THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Ian]

That's one way of seeing it. I was inferring a certain amount of unwanted exceptionalism.

When the Libya problem came to a head, nobody was looking at Argentina and debating what Buenos Aires should do about it. Argentina could afford to say to the world, "listen, we don't have many interests in Libya, it's far away, and it's their business; we just don't give a damn." Even nations like China, with the world 2nd-largest economy and a very large military (like Russia, India and others, China is capable enough of deploying plenty of air-superiority fighters to bases in southern Europe), was under no obligation to do decide to do anything or not, and in fact remained effectively indifferent by abstaining from the UN vote. But nations like the US, and arguably ONLY the US, got stared down are obliged to be partial to the situation, to decide to act or not to act, and to bear a big chunk of criticism no matter what it did. So when I hear questions like "Why not Syria?", my knee-jerk response is "I just don't give a damn - let's go ask Turkey, Iraq and Jordan."

[Coito ergo sum]

Some more thoughts on the "why here but not there" debate...

I'm more of a Joseph Nye jr. thinker, but paraphrasing his conservative counterpart Samuel Huntington might be worth a post:

Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran, but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth, but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue with China, but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed, but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle.

And why are nations like the US, or international bodies such as the UN, obliged to establish and maintain such universal standards of principle? Because the international pressure of responsibilities and/or capabilities dictate such things. Few care if Estonia's policies towards China are ideologically inconsistent with its policies towards India or Saudi Arabia. In fact, few really expect Estonia to have any universal ideologies other than whatever seems to be in its own best interests on a case-by-case basis. But more than any other nation, the US is expected to behave differently, to be more predictable, and to have less flexible policies when confronted with one situation in one place and then a similar situation someplace else. American policymakers are thus obligated to talk about "pragmatic idealism", and Obama forced to choose between either a) the hypocrisy of intervening one place but not another, or b) the hypocrisy of speaking about ideals but not doing anything to promote them. Meanwhile, scolds everywhere look at whichever decisions were made and deride those upon whom decisions are forced as hypocrites.

Kinda sucks to be a superpower.

I agree, Ian - and yours are all arguments I made in a different time, with respect to a different murderous dictator and tyrant, when confronted with claims that if being a murderous dictator/tyrant was sufficient, why weren't we in Myanmar, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or half a dozen African countries.....

[MrJonno]

Europe needs to sort it act out when it comes to defence ie a lot more combining of individual nations military and less reliance on the US but thats not exactly something the US tends to encourage

[sandinista]

That's one way of seeing it. I was inferring a certain amount of unwanted exceptionalism.

When the Libya problem came to a head, nobody was looking at Argentina and debating what Buenos Aires should do about it. Argentina could afford to say to the world, "listen, we don't have many interests in Libya, it's far away, and it's their business; we just don't give a damn." Even nations like China, with the world 2nd-largest economy and a very large military (like Russia, India and others, China is capable enough of deploying plenty of air-superiority fighters to bases in southern Europe), was under no obligation to do decide to do anything or not, and in fact remained effectively indifferent by abstaining from the UN vote. But nations like the US, and arguably ONLY the US, got stared down are obliged to be partial to the situation, to decide to act or not to act, and to bear a big chunk of criticism no matter what it did. So when I hear questions like "Why not Syria?", my knee-jerk response is "I just don't give a damn - let's go ask Turkey, Iraq and Jordan."

That's just not true Ian. The reason people look at the states to see "what they do" is because they have always, always interfered with other countries issues. Whether it be militarily, economically or covertly. The US has made it quite clear that they invade countries to "spread freedom and democracy" THAT is why they are looked at and Argentina is not. It's the hypocrisy involved. Why Iraq, why Libya, why not Congo, why not Rwanda? Why crush peoples movements in latin america? Why prop up some dictators and not others? etc etc.

[Ian]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

[sandinista]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

Again, false equivalence. To say nearly every other power in the world has interfered in other countries affairs at the same rate as the US is nonsense. Name one country that has bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown governments, etc as often as the US since the end of ww2.

[Ian]

That's a bogus question. Try naming me a country that learned why being an isolationist power is a terrible idea as well as the US in WWII.

[sandinista]

That's a bogus question. Try naming me a country that learned why being an isolationist power is a terrible idea as well as the US in WWII.

bogus because you don't like the answer.

[Coito ergo sum]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

Again, false equivalence. To say nearly every other power in the world has interfered in other countries affairs at the same rate as the US is nonsense. Name one country that has bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown governments, etc as often as the US since the end of ww2.

The United Kingdom and the Soviet Union/Russia? Those would be my first two guesses.

[sandinista]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

Again, false equivalence. To say nearly every other power in the world has interfered in other countries affairs at the same rate as the US is nonsense. Name one country that has bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown governments, etc as often as the US since the end of ww2.

The United Kingdom and the Soviet Union/Russia? Those would be my first two guesses.

list? I'll provide a comparison.

[Ian]

That's a bogus question. Try naming me a country that learned why being an isolationist power is a terrible idea as well as the US in WWII.

bogus because you don't like the answer.

Bogus because after WWII there were only so many superpowers who had learned the hard way that isolationism ultimately costs more than taking a more active role in the world. Specifically, there were two. And one of them was the goddamned Soviet Union, whose behavior didn't exactly inspire a "relax and don't worry about the rest of the world" attitude in the US. So I'm pretty comfortable with the answer.

[sandinista]

That's a bogus question. Try naming me a country that learned why being an isolationist power is a terrible idea as well as the US in WWII.

bogus because you don't like the answer.

Bogus because after WWII there were only so many superpowers who had learned the hard way that isolationism ultimately costs more than taking a more active role in the world. Specifically, there were two. And one of them was the goddamned Soviet Union, whose behavior didn't exactly inspire a "relax and don't worry about the rest of the world" attitude in the US. So I'm pretty comfortable with the answer.

Geez Ian, you can go on about the hows and whys of this or that but it doesn't matter.

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense.

It IS NOT nonsense, it is the truth regardless of how you try to skirt the reality.

That's one way of seeing it. I was inferring a certain amount of unwanted exceptionalism.

When the Libya problem came to a head, nobody was looking at Argentina and debating what Buenos Aires should do about it. Argentina could afford to say to the world, "listen, we don't have many interests in Libya, it's far away, and it's their business; we just don't give a damn." Even nations like China, with the world 2nd-largest economy and a very large military (like Russia, India and others, China is capable enough of deploying plenty of air-superiority fighters to bases in southern Europe), was under no obligation to do decide to do anything or not, and in fact remained effectively indifferent by abstaining from the UN vote. But nations like the US, and arguably ONLY the US, got stared down are obliged to be partial to the situation, to decide to act or not to act, and to bear a big chunk of criticism no matter what it did. So when I hear questions like "Why not Syria?", my knee-jerk response is "I just don't give a damn - let's go ask Turkey, Iraq and Jordan."

That's just not true Ian. The reason people look at the states to see "what they do" is because they have always, always interfered with other countries issues. Whether it be militarily, economically or covertly. The US has made it quite clear that they invade countries to "spread freedom and democracy" THAT is why they are looked at and Argentina is not. It's the hypocrisy involved. Why Iraq, why Libya, why not Congo, why not Rwanda? Why crush peoples movements in latin america? Why prop up some dictators and not others? etc etc.

is still true. No one looks to see what Argentina is doing because Argentina hasn't been interfering in other countries issues consistently for the last 60 years.

[JimC]

It seems that sandinista will see every single example of military action by the US since WW2 as always unwarranted and with no motives whatsoever other than maintaining its power and economic interest. In addition, he sidesteps the reasonable argument from Ian that, simply by dint of its position in international affairs, it is required to "express a view" on virtually every issue, and feel some pressure to back up its views. Clearly, this is a great over-simplification.

However, I detect some defensive over-simplification on the other side. The US is not immune from valid criticism about some of its military adventures and cynical support for appalling national rulers over the past 65 years. The standard response that it was only reacting to "defend the free world against totalitarianism" is not a valid justification in every case, and the rather self-righteous flavour of some US rhetoric about its role as a knight in shining armour in international affairs is not always appreciated in international circles.

[Aos Si]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

Again, false equivalence. To say nearly every other power in the world has interfered in other countries affairs at the same rate as the US is nonsense. Name one country that has bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown governments, etc as often as the US since the end of ww2.

The United Kingdom and the Soviet Union/Russia? Those would be my first two guesses.

At least we have the excuse of saying that when we did it, it was all the rage and so de rigueur.

Not sure why pointing out other nations behaving badly is really necessary. I don't defend any of the nations you mention. Most people wouldn't. Just goes to show that acting like a colonialist dick is fairly unusual outside of the 20th/21st century at least in the West.

[Clinton Huxley]

Frankly, some countries aren't interfered with enough.