like that attempt to capture bin Laden I discussed above Yes, I know, it failed dismally. Then the Americans tried aerial bombing without success. Finally, they provided direct support to the rebels, which worked. But this is hindsight... and Afghanistan.
It's far too clear to me that large scale engagements end up hurting not just the people who wanted to commit some form of aggression, and the people who were willing to provide support, but also the people ... I was at a military conference discussing East Timor and a colonel put up a slide showing a sattelite photo of a scattered mass of people with arrows pointing to it saying "terrorists", "militias", "Indonesian Army", "bystanders", etc. Illustrating the intelligence problem involved.
Yet the ethical problem is not neccessarily to spare the innocent, because ethically we have to trade off these people against office workers, firemen and airline passengers. Failure to invade Afghanistan in 1998 was highly unethical because it led to the loss of thousands more lives than invasion utimately cost. (Which, as you may recall, was what I was saying back then -- not just hindsight.)
But that doesn't mean that I disagree with you. Far from it. We can impose peace. We can even impose democracy. But we just can't breathe life into the governments of these places. We have already tried and failed dismally in Vietnam, in New Guinea, in Vanuatu, in the Solomon Islands and in East Timor. I just cannot see how one can ever expect anything better in countries where people would rather fight than engage in any meaningful discourse with each other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 09:01 am (UTC)Yes, I know, it failed dismally. Then the Americans tried aerial bombing without success. Finally, they provided direct support to the rebels, which worked. But this is hindsight... and Afghanistan.
It's far too clear to me that large scale engagements end up hurting not just the people who wanted to commit some form of aggression, and the people who were willing to provide support, but also the people ...
I was at a military conference discussing East Timor and a colonel put up a slide showing a sattelite photo of a scattered mass of people with arrows pointing to it saying "terrorists", "militias", "Indonesian Army", "bystanders", etc. Illustrating the intelligence problem involved.
Yet the ethical problem is not neccessarily to spare the innocent, because ethically we have to trade off these people against office workers, firemen and airline passengers. Failure to invade Afghanistan in 1998 was highly unethical because it led to the loss of thousands more lives than invasion utimately cost. (Which, as you may recall, was what I was saying back then -- not just hindsight.)
But that doesn't mean that I disagree with you. Far from it. We can impose peace. We can even impose democracy. But we just can't breathe life into the governments of these places. We have already tried and failed dismally in Vietnam, in New Guinea, in Vanuatu, in the Solomon Islands and in East Timor. I just cannot see how one can ever expect anything better in countries where people would rather fight than engage in any meaningful discourse with each other.