According to the Obama Doctrine, we should send American combat forces into conflicts for moral reasons, which doesn't necessarily involve our national security. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GaJFhB28St4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GaJFhB28St4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Currently, there's fighting in the border area between the Congo and Rwanda. If it escalates into genocide, would you want to send American troops into the area and become involved in a war that does not involve our national security? Remember we sent troops to Somalia for humanitarian purposes, but that ended disastrously for us. Your thoughts?
I don't think there's anything too radical in what Obama said in the video. I would go further and say that it's time we got past the idea that the lives of foreigners are worth much less than American lives.
If there's any reason to go to war, it should be based on "moral" reasons. That said, most of the time a war only escalates violence and causes more harm than good. Every country that goes to war, even our so-called enemies, claim to be doing so with the best intentions. Americans should be very cautious of any military excursions into other countries. There's usually other, less benign reasons for it.
Saddam Hussein committed atrocities against his own people and continued to brutalize them with his tyrannical rule until we deposed him. We lost thousands of American lives to free the Iraqi people. Should the Iraq War have been fought for that moral reason alone?
If our national security is endangered, are you saying that we should not fight for our national security interests when there are no moral reasons for fighting?
apparently Iraq was a "moral" war. we should be fighting in afghanistan and pakistan. something McCain is afraid to do......for some reason
Those were two separate time frames. While Obama was committing those atrocities the U.S. was supporting him. The U.S. did not go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. It was a by-product of trumped up 9/11 connections and WMD rationale.
I agreed. It's two separate time frames. Around 5000 Kurds were killed in 1988. A million deaths in the Iran-Iraq War. The Kuwait invasion. These and other atrocities were committed in the past, but Saddam was still a threat afterward though. He continued to claim that he had WMD's, and he had threatened and attacked his people (Kurds, Shiites) and neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Israel). Who says that Saddam isn't going to commit more atrocities in the future? Wouldn't his past atrocities and his present and future threat be good moral reasons for the current war in Iraq, particularly under the Obama Doctrine? Is it okay for genocide to occur if it's a regime that we support?
I thought a coalition of the Free World should have prosecuted a war to remove Saddam for crimes against humanity but the Bush administration f**ked up the moral vision in every way imaginable. Monday morning quarterbacking serves little purpose but in retrospect the deed should have been finished in The Gulf War.
I don't buy that at all. Tinpot dictators pop up to often to remove them all, and they are never removed for "crimes against humanity". We could have done more good for Americans, and almost as much good for human rights by invading Cuba and overthrowing Castro, but Cuba didn't quit selling oil in dollars.
Even though I disagree with the Obama Doctrine, I also understand why people would hold that view. It might be the moral thing to do, but the moral thing to do isn't necessarily the best thing to do for our country though. The reason why I brought up the Iraq War is because of its unpopularity and because it could be viewed from a moral/humanitarian standpoint. What if it wasn't the Bush administration that conducted this war, but an Obama administration instead. If Obama sent troops into Iraq based on moral obligations, this hypothetical Iraq War would still be as unpopular as the real one that's being played out now. As the body counts continue to mount, the support for the war wanes. I believe that if you're going to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers, the soldiers should have die protecting our national interests. They shouldn't die solely for moral interests. The Obama Doctrine might turn our military into a world police force. The Hutus and the Tutsis are at it again in Rwanda and the Congo. There’s also Darfar. Then there are our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These last two are wars that actually involve our national security interests. Do we really need more wars, particular ones that aren’t in our national interests?
Obama will enlist the help of other countries to tackle the problem. (assuming UN doesnt do anything) and when the national interest is at stake, then there is obviously a "moral reason" to fight
I understand my own naiveté. I was raised on Cowboys and Superheros where good always overcomes evil. But the Gulf War scenario could have been the template for dealing with powerful tinhorns if it hadn't been tempered by the need to balance Iran and the USSR. The campaign against Milosevic, who was charged with crimes against humanity (under the leadership of Bill Clinton) could also be considered as a template for dealing with regional tinhorns. If that's Wilsonian Internationalism, I'm for it. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (but I don't think a tactic of nonviolence will work, sorry to bastardize your quote Martin)
An important distinction that you are leaving out (intentionally?) is that risk and reward are balanced in any approach like this. KOsovo intervention was low risk and largely successful. Iraq was relatively high risk and accordingly a lot less successful.
If we're being attacked, we have a right to protect ourselves. The preventative war doctrine, on the other hand, is very, very questionable.
The death rate in Iraq spiked after the invasion, and it continues to be high compared to pre-invasion levels. Again, invading a country based on "moral reasons" is very dubious. Do the Iraqis have more political freedom? Sure. Does that translate into higher quality of life? For millions affected directly and indirectly by the invasion and ensuing civil war, likely not.
There was a reasonable assumption that life for Iraqi's would be better with the removal of a murderous dictator and his sociopathic sons that were in the line of succession. It will take years of debate to decide why that has not proven to be true. It probably has a lot to with the balance of people's identity, where tribalism, religion and factionalism superceed any nationalistic sense.
