I think just about anyone on this site would agree that our role in WW II was fully justified. I think the vast majority of people on this site would agree that Baby Bush's invasion of Iraq was NOT a justified.
To me there is a large space between these two and a large gray area. I also am not always sure where my view would fall at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. I don't feel our role in WW I was fully justified, but I don't know how I would feel at the time. Even my view of the Vietnam war is dominated by hindsight. I think I would have opposed it at the time, but it is easy for me to say now...
What wars and interventions WERE justified...and how about cases where we were criticized for NOT being involved. Would intervention have been justified...
I list a few below for discussion. I am curious where people fall on the following situations...
WW I: a war fought largely over issues that had nothing to do with America, but we got involved after repeated attacks on civilian ships and after an attempt on the part of Germany to get Mexico to attack us. I do not see the justification sufficient to get involved.
Korean War: invasion by North into South. I suspect I would have agreed with our role, particularly since it was part of a UN coalition.
Bosnia: our intervention ended a genocide. I feel comfortable with that.
First Iraq War: Iraq invaded a neighboring sovereign state. I was against it at first largely because I saw Kuwait as an undemocratic nation we only were interested in because of oil. I changed my mind when I realized invasion of one nation by another should be prevented by the international community. Again, UN support also affects my view.
Rwanda genocide: Clinton was criticized for not intervening in Rwanda. Would it have been helpful if we had? Would we have been justified? I feel that my views on Bosnia and Rwanda should be consistent...I would have supported Clinton on this.
Elected Bush and Clinton intervention in Somalia: I was uncertain about this until I took part in a BBC radio discussion on the topic. I was amazed on how almost all of the Somalis involved, whatever their side on the Islamist take over of the time, supported our intervention and felt betrayed when we left. Could we have made a difference there?
Intervention in Afghanistan against Soviet invasion: I opposed our support of the Islamicists because I KNEW that the weapons we gave them would one day be turned against us. BUT, a big nation invading a small nation sounds like a good reason to stand up for the small nation. Were we justified arming Afghanis against Soviets? Could we have done things better?
Intervention in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda: I supported this but also felt that the fact that we armed them in the first place made us very hypocritical. I felt we had to take action but needed to balance it with addressing some of the more fundamental inequalities that we and the Saudis perpetuate.
Just a few to me hard choices that come to mind. Can go back further, but think this is a good basis for discussion. I do not have easy answers for these conflicts. Some wars are easy for me to judge. But some cases I don't have easy answers. Obviously I bring this up because I find Obama's choices falling in the gray area rather than where I can easily support or oppose.
Any thoughts?
