in Iraq?

      not being the country with a drone program that has killed infinitely more innocent civilians than allegged terrorists?

      I could continue....

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:24:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What the fuck are you on? (3+ / 0-)

      The side of Cheney, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Kissenger, and the whole lunatic faction of the establishment, obviously.

      Now, explain again why we need to hit Assad but not the al-qaeda dominant faction of the rebels? The faction which, according to the UN's lead investigator has used Sarin in Aleppo and at least one other Syrian town in March 2003; the faction which is committing genocide of Christians.

      Seriously, why the fuck hasn't any single politician of this day advocated bombing al-qaeda and their affiliates in Syria?

      (ps the links are available on google, I'm not going to fucking argue what the rest of the world knows and has known for months now. Hint: UN May 6 sarin al-qaeda syria)


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:28:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It was only a short time ago that arguments (7+ / 0-)

    were being made that Bashar Assad "must be punished" as an example to all other dictators and despots in the world. Failure to "punish" Assad -- real, meaningful pain -- would result in the spread of chemical weapons and their increasing use against innocents.

    Where did that argument go?  Now that Assad will supposedly give up his chemical weapons, there are no more cries for his punishment, for setting an example, for hitting him where it hurts in his military capabilities.

    Simply giving up his chemical weapons is equivalent to being hit hard by missiles and bombings in either "significant punishment" or "tiny strikes"?  

    Can anyone keep track of the many positions which are "the necessary measures" each day?

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:01:05 PM PDT

    •  Yep. Now it's just revisionism, like this: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Retroactive Genius, cotterperson
      Everybody wanted peaceful solutions

      But in the absence of that option, some were willing to go along with limited strikes to keep further mass deaths from occurring.

      I don't know anyone who didn't want a peaceful solution, including President Obama - who managed to find one.

      Diplomacy for two years? A credible show of force to back up the diplomacy? An agreement to get rid of chemical weapons?

      Pretty peaceful, if you ask me.

      by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:47:51 AM PDT




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:11:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh, come on. You blank the name and leave the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        viral

        link?

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:45:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          serendipityisabitch, Bisbonian

          Why?

          Is that bad or something?

          I blanked the name because it was the text of the comment I was trying to focus on, not the commenter.

          But every time I don't provide a link, I get asked why I didn't, because context.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:05:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it may have been one of the most (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead

            interesting triple takes I've done in weeks. You call the comment revisionism, without showing what specifically that commenter has said that the term would apply to, blank the commenter's name, leave the link, and then say why you had to leave the link, because context.

            If the comment by itself had proved revisionism, maybe, but you never do show the basis for the charge of revisionism. The context doesn't justify the assumption.

            I'm sure there has been revisionism around here - almost everybody is guilty of it at some time. It strikes me, though, that if you want to actually prove it, you'll have to show at least two comments, side by side, by the same person, which make your case.

            I think I have whiplash. Jbou, I expect it from, but usually not you.

            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

            by serendipityisabitch on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:38:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heh (2+ / 0-)

              I'm always trying expand my horizons.

              Here's a synopsis of my twisted logic:

              I was responding to YucatanMan's questioning the disappearance of the arguments being made in support of punishing Assad by way of a military strike.

              The comment in the other thread was made in reply to someone noting that anti-war people were right all along, even during the cries of "we must punish Assad" that were being made here.

              That comment came across as if everyone wanted a peaceful solution all along, which, by supporting a military strike as a default response, simply isn't true.

              Hence, revisionism. That was my take on it.

              And I provided the link so you could determine whether or not I was full of shit on your own, which it seems you have, and I have no problem with that. It wouldn't be the first time, and it surely won't be the last — I'm good at being wrong.

              :)




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:13:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um. I'm finally following your logic. I think. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                Worse, you may be right. ;) The logic of "bluff with the threat of a strike to scare them into sanity" was certainly not one of the possibilities most people were seeing up front.

                I think you could have made that case quite solidly without that particular reference, though.

                At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                by serendipityisabitch on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:58:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Point taken. (3+ / 0-)

                  "Nutpicking" comments to use in support of one's position isn't the best way of doing it, I admit.

                  Believe me, I'm thankful things turned out as they did, though in my opinion, the process was messy.

                  To pretend things all went according to some master plan, or that people didn't knee-jerk their way onto the missile strike bandwagon seems a bit much, and that particular example was fresh in my mind.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:56:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Maher has an article in The Guardian (11+ / 0-)
    The US: world's policeman or schoolyard bully?

    Ever since 9/11, it seems America's just been itching for a fight – and any Muslim country will do. Really, who acts like this?

    New rule: 12 years after 9/11, and amidst yet another debate on whether to bomb yet another Muslim country, America must stop asking the question, "Why do they hate us?" Forget the debate on Syria, we need a debate on why we're always debating whether to bomb someone. Because we're starting to look not so much like the world's policeman, but more like George Zimmerman: itching to use force and then pretending it's because we had no choice.

    Now, I'm against chemical weapons, and I don't care who knows it. And there's no doubt a guy like Bashar al-Assad deserves to get blown up: using toxic chemicals on unsuspecting civilians is purely and profoundly evil.

    But enough about Monsanto.

    read the rest here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/...

    and the, at the moment, 689 comments make interesting reading as well...

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:14:24 PM PDT

  •  War is like a box of donuts. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, YucatanMan, Bisbonian
    Donuts. Is there anything they can't do? Homer Simpson
  •  I remember Michael Ingatieff (10+ / 0-)

    well in the run up to the Iraq War. He was one of Charlie Rose's favorite panelists making the case. When everything turned to shit, he disappeared. I never saw him in the aftermath or any of the other pro war pundit/cheerleaders. Funny how they are starting to show up now.

    Remember when Al Qaeda launched a "limited strike" against the World Trade Center and Pentagon and it wasn't a declaration of war? Me neither. You bomb someone, it's war, no matter how you might want to pretend otherwise.

    by suejazz on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:29:04 PM PDT

  •  All my adult life, (9+ / 0-)

    we have been invading sovereign nations, massacring hundreds of thousands of human beings over and over again. As you link notes, it may be a million in Iraq. All these mass murders stop the countries we invade from having self-determination. That is just plain wrong.

    I grieve for the dead and their families, and I grieve for my countrymen who are turned into killers. Many of them suffer for the rest of their lives with "mental pain," as my dear, late Vietnam veteran called it so plainly. The suicide rate of veterans is at an all-time high.

    It is clear since 9/11 that our Department of Defense doesn't defend us. We are not secure even from our own government since state and local police carry military weapons. For those reasons, we should return to calling it the War Department, as we did before World War II. At least that would be honest.

    As long as we continue to arm other countries, we stop them from determining their own fate. In the process, and for good reason, we become their enemies. The death of massive numbers of innocent civilians is grotesque. Could they do it without U.S. arms that are now loose all over the world, ready to stop any independent, rational decision-making?

    If we can help negotiate a peace, fine. If we cannot, we should mind our own business. Surely by now, we know  they are not "in our national interest" or other unspecified "U.S. interests" (usually transnational corporations or the very wealthy whose names we never hear.)

    Clearly, it is just plain wrong.

    Thank you for the excellent diary, Yucatan Man. Personally, I strongly agree with every word you wrote.

    "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

    by cotterperson on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:04:11 PM PDT

  •  Goodreminder to Canadians (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan

    of why they the time of "the natural party of government" is past, and why they need to keep voting orange in ever-bigger numbers.

    Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:36:18 PM PDT

  •  He's no longer a leader of the Liberal party. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan

    It's just his personal opinion. It actually is more nuanced than you give him credit for as he advocates the use of force only as a last resort. Are you seriously arguing that there is no possible hypothetical case where use of force can be justified?

    •  Not at all. Defending our own nation is justified. (8+ / 0-)

      But using his opinion piece on the USA being the necessary enforcer of "a duty of protection" as justification for bombing in Syria, as my friend did, is going a little too far.

      Also, I argue, this particular piece is not at all honest about his past cheerleading for wars of aggression, not just "a duty to protect" which he states here as a continuing reason for US military force around the world.

      You're right that he is no longer leader of the liberal party, having spent most of his time in the UK and USA, dropping in to Canada, seeing massive losses to conservatives, then dropped back out of Canada to the USA.  He's a good neo-liberal, this one. Always ready to send US troops on foreign adventures.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:01:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair, I have yet to see an oped where the (0+ / 0-)

        writer would acknowledge his past mistakes. Putin surely didn't.

        •  In this case, the prescription is always the same. (5+ / 0-)

          The justifications simply keep changing. He's now created a "duty to protect" to justify US intervention wherever we please. He has been very consistent about advocating for US force for years and years. He advocates for an Imperial nation - the USA - to enforce "civilian protections" even if that involves ignoring the rule of law or employing torture lite when necessary.

          “Imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect,” Ignatieff wrote in 2002

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
      Are you seriously arguing that there is no possible hypothetical case where use of force can be justified?
      That's not at all what
      Stop using "War!" as a default.
      means. But you probably knew that.
      Right?

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:05:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I did exaggerate but then he doesn't suggest that (0+ / 0-)

        war is a default approach either.

        •  His years of writing pretty much do that. (4+ / 0-)

          I'm too tired to look it all up and write it up now, but he advocated for intervention in Haiti awhile back, deposing an elected leader and putting Canadians in charge.  If I recall correctly, some 8,000 people died while Canada exercised their "duty to protect" in Haiti.

          He has been roundly criticized in Canada and the UK for years for this drum-beating for war.  He openly calls for "Imperialism" saying it shouldn't end just because of political correctness.

          I'm all for international cooperation and intervention.  I would argue for a stronger UN and less easily vetoed courses of action. However, that might be a bit uncomfortable for some serial violators, so the USA, China and Russia block the dilution of veto power consistently.  

          If there is a "duty to protect civilians," (and, yes, shouldn't there be one?), then it should be international and cooperative.  The most powerful should join together to enforce UN resolutions regardless of whichever of their client states is under consideration.

          Just saying the USA should go it alone because "Imperialism = Good" is something I just don't buy.  And this guy has advocated for it year after year under all sorts of guises. This is just his latest frilly dress on the pig.  

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:16:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Iggy is such a pompous ass (5+ / 0-)

    All his talk about "our duty to protect civilians" makes me think of a certain Russian proverb. The fly is sitting on the bull's shoulder while it plows the field all day long, and when they come home the fly talks about how "we plowed." Funny how all these elite war advocates are so free about urging there to be boots on the ground in all these foreign battlefields but they aren't embarrassed in the least that those boots won't be their boots or those of their children.

    •  Yes, it's not just one little conflict that he (5+ / 0-)

      wants to address. Oh no, he wants the USA, not his own country of Canada or even the UK or even a coalition, but the USA alone to arbitrarily "act" whenever civilians need protection.

      Well, if we take a look at the one million dead in Iraq as a result of the USA protecting the Iraqis from a cruel dictator "who gases his own citizens," we can see the flaw in that ointment fairly quickly.  The nation remains an utter wreck with broken infrastructure and sectarian bombings, killings, division and strife on a constant basis. Oh yes, we really "protected" those civilians, with Iggy's backing all the way.

      The use of military force can very rarely protect civilians from harm. In fact, it often results in more civilians dying, just at the hands of another - the USA.

      No more blood on US hands. That's it. That's all we need to dedicate ourselves to: no more blood on US hands.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:29:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site