View Poll Results: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 80.00%
  • No

    2 20.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    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?

  2. #2
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,336

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    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?

  4. #4
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    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.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  5. #5
    Black Is Smart
    Van Basten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The New New Frontier
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,661

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    At times, yes.
    "We have more responsibility than power, I think. The newspaper can create great controversies, stir up arguments within the community or discussion, can throw light on injustices....just as it can do the opposite. It can hide things and be a great power for evil." -- Rupert Murdoch, 1968

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Yes!!!

  8. #8
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    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.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Has Responsibility to Protect become neocon militarism in disguise?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •