The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Humanitarian intervention: a history of perverse incentives > Comments

Humanitarian intervention: a history of perverse incentives : Comments

By Jed Lea-Henry, published 28/8/2015

As much as humanitarian intervention ought to be a moral calculation, it is ultimately a political decision, and politically it has proven to be high risk with little reward.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
Suse the war in VIetnam failed for many reasons; first and foremost, for not staying the course and finishing what they started; and trying to suppress local dissension by mostly peace loving Buddhists (confused as communists) who when pushed deep enough into a corner, will fight!

Secondly the experts on the ground, (allegedly, the generals) repeatedly overruled by politicians too timid to take the fight to the north?

Which should have occurred as a counterattack military objective, when Charlie had all but used up all his resources in the very nearly successful tet offensive?

Even so, the management of that operation was all wrong, with kids barely out of college sacrificed as the human cheese in military mouse traps; set to get charlie in the open and able to be mown down by aircraft equipped with lethal miniguns.

Had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, we could have ended the Taliban?

But instead, pulled out critical resources to prosecute a less than well thought through war in Iraq?

Which had it been properly conducted, wouldn't have left the local resistance hanging out like a shag on a rock, to be subsequently butchered by the butcher of baghdad, who should have answered for his war crimes there and then!

Nor should the local army and police have been disbanded the second time round, just made less corrupted with integrity testing?

And tasked with keeping Iran or Turkey from imposing their unhelpful influence?

And there are some cases where, I believe, surgically removing a local death dealing warlord, would be absolutely righteous and essential!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 30 August 2015 12:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there RHROSTY...

Your comments concerning why the US and it's allies failed in Vietnam were in part quite right in my opinion. There were many variables in that war that the US failed to recognise, mainly the absolute opposition to the war by those back home ?

It's my firm belief we failed in prosecuting the war successfully because we lost it in Times Square, Washington and Martin Place etc. A military force can't possibly succeed if their fellow countrymen are against them ? We all heard of the huge demo's occurring back home in Oz, even in Vietnam ? And that was pretty unsettling and particularly destructive upon morale.

Worse, I remember we were outside the wire on one instance, having called for a routine 'dustoff' and even the 9 sqn. crew informed us of all these massive demo's happening back home ! Fragmented news and rumours, ostensibly emanating from official sources back home, was often much worse than no news in those circumstances.

I 'think' if all the allies had their various populations behind them during the Vietnam war, the result would've been very different indeed ?
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 30 August 2015 2:21:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty

You, and so many like you, take official bad-guy media rhetoric completely at face value. For an ex-soldier, you are remarkably naïve about how imperial aggression operates.

But then again, soldiers are trained to address (i.e. shoot at/bomb) each crisis event as it happens, not to question what or who is behind it, and certainly not to look at the bigger picture or at who really benefits.

Imperialism operates in much the same way as the mafia. It creates a dangerous environment, so that those in harm’s way are forced to pay protection money to keep themselves safe. First, create the problem, then ‘benevolently’ supply the solution.

As for how I would react if my own daughter was kidnapped by Boko Harem, my first concern would be to get her back and my second concern would be to learn as much as possible about who Boko Harem is, where it comes from and where it gets its funding.

Inviting a Western military superpower to escalate the situation by bombing, destabilising and possibly even invading my country is a scenario I would NEVER entertain.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 30 August 2015 9:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O Sung Wu/Rhrosty/Suse

Despite all the official rhetoric, America did not ‘fail’ in Vietnam, neither was it ‘defeated’.

The war in Vietnam was the third part of the US/UK Cold War trifecta, beginning with the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s and then the Indonesian massacre of the PKK in 1966 via the CIA-controlled Suharto coup. The object of these operations was to cripple any future advance of communism or socialism in SE Asia.

On this basis, the US was extremely successful in all three countries. By the time the US left Vietnam, it had achieved all its objectives. Vietnam was left diplomatically isolated, financially impoverished, emotionally damaged, and its infrastructure and land mass virtually destroyed. Over time, it had no choice but to capitulate to capitalism.

Mission accomplished.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 30 August 2015 9:13:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm surprised this author isn't the head of the U.N or something similar, because this issue seems so easy to solve, and look back on in a few paragraphs.

This person could be the answer to nearly all of the world's problems.

A number of years ago (later friends of my parents) were a couple who were 'anglo saxon' and farmers living under the rule of Robert Mugabe.

Upon returning to their property, the woman was shot so many times in the stomach (by government authorities) that one of her intestines fell out and she picked it up off the ground and the couple rushed to hospital.

When they both got there (the woman) was told by a doctor, she should be dead and that she was lucky to be alive.

These people later applied to be refugees and were accepted into Australia (very quickly by the way), and that is why there is no 'line' in terms of refugees - people are accepted in terms of need - and these people could not live in Zimbabwe because of this country having a very extreme and 'race related' government.

"There will come a day when (president) Mugabe will not be there and people will regret and miss his leadership," the state-owned Herald newspaper quoted Grace (his wife) as saying. Absolute vile.

http://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/You-will-miss-Mugabe-Grace-tells-Zimbabweans-20150828-2

What is happening in other countries, compared to Australia is nothing short of appalling, and this authors article (for this site) adds nothing realistic or serious to the issue of international affairs.
Posted by NathanJ, Sunday, 30 August 2015 9:24:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Killarney.

For those who are concerned about the rise of ISIS, there is much evidence that the US and its allies are behind it.

Below is an an interview with Michael T Flynn who is a former Pentagon Spy Chief, retired US Army Lieutenant General, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency who saw intelligence reports in in August 2012 that the US was supporting radical muslim groups eg the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda to help oust the Assad regime in Syria - as well as the risk these groups might form a calaphate, but nothing was done - not just ignored, but worse. The US knowingly armed and supported the very groups that turned into ISIS.

You can see the entire interview here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4 - you need to go in about 8 mins.

This is a surprisingly frank admission from a former spy chief stating there was no Intelligence failure, the rise of ISIS is due to a deliberate policy decision from the White House.
How cheesed off must he be to say this?
What does it tell you about the MSM that this wasn't front page news?
He isn't backing away from his comments either.

ISIS seems to be a rerun of Operation Cyclone - the CIA program that funded the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. It gave rise to Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.
Here is a youtube clip of Hillary Clinton admitting the US is responsible for Al Qaeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

Look up about the ties between the Saudis and the US and British. Why is Saudi Arabia the US's closest Muslim ally when most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there. Bin Laden was a Saudi. They export the most extreme form of Islam, Wahhabism. It is an Absolute Monarchy. It is a known funder of global Islamic terrorism. Why are the US and Brits such close buddies with the Saudi's? Look into this and you will be surprised what you find.

To Really Combat Terrorism, End Support for Saudi Arabia
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism

Love Peace Justice
Posted by BJelly, Monday, 31 August 2015 5:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy