• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Total voters
    8

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Using the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect the Obama administration engaged in military intervention in Libya. The result was the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Has responsibility to protect become neocon militarism in disguise?
 
Using the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect the Obama administration engaged in military intervention in Libya. The result was the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Has responsibility to protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

R2P is a necessary element of any voluntary communal security structure. This is true domestically as well as internationally, if it is to be legitimate. This is often poorly understood, but was the reason for the UN adopting it as a Norm in 2005.
 
R2P is a necessary element of any voluntary communal security structure. This is true domestically as well as internationally, if it is to be legitimate. This is often poorly understood, but was the reason for the UN adopting it as a Norm in 2005.

I agree. But I feel that it can be misused. In particular, I think it was used as an excuse by Obama to depose what had been a thorn in the side of the west in Gaddafi. What do you think about that specific instance?
 
I am surprised that so far no one has brought up what the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine really entails. As a basic prerequisite to the doctrine, there is the assumption that a nation's sovereignty is no longer an absolute right.

In the case of Libya (or Egypt, or others) even a passive degree of interventionism leading to the overthrow of a nation's leader means the basic assumption that we (or the UN) as the world's police department assumed people of Libya would be better off under some other management. Sometimes we directly pick that management, sometimes not. Either way they eventually become a problem yet again causing a cycle. Looking at the current mess in relation to the OP, it begs the question were they better off before under Gaddafi? But with others, like Egypt or even Iraq, we can see in the wake of our policy the problems in the region as a whole. Who is really better off and at what cost?

Our problem is the attitude of the doctrine has the unfortunate but realized consequence of militarism in a general sense, it is not exclusive to neoconservativism. It is almost bipartisan in our two party system of using this doctrine as a means to an ends. Just a fact of our imperialistic sense of looking at world concerns with an attitude of western ideologies being forced onto cultures that do not quite have the aptitude for them.

If the international community (code word for US or UN lead intentions) has the inherent responsibility to protect any nation's population from "genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing" (or any other general term) then that inherently means no one's borders are secure. We have given ourselves a moral high ground license to invade any nation at will so long as someone, even after the fact, suggests a reason to intervene. Evidence is not even necessary and there is little to no checks and balances to the doctrine. Never formalized yet used with such frequency. This attitude transcends economic or trade sanctions to inflict change, this is military interventionism at the ready and used too frequently.

This is all going to eventually have a three fold cost. The obvious first, the fiscal costs of monitoring and then militarily acting on the world stage. Secondary will be the continued strain on our military resources operating in a constant state of looking for the next nation to... "help"... like Libya. Third will be a continued degrade of world attitude towards the US. The responsibility to protect doctrine is then more than realized militarism. It is also arrogant ideology infliction upon the world and opportunism for a supporting military industrial complex.

That makes it neither patriotic or moral, just an excuse given the fallout from this doctrine we clearly see across the region in question. And worse, it adds to our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that a significant portion of the world already looks at very poorly.
 
I am surprised that so far no one has brought up what the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine really entails. As a basic prerequisite to the doctrine, there is the assumption that a nation's sovereignty is no longer an absolute right.

In the case of Libya (or Egypt, or others) even a passive degree of interventionism leading to the overthrow of a nation's leader means the basic assumption that we (or the UN) as the world's police department assumed people of Libya would be better off under some other management. Sometimes we directly pick that management, sometimes not. Either way they eventually become a problem yet again causing a cycle. Looking at the current mess in relation to the OP, it begs the question were they better off before under Gaddafi? But with others, like Egypt or even Iraq, we can see in the wake of our policy the problems in the region as a whole. Who is really better off and at what cost?

Our problem is the attitude of the doctrine has the unfortunate but realized consequence of militarism in a general sense, it is not exclusive to neoconservativism. It is almost bipartisan in our two party system of using this doctrine as a means to an ends. Just a fact of our imperialistic sense of looking at world concerns with an attitude of western ideologies being forced onto cultures that do not quite have the aptitude for them.

If the international community (code word for US or UN lead intentions) has the inherent responsibility to protect any nation's population from "genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing" (or any other general term) then that inherently means no one's borders are secure. We have given ourselves a moral high ground license to invade any nation at will so long as someone, even after the fact, suggests a reason to intervene. Evidence is not even necessary and there is little to no checks and balances to the doctrine. Never formalized yet used with such frequency. This attitude transcends economic or trade sanctions to inflict change, this is military interventionism at the ready and used too frequently.

This is all going to eventually have a three fold cost. The obvious first, the fiscal costs of monitoring and then militarily acting on the world stage. Secondary will be the continued strain on our military resources operating in a constant state of looking for the next nation to... "help"... like Libya. Third will be a continued degrade of world attitude towards the US. The responsibility to protect doctrine is then more than realized militarism. It is also arrogant ideology infliction upon the world and opportunism for a supporting military industrial complex.

That makes it neither patriotic or moral, just an excuse given the fallout from this doctrine we clearly see across the region in question. And worse, it adds to our confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that a significant portion of the world already looks at very poorly.

That was a good post.

That said, I think the concept has some merit and I really don't have a problem with that type of thing as long as we can afford it, does not make a situation worse, and does not harm some larger strategic interest that the U.S. might have. The problem is, as you have pointed out, it can be misused, and because of that I am not certain if it is worth incorporating it into official U.S. foreign policy.
 
That was a good post.

That said, I think the concept has some merit and I really don't have a problem with that type of thing as long as we can afford it, does not make a situation worse, and does not harm some larger strategic interest that the U.S. might have. The problem is, as you have pointed out, it can be misused, and because of that I am not certain if it is worth incorporating it into official U.S. foreign policy.

Thank you for the kind words.

In my opinion the doctrine itself is bad enough, but now we get to add consistency of its use into the mix. We have all talked here at DP time and time again about our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy. Some dictatorships with their associated human rights records are acceptable so we trade with them, others not so much. To your point, political whim then confuses the matter even further.

At the end of the day though I simply do not like a policy that suggests every nation's sovereignty is subject to our view of human rights so long as that does not upset our trade and/or strategic interests. There is no longer a reasonable debate as to why a good third of the planet has an unfavorable view of the US. Worse, we did it to ourselves. Even worse than that, with one hell of a human and fiscal cost.
 
Thank you for the kind words.

In my opinion the doctrine itself is bad enough, but now we get to add consistency of its use into the mix. We have all talked here at DP time and time again about our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy. Some dictatorships with their associated human rights records are acceptable so we trade with them, others not so much. To your point, political whim then confuses the matter even further.

At the end of the day though I simply do not like a policy that suggests every nation's sovereignty is subject to our view of human rights so long as that does not upset our trade and/or strategic interests. There is no longer a reasonable debate as to why a good third of the planet has an unfavorable view of the US. Worse, we did it to ourselves. Even worse than that, with one hell of a human and fiscal cost.

Good points. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations is a crucial element to maintaining peace in the world. That is not to say that there may be times when it is necessary to declare war and violate another nation's sovereignty. But there should be very good grounds for doing so. As you have indicated, human rights violations are a very fuzzy area that is highly subjective. As such, your concerns are certainly valid.
 
Using the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect the Obama administration engaged in military intervention in Libya. The result was the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Has responsibility to protect become neocon militarism in disguise?
I say yes. Lots of these politcians seem to have their mouths planted on the cocks of the military industrial complex.
 
Using the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect the Obama administration engaged in military intervention in Libya. The result was the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Has responsibility to protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

First time I ever heard Obama being referred to as a neocon.

That said, it was NATO that intervened in Libya, primarily at the urging of the French, with a great deal of foot dragging on the part of Obama who was shamed into participation at the last minute.
 
First time I ever heard Obama being referred to as a neocon.

No it's not the first time because I didn't say that he was. He has been neocon influenced however, and to see that one need only look to his appointment of Victoria Nuland and the praise he has received from Robert Kagan.
 
Using the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect the Obama administration engaged in military intervention in Libya. The result was the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Has responsibility to protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

I have no idea what "neocon militarism" is, in disguise or otherwise, except for a glib, cliche slur at something that irks you.
 
The answer is..... sort of.

Responsibility to Protect and Neoconservative foreign policy both flow from the same argument: that America's foreign policy should reflect her values, that the enemies of human liberty should be ours, and that we are ultimately safer when our values are spread.

Where R2P seems to have fallen down is that Neoconservatives also argue that you should be able to follow through in a competent manner. So, as much as it has been put into practice under Samanta Powers' influence, R2P has diverged in that "leading from behind" or "leading by following" or "being exceptional just like everyone else" has become the norm rather than.... you know.... actual leadership.
 
The answer is..... sort of.

Responsibility to Protect and Neoconservative foreign policy both flow from the same argument: that America's foreign policy should reflect her values, that the enemies of human liberty should be ours, and that we are ultimately safer when our values are spread.

Where R2P seems to have fallen down is that Neoconservatives also argue that you should be able to follow through in a competent manner. So, as much as it has been put into practice under Samanta Powers' influence, R2P has diverged in that "leading from behind" or "leading by following" or "being exceptional just like everyone else" has become the norm rather than.... you know.... actual leadership.

OK, but I would argue that the neocons had their chance to shine under George W Bush. The invasion of Iraq was a display an very high degree of incompetence.
 
I agree. But I feel that it can be misused. In particular, I think it was used as an excuse by Obama to depose what had been a thorn in the side of the west in Gaddafi. What do you think about that specific instance?

Most law can be misused. But deposing of Gaddafi was not such. He had started to shoot at the demonstrators.
 
Back
Top Bottom