Thanks for the replies Hayes. As others have mentioned, the theory is too broad and rigid. If the Brits intervened for the South in our civil war, could they have used the Confederate's self-determination as an excuse? The Brits wanted cheap cotton. Keeping their textile industry strong was national security. Despite this, the Southerners are all about the rights of states. When a country stays together after a civil war (or most wars), the minority/loser faction exists at the whim of the prevailing power. If the losing faction still yearns for self-determination, does intervention cover that as well? With Iraq, we're there with the intent to keep the country together. We have never given the three ethnicities the option to secede. We even gave assurances to their neighbors that Iraq wouldn't. All of our efforts during the writing of their constitution was to force parity among the three groups despite the overwhelming Shiite majority. So our active hand in Iraq could be good or bad based on your disposition, but it disagrees with the theory self determination like a nail on chalkboard.
I apologize if you took offense but that was a direct response to your point which was essentially that my view was "arrogant" since I was making my statement from the safety of being in the First World. That said though I will stand by the view that I believe it is presumptious, and yes even arrogant, to decide that bloody civil war is better for another people than despotism. That's good for you. My father and mother's family fled a despotic regime too. My own study of international history has shown me that waging war to impose one groups values on another is often a bad thing and what we're seeing so far in in Iraq is further proof. You've missed the part about my post saying that the Admin. should've considered other alternatives such as arming the Shiites. Further your argument ignores the reality of when no-flyzones were installed that gave the Kurds and Shiites great levels of autonomy already since none of the massacres you refer too could've happened since then. I agree with your ideal my problem is though is with how do we see that ideal through. IMO war is the worst possible way of doing that and the whole idea that we should be invading to grant self-determination is a highly flawed and dangerous idea.
Of course, remember though that not each case calls for military intervention. Is there a situation where a body of people should NOT have some say in their governance? Not at all. That we've tried to keep the three groups together doesn't negate the theory of self determination. That merely proposes that people get a say in their own governance. The three groups in Iraq can get that with a united central government or with a federated government or with three separate governments. Well, I asked the question and then tried to provide the rationale why that might be true. Not sure how that can be arrogant. And that's good for you! My point wasn't that my experience is superior to yours, its that we form our opinions based on our experience. To have a criteria that says you don't form an opinion based on anything you haven't lived seems a little myopic. I don't know what this is in response to, but that sounds like fostering a full scale civil war - exactly the proposition you're arguing against. The Kurds certainly had a great level of autonomy - the Shiites not nearly as much. I'm not sure if you're claiming the Shiites faced no opposition to rising up? Understood. I have said repeatedly that I agree there are certainly problematic areas with this whole concept. Dangerous, yes. Highly flawed? Hmmm......
so who has been blocking Iraqi's self-determination all along?? http://zmagsite.zmag.org/May2003/grossman0503.html
