Each vote will probably need explanation. The comments should be used for that.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Covert Military Action
The first attempt to try an interactive poll on the site proved technically successful. Unfortunately it didn't garner more than a handful of votes (I voted 4 times.) Perhaps a more serious topic will stir up interest. (This time you can only vote once.)
Each vote will probably need explanation. The comments should be used for that.
Each vote will probably need explanation. The comments should be used for that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm sure someone can think up a reasonable use for covert military action on a foreign soil, but that would be extremely unusual. I'm not in favor of covert action on my own country's soil. I'm going with international law here.
I said Yes on the assumption that the threat is real and not imagined and that the other country's government has demonstrated that it is unwilling or unable to address the threat. For example, I think international law should allow the Iraqi Kurds to enter Syrian territory to suppress the ISIS threat.
I'm not sure why votes are not being registered, sort of defeats the purpose.
It's fine to say that the threat is real and not imagined, but it is a foreign country determining what is real. I question their perspective—wouldn't they necessarily be a bit prejudice? We know the U.S. is constantly and spectacularly wrong in accessing real threats. Also, I'm sure many countries in the world consider the U.S. and its actions a real threat. Should they be allowed to act on those perceptions with covert operations on our soil?
Well, everything is a matter of perception. If all action based on perception were disallowed, I'm don't think that we'd get much done. While, it is possible that our perceptions are off and we have assessed the threat wrongly, that possibilty cannot be the basis of inaction. As Bonhoeffer says, we must act "wholly within the domain of relativity, wholly in the twilight which the historical situation spreads over good and evil... [and] in the midst of innumerable perspectives...."
Intervention should be allowed only as a measure of last resort, but it should be allowed.
Bonhoeffer was appreciably right. We have known that he was appreciably right for a long time and, for that reason (among some others), we developed laws which recognized that individuals and individual countries have perceptions which are too strongly prejudice in the historical situation. Self interest is just too strong. We know this from ages of history. We know that a country will usurp the Crimea, overthrow governments in Central and South America, perform attacks like those in France, and on and on, because they believe they are being threatened. As long as international law is unheeded, these things will go on.
Intervention should not be allowed unless sanctioned by the international community, i.e. the United Nations. That is not ideal, but infinitely better than each individual country decided on their own when to exert force against another sovereign county on that country's soil.
Post a Comment