4 ms·

In addition to the good points that others have brought up, another good question is what, exactly, we're supposed to do about this. This article seems to assum

by jaspax 6y ago

In addition to the good points that others have brought up, another good question is what, exactly, we're supposed to do about this. This article seems to assume an infinitely capable US military that can walk in, police the situation, and later leave without making things worse than they are. The history of "humanitarian" interventions leaves me quite doubting that this would be the case. To take an even more stark example, consider the ongoing situation with the Uyghurs in western China. At this point, most people are aware of the situation, but what action could the US undertake to save the Uyghurs? Invade China?

sneak 6y ago
The US military is widely misunderstood to be a force for good, as they spend a lot of tax money on various initiatives, some overt (such as paying the NFL and others to purchase time to perform military displays before events) and some way more subtle (such as demanding final script review of Hollywood films in which DoD resources are used), to promote that view. Ultimately, the US military serves as an organization that uses violence to promote the interests of the people who control the US military (as a distinct set from the US people, who are fairly uniformly and consistently against any type of military violence). Sometimes the results of that can be termed "good". Usually, they can't. When the branding and the outcome line up, it's a happy accident. The US will invade wherever there is profit for those who control the military and associated businesses. If such can be spun toward a humanitarian end, all the better.
- sabellito 6y ago
  Indeed, and the propaganda is so effective that even some liberal (for whatever definition of the word), informed people sometimes believe in it. The list is so long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
  - approxim8ion 6y ago
    Adding to the list: https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...
wonnage 6y ago
It's absurd that the past century of American foreign policy has conditioned us to associate humanitarian intervention with military aid. I also think that realistically there's very little we can do. The main non-military option is economic sanctions. That just ensures that the people being killed can starve to death first. Perhaps that leads to a revolution, but that seems like kind of a cruel way to go about things.
mhaberl 6y ago
Should US military ever intervene in internal affairs of other countries? And if so, should the opposite be also ok? For example, at some point China declares that G.B. detention camp is a reason to invade and save some people.

by jaspax 6y ago

sneak 6y ago

The US military is widely misunderstood to be a force for good, as they spend a lot of tax money on various initiatives, some overt (such as paying the NFL and others to purchase time to perform military displays before events) and some way more subtle (such as demanding final script review of Hollywood films in which DoD resources are used), to promote that view. Ultimately, the US military serves as an organization that uses violence to promote the interests of the people who control the US military (as a distinct set from the US people, who are fairly uniformly and consistently against any type of military violence). Sometimes the results of that can be termed "good". Usually, they can't. When the branding and the outcome line up, it's a happy accident. The US will invade wherever there is profit for those who control the military and associated businesses. If such can be spun toward a humanitarian end, all the better.

sabellito 6y ago
Indeed, and the propaganda is so effective that even some liberal (for whatever definition of the word), informed people sometimes believe in it. The list is so long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- approxim8ion 6y ago
  Adding to the list: https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...

wonnage 6y ago

It's absurd that the past century of American foreign policy has conditioned us to associate humanitarian intervention with military aid. I also think that realistically there's very little we can do. The main non-military option is economic sanctions. That just ensures that the people being killed can starve to death first. Perhaps that leads to a revolution, but that seems like kind of a cruel way to go about things.

mhaberl 6y ago

Should US military ever intervene in internal affairs of other countries? And if so, should the opposite be also ok? For example, at some point China declares that G.B. detention camp is a reason to invade and save some people.