What Kind of Military Intervention Into Other Countries Is Acceptable?

For instances in the cases of Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?

 

Initially, this was one topic where I thought the right thing to do was a no brainer...don't get involved. But thinking of atrocities like those committed in Rwanda where NATO occupation could have prevented such a horror has made me rethink my whole position. People argue that Kosovo or Libya could have ended up much much worse without NATO help, and on those points it's hard to argue. War Hawks even go on to say that if you slap on a Marshall Plan in places like Libya, that everything after the conflict will be right as rain.

Just try to verify anything that has happened in Libya or Syria.  All you get in the West is propaganda that blames literally everything that happens on the States on the CIA enemies list.

That's a tough one from an historical perspective. As far as I know, war, intervention, or even being in the process of winning the war (against the cleansing state) has only ever intensified the process of ethnic cleansing. I can't think of a single case right now to the contrary...(which doesn't mean that there can't be one, just that I'm drawing blanks).

Also, it's important to remember that *many* cases of ethnic cleansing took place in the 20th century with at least tacit approval of the Powers-that-Be (whether the Great Powers, the Entente, the Big Three, etc), if not with their active connivance (and I'm not just talking about the authoritarian Powers, either). You can still today find influential journals publishing articles claiming that ethnic cleansing works. That is, that it can play an essential role in transforming a serially unstable powder keg country into a stable, respectable "nation" (read: ethnically homogenous nation-state). 

More directly on your OP, Kosovo was a clean(-ish) war: next to no casualties on the coalition side. But that was a coalition of industrial powers acting against a third-rate industrial army. Again though, it didn't stop the cleansing, but rather accelerated it to completion. The case of Rwanda would have been a much, much more brutal and dirty guerrilla war, the likes of which modern industrial armies are not prone to fight well.

Assuming the state we have I suppose my answer would be: I'd be in favor if (1) Congress agreed to intervene with a very limited set of publicly stated objectives, (2) if the soldiers to be deployed (actually) volunteered to fight there, (3) government cuts were enacted to fund the intervention over and above the current military budget, and (4) if only volunteer levies of money could be called for to support the action to make up the shortfall, if any, etc. 

This is my very first post, but I didn' t want to create those welcome posts, and I felt like replying this one. Anyway, hello community =)

I'm a libertarian (ancap, to be more precise) for some time now (almost one year, I think), and I regularly read articles from Mises Institute and Mises Institue Brazil (my homeland). It was recent, though, that I started reading the forums, and I'm having a good time. Back to the topic.

 

As I stated above, I'm an ancap, and I cannot possibly support any government action, even if it's for defending other people from dictators; but I acknowledge the fact that there are people  who actually want to live in a democracy (lot's of people actually). So, in a best-case scenario, where people in the world are free to choose their political system (or lack of one), if people in a democracy genuinely wants to help the oppressed nation (the majority, of course, cause that's democracy), and the people in the oppresed nation clearly don't want this kind of government anymore (or, at least, the majority; that's where the problem begins, since there are people who like dictatorships; I mean, even if brainwashed, there surely are people in N. Korea that likes how things are handled there), than I guess that would be fine.

Of course, in such a world, there wouldn't be any dictatorships, because supposedly people would be free to choose their system.

In the real world, though, I simply can't support any government action because I, for one, am getting my money taken by force.

That's my 2 cents.

 

I'm with Frederic Bastiat on this one. The sole purpose of a central government (a very limited one of course) is to defend the natural God given rights of its citizens, primarily life liberty and property. If there is a credible, systemic threat, then defensive force is warranted to protect the lives, liberty and property of that nation's citizens.

Libya? that was between the people and their government. Same with egypt and the great majority of the others.

was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?

Well that depends on what you mean by "take sides". if you mean sitting there cheering for one side or the other then thats fine. But dont intervene. Besides, look at lybia and egypt. Which was better a tyrant who was a tyrant for the sake of himself or rule under the fist of the muslim brotherhood?

TheFinest:

For instances in the cases of Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?

Initially, this was one topic where I thought the right thing to do was a no brainer...don't get involved. But thinking of atrocities like those committed in Rwanda where NATO occupation could have prevented such a horror has made me rethink my whole position. People argue that Kosovo or Libya could have ended up much much worse without NATO help, and on those points it's hard to argue. War Hawks even go on to say that if you slap on a Marshall Plan in places like Libya, that everything after the conflict will be right as rain.

Is it necessarily a bad thing to oppose tyranny? Not at all, IMO. But I don't think that prima facie justifies taking other people's money without their prior consent.

Nothing wrong with taking the side of the people against the oppressive government - just don't try that crap here in America. You know America - the place with the highest rate of incarceration on the face of the Earth (ever?).

People have already given very good answers, but I think there is one important one missing.  How do you know that American intervention will not hurt the innocent people in the state America would be fighting?  Nevermind indirect results such as ethnic cleansing, what about the direct results of American soldiers killing innocent civilians, on purpose or by accident?  The fact of the matter is, that America has no real interest in helping the people oppressed by a tyrant.  The soldiers are not all personally involved.  Sure, maybe some befriend a local or two, but they really don't have any connection.

It's kind of like how community charity is more effective than welfare.  Nevermind the immorality of stealing from one to give to another, the problem is that the people in welfare just don't have the same interest in helping than the people of a community have in helping each other.  Sure, the clerk handing out the welfare check may really think he's doing charity, but it will never be as effective as a local church helping out a member.

It's just the same with tyrants.  Sure, we might all like to tyrants defeated, but even if each and every soldier wanted the same thing, their options and choices will never really be in line with the local population.  The negative effects of welfare can be pretty bad, but hell, the negative effects of war are even worse.

 

@NEPHiLiX

Yes, the state is usually the catalyst for inciting a campaign that calls for ethnic cleansing. As far as I can recall, in Yugoslavia Tito thought it would be a good idea to have the different ethnic groups be forcibly integrated with each other and believed that this alone could overcome the shaky history between them and eventually lead to peace. It ended pretty badly after his death of course leading to the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. In Rwanda, because the differences between the Hutus and Tutsi were emphasized by the European colonization forces, it lead to bloody conflict and massacre. These histories are of course good indicators of how state imposed power can lead to disaster.

 

However, I have Albanian friends who immigrated here to the US after the Kosovo conflict. They swear that they were saved as a result of NATO's involvement. They also are big fans of America as a result. It is inapropriate for me to simply espouse my belief that they we should have just left them alone. While Rwanda might be different since I think it was 90% vs 10% of the population, and would have been much more difficult to handle adequatly I can't help but feel that I as someone who doesn't see the world as "states" but as individuals making up a mass of land that to defend those people against aggression is something I have a duty to do. When the US government prevents an oppressive regime from carying out its full brutality on its citizens then those citizens see the government as intervening saviors in a way and become convinced that they are truly good orginization. Then you have the libertarians on the side who criticize the intervention and they suddenly look insensitive and selfish to the citizens of that country. It's the same way with my Albanian buds, they truly feel this way.

 

With regards to you last paragraph, I think those solutions would be reasonable. As far as know, it does not take much to actually destroy a 3rd world countries military supply. In Libya, I believe NATO just established a no flight zone and destroyed the Libyan governments aircraft supply (this part I'm shaky on). I was also thinking that private militias could be established here that make their living by training and arming citizens interested in combating their adversaries. Maybe they already have that, but I think militias are so demonized today that it doesn't come up much do to bad association.

 

Anyways, I'm rambling but good answers so far

 

 

True as Hotel Rwanda showed (sure some parts may be exagerated for effect) it was either complete Hutu nationalism or nothing. You pretty much couldn't be a moderate unless maybe you could bribe well.

Yes, the state is usually the catalyst for inciting a campaign that calls for ethnic cleansing.

I think you misunderstood this part of my post. I was noting that the international community has historically been equally supportive of ethnic cleansing (though they call it "population transfers") as a solution to perpetual regional/state instability. The idea of a "nation" (an ehtnically homogenous state) was one of the many poisonous gifts that 19thC nationalism bequeathed onto modern history, truly a gift that keeps on giving. The Greek/Turk expulsions were orchestrated and confirmed at the Lausanne Conference by the Great Powers; statelets were drawn up in the aftermath of Versailles adhering to this "nation" principle (with the concession to Czechoslovakia (no mention of the Ruthenes?) and Yugoslavia--all the rest of the South Slavs who together could form a large enough state to be "viable"...even in both these cases however, it was official policy that Czechs and Serbs would assimilate their minorities into a single ethnic mass--clearly that's not what happened); the mass (10+ million) forced expulsions that came in the wake of Nazi Germany's collapse (Germans, Ukrainians, Hungarians, etc etc) were approved by the Big Three (Britain, the US and USSR); etc. The Cold War (more directly the Soviet grip) hermetically sealed a considerable amount of the fallout that should have erupted, delaying it until the Wall came down. Now we have the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and an explosion of states where Yugoslavia used to be.

In any case, when push comes to shove, a surprisingly high proportion of people resort to backing the "cleansing" solution even though it can never be "clean"...people fight when forced to leave their homes, go figure.

However, I have Albanian friends who immigrated here to the US after the Kosovo conflict. They swear that they were saved as a result of NATO's involvement.

As for your Albanian friends, that may very well be true, but my point was that intervention didn't stop what it was meant to stop. The cleansing happened anyway and, when the height of intervention was upon them, these cleansing operations became more intense and the work was largely finished by the time of the surrender. This is what muddies things up--it will happen regardless: there are no examples that I can think of where intervention did anything but speed up the "cleansing operation".

With regards to you last paragraph... As far as know, it does not take much to actually destroy a 3rd world countries military supply.

Think Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (1979-89), Chechnya (1994-96 or 1999-2009, ongoing insurgency), etc. First World industrial countries generally come off well against Second or Third World industrial countries, but not against non-industrial countries who fight asymmetrically. 

, I think those solutions would be reasonable.

I struggled with that nswer. In the end I realized that if I was being beaten savagely, my family being killed and someone walked by who didn't try and do anything (intervene, cry out for help, find help, urge others to help, etc), I'd hate them as much as I'd hate the person attacking me.

 

That's a great film (That was my first time seeing Don Cheadle act). Rusesabagina is a hero of mine. I know it's just a film, hopefully any historical innaccuracies that may exist are minimal, but it really made me think about my beliefs regarding intervention.

TheFinest:

However, I have Albanian friends who immigrated here to the US after the Kosovo conflict. They swear that they were saved as a result of NATO's involvement. They also are big fans of America as a result. It is inapropriate for me to simply espouse my belief that they we should have just left them alone.

Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force

At least two of the specific events mentioned in the article are about the bombing of Albanian civilians by America/NATO.  This was my point in my post earlier (not that you responded to it).  America "liberating" other nations is not necessarily a good thing.  You can look at the statistics of the currents wars now.  The American military is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

Sure, some civilians might be better off, but what about the people who were murdered?  What about their families?  Are they better off?

Inherently there's nothing wrong with a force going into an area and improving the lives of everyone who was oppressed by a government. Whether or not this is a government makes little inherent difference. The problem, is, of course, that things with government tend to be amazingly mishandled, as the history of American intervention shows. 

NATO and the UN are great ideas in principle, and in a more libertarian world who wouldn't want voluntary organizations that would help to keep existing governments from abusing their citizens? Yet as we have seen in the past year hope for freedom ultimately lies in the ability of western states not to come in and f*** everything like they normally do, and instead let it happen upon a more natural, and idealistic basis.

Absolutely not, because the state should not exist in the first place. However, a better solution would be to start a volunteer force to go over into a country like those and see if the rebels want your help. 

Let the insane drive each other to extinction.  Encourage them to focus on each other.  Support the one that is losing; but, conserve strength as much as possible to mop up the remains.  (Including the state you live under.)

Any time that you are witness to a crime in progress and reasonably sure of the context, that is you're witnessing someone's rights being trampled on, you are within your rights to step in and use responsive-force to end the aggression you're witnessing.

The classic example is coming upon a scene of a rapist attempting to force himself on a victim. You are within your rights to use enough force to end his attempted aggression, and to protect yourself should he turn wrath upon you.

As for other nations, one need only inflate proportion. Anyone would be within their rights to, for instance, invade North Korea in order to free its oppressed and starving people from their aggression-ridden military rulers. You could make a similar case for China, and perhaps even Russia (if you had incontrovertible proof of rigged elections).

It's a pretty clear case morally. Any nation aggressing against its people or neighbors can be morally invaded by anyone in order solely to end that aggression and no more.

Anenome:

Any time that you are witness to a crime in progress and reasonably sure of the context, that is you're witnessing someone's rights being trampled on, you are within your rights to step in and use responsive-force to end the aggression you're witnessing.

I think this is really close to my viewpoint, and maybe after clarification we might agree, but I think it's a bad (incomplete?) principle as you wrote it.  I do believe that a third party can step in to help a victim of aggression, but being "reasonably" sure of context is never good enough.  Walter Block gave a good example in one of his articles about Person A taking a watch from Person B.  The fact of the matter is, we don't know if Person A is a thief - he might actually be reclaiming stolen property from Person B.  The solution is that if you step in to help Person B and it turns out he was in fact the original thief, then you are liable for aggression.  Just because you were "reasonably" sure doesn't cut it.  You aggressed.  Maybe this is your opinion too, but that's not how I read what you wrote.

Anenome:

The classic example is coming upon a scene of a rapist attempting to force himself on a victim. You are within your rights to use enough force to end his attempted aggression, and to protect yourself should he turn wrath upon you.

Suppose it is just a couple playing out a fantasy.  I just want to point out that if I saw a man raping (or what I perceived to be rape) a woman, I would either step in to stop it or call the police (or both!).  However, if it turns out that it wasn't actually rape, you would be liable for any aggression.

Anemone:

As for other nations, one need only inflate proportion. Anyone would be within their rights to, for instance, invade North Korea in order to free its oppressed and starving people from their aggression-ridden military rulers. You could make a similar case for China, and perhaps even Russia (if you had incontrovertible proof of rigged elections).

For the most part, I agree.  The only problem is that it is almost virtually guaranteed that there will be casualties caused by the invading force.  They would be liable for aggression.  If the people who are liable for their aggression are not held accountable, then I don't think I can support it.  But certainly, in theory there is nothing wrong with a force helping to liberate.  In practice, it doesn't seem to work out well.

Anenome:

It's a pretty clear case morally. Any nation aggressing against its people or neighbors can be morally invaded by anyone in order solely to end that aggression and no more.

The "no more" part is the most important.  The problem is that in practice, is it really possible for an invading force to not aggress against the civilian population?

gotlucky:

I think this is really close to my viewpoint, and maybe after clarification we might agree, but I think it's a bad (incomplete?) principle as you wrote it.  I do believe that a third party can step in to help a victim of aggression, but being "reasonably" sure of context is never good enough.

Reasonable surety is all one could possibly ask for. Wait too long and the victim may be dead, etc.

gotlucky:

Walter Block gave a good example in one of his articles about Person A taking a watch from Person B.  The fact of the matter is, we don't know if Person A is a thief - he might actually be reclaiming stolen property from Person B.  The solution is that if you step in to help Person B and it turns out he was in fact the original thief, then you are liable for aggression.  Just because you were "reasonably" sure doesn't cut it.  You aggressed.  Maybe this is your opinion too, but that's not how I read what you wrote.

Well, when stepping in, we would also expect you to use a reasonable amount of force to stop the aggression and get the story from both sides in that scenario. Things are a lot more clear cut when someone's wielding a weapon against another and threatening imminent harm. Not sure I'd call someone stepping into a fight an aggressor. It doesn't matter at that point who owns the watch. Break up the fight, ask what's going on, and if the case is clear support the claim of the true owner, or else call the police and let them sort it out.

gotlucky:

Anenome:

The classic example is coming upon a scene of a rapist attempting to force himself on a victim. You are within your rights to use enough force to end his attempted aggression, and to protect yourself should he turn wrath upon you.

Suppose it is just a couple playing out a fantasy.

Exactly, that's why I use the idea of reasonable surety. If you see this 'fantasy' taking place in a back alley and the woman's screaming for help, you'd be perfectly reasonable to step in. And, were it a fantasy in that moment, they'd immediately drop the act and tell you it's cool and to go away.

gotlucky:

  I just want to point out that if I saw a man raping (or what I perceived to be rape) a woman, I would either step in to stop it or call the police (or both!).  However, if it turns out that it wasn't actually rape, you would be liable for any aggression.

True, but I do want to make a distinction here, between aggression and responsive coercion. Any amount of force used to stop an aggression it -not- itself an aggression, it is a moral use of coercion which I'll call responsive-coercion, and is always ethical, assuming you reasonably believe you're witnessing aggression. Even if you turned out to be wrong, it's like the difference between murder and manslaughter. The point where responsive-coercion turns into aggression is the point where you've used enough force to stop the aggression and then gone on to use further coercion not to stop an aggression on the part of the other party.

gotlucky:

Anemone:

As for other nations, one need only inflate proportion. Anyone would be within their rights to, for instance, invade North Korea in order to free its oppressed and starving people from their aggression-ridden military rulers. You could make a similar case for China, and perhaps even Russia (if you had incontrovertible proof of rigged elections).

For the most part, I agree.  The only problem is that it is almost virtually guaranteed that there will be casualties caused by the invading force.  They would be liable for aggression.  If the people who are liable for their aggression are not held accountable, then I don't think I can support it.  But certainly, in theory there is nothing wrong with a force helping to liberate.  In practice, it doesn't seem to work out well.

If the casualties are on the part of the immoral regime's military, do you still feel the same way? I don't.

Secondly, as warfare advances, we gain more and more ability to take out an individual without surrounding innocent casualties. That trend will continue.

gotlucky:

Anenome:

It's a pretty clear case morally. Any nation aggressing against its people or neighbors can be morally invaded by anyone in order solely to end that aggression and no more.

The "no more" part is the most important.  The problem is that in practice, is it really possible for an invading force to not aggress against the civilian population?

Certainly it's possible. Difficult, but possible. Getting easier all the time. In ancient times, troops invaded local houses for lodging and food, ravaged fields, etc. Today we don't need to do that. Similarly, in WWII, we carpet bombed cities because our bombs had horrible aim. Today we laser-guide them. In the future, we may be able to kill a bad man with a single laser shot to the head from space while he's dancing at a crowded wedding, sparing all innocents around him, who knows. That's the trend anyway.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see, I'd like to see people liberating sex-slaves in south-east asia, extra-legally. The situation down there is beyond horrific :| Right now the only people fighting it are lawyers working for international organizations working with local police, corrupt police. It's barely effective.

Anemone:

Reasonable surety is all one could possibly ask for. Wait too long and the victim may be dead, etc.

I think we agree, so long that if you are wrong, you are legally liable for any aggression committed against the person you thought was the aggressor.

Anemone:

Well, when stepping in, we would also expect you to use a reasonable amount of force to stop the aggression and get the story from both sides in that scenario. Things are a lot more clear cut when someone's wielding a weapon against another and threatening imminent harm. Not sure I'd call someone stepping into a fight an aggressor. It doesn't matter at that point who owns the watch. Break up the fight, ask what's going on, and if the case is clear support the claim of the true owner, or else call the police and let them sort it out.

I imagine that in a private law society, people trying to resolve their disputes violently in public would probably be frowned upon, if not illegal (after all, you are resolving your dispute on someone's property, and it isn't yours).  I don't necessarily have any problem with stopping a fight, it's just I wanted to clarify what you were saying.  I think we agree.

Anemone:

Exactly, that's why I use the idea of reasonable surety. If you see this 'fantasy' taking place in a back alley and the woman's screaming for help, you'd be perfectly reasonable to step in. And, were it a fantasy in that moment, they'd immediately drop the act and tell you it's cool and to go away.

Yeah, it sounds like we agree.  I find it unlikely that fantasy rape would be common in public and would probably be taboo, but I just wanted to throw out a hypothetical.

Anemone:

True, but I do want to make a distinction here, between aggression and responsive coercion. Any amount of force used to stop an aggression it -not- itself an aggression, it is a moral use of coercion which I'll call responsive-coercion, and is always ethical, assuming you reasonably believe you're witnessing aggression. Even if you turned out to be wrong, it's like the difference between murder and manslaughter. The point where responsive-coercion turns into aggression is the point where you've used enough force to stop the aggression and then gone on to use further coercion not to stop an aggression on the part of the other party.

Maybe we disagree after all, well maybe only a little.  In principle, prying the man off the woman would be aggression if they had been involved in a consensual act.  I agree with Walter Block on this type of issue, that your intent is irrelevant.  You are liable for your actions.  It just so happens that it's probably worth the risk to pull the man off the woman and be held liable for the aggression (maybe even forgiven by the man).  But, as I said earlier, fantasy rape or taking a watch back by force in public would probably be taboo for the most part, so maybe you could get off the hook for the minor aggression used to stop the perceived violence.

Anemone:

If the casualties are on the part of the immoral regime's military, do you still feel the same way? I don't.

Yes and no.  Any casualties that are directly caused by the immoral regime are the fault of the immoral regime (soldiers and rulers).  However, some people would prefer to live in slavery than see their family dead, and who are you to start a war where these people will see their family dead?  I'm mixed on the issue.  On the one hand, it's moral to liberate slaves.  But on the other hand, is it moral to start a fight/war knowing that people will die, even if you are not the one directly responsible?

Anemone:

Secondly, as warfare advances, we gain more and more ability to take out an individual without surrounding innocent casualties. That trend will continue.

I am thankful for that.  I think what would clean it up even faster would be to make soldiers legally liable for aggression.  They might think twice about bombing in civilian areas if they knew they would be held responsible for the murder of civilians.

Anemone:

Certainly it's possible. Difficult, but possible. Getting easier all the time. In ancient times, troops invaded local houses for lodging and food, ravaged fields, etc. Today we don't need to do that. Similarly, in WWII, we carpet bombed cities because our bombs had horrible aim. Today we laser-guide them. In the future, we may be able to kill a bad man with a single laser shot to the head from space while he's dancing at a crowded wedding, sparing all innocents around him, who knows. That's the trend anyway.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see, I'd like to see people liberating sex-slaves in south-east asia, extra-legally. The situation down there is beyond horrific :| Right now the only people fighting it are lawyers working for international organizations working with local police, corrupt police. It's barely effective.

Yeah, I would vastly prefer private soldiers to do the liberating over government soldiers.  I would prefer people who have a vested interest in the specifc areas than people who work for a massive bureaucracy that does not have a vested interest in the people who are being harmed.

True as Hotel Rwanda showed (sure some parts may be exagerated for effect) it was either complete Hutu nationalism or nothing. You pretty much couldn't be a moderate unless maybe you could bribe well.

That's silly, Hotel Rwanda is a motion picture ie entertainment, it can't show something to be a fact.

If you're serious about knowing things — research them. You can start by reading Rwanda-themed articles at spiked: Rewriting Rwanda, Rwanda: obscuring the truth about the genocide, Who made a mess of modern Rwanda?, Shooting down the ‘truth’ about Rwanda and follow it by reading Robin Philpot's work of revisionist history: Rwanda 1994: Colonialism dies hard. You can check out The Politics of Genocide for the wider context, ie to find out why and how genocide stories are useful for the powers that be. You may also glimpse at some of the back and forth surrounding Rwanda here, here and here.

You have enough starting points now to set you on your way, so no excuses.

Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force

At least two of the specific events mentioned in the article are about the bombing of Albanian civilians by America/NATO.

One of the two incidents you refer to, the bombing of the refugee column on April 14th constituted the incident with the most civilian deaths in the entire war. It took place over two hours and killed 73 people. If you do some research on it you will find out it was against a tractor column of refugees who were returning to their homes. Do NATO bombs massacring Albanian refugees trying to get back home raise questions for you?
 

More directly on your OP, Kosovo was a clean(-ish) war: next to no casualties on the coalition side. But that was a coalition of industrial powers acting against a third-rate industrial army.

Actually the Army of Yugoslavia came out of the 1999 bombing essentially unschated (550 fatalities but of which only about 200 to NATO). The armistice was concluded not because the Serbian military was defeaded — it wasn't. It was concluded because A.) NATO had lowered its demands from what they had been initially, and because of B.) the cost of bombing to Yugoslavia's civilian population, their livelihood and their future.

So actually it was a very dirty war with NATO acting primarily against civilian targets.

For instances in the cases of Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?

That's assuming that is what the US did. But did US really get involved (and help start) romantic conflicts which pitted "the people" against "opressive governments"? You are really able to belive truth is so simple?

Also ask yourself is it wrong of let's say Libyan soldiers manning the AA guns to fire upon NATO aircraft bombing their country? They, and the NATO pilots fighting against them can't be both right at the same time, so who is in the wrong here? The Libyan defending his sky, or the American dropping bombs on a place an ocean away from his home? What about a Chinese pilot dropping bombs on Texas, ostensibly to prevent American invasion of Iran? Would you be wrong to fire against it? And if it were OK for you to fire against him, can it be at the same all right of him to fire back at you and blow you to pieces?

 

More directly on your OP, Kosovo was a clean(-ish) war: next to no casualties on the coalition side. But that was a coalition of industrial powers acting against a third-rate industrial army.

Actually the Army of Yugoslavia came out of the 1999 bombing essentially unschated (550 fatalities in the war but of which only about 200 to NATO). The armistice was concluded not because the Serbian military was defeaded — it wasn't. It was concluded because A.) NATO had lowered its demands from what they had been initially, and because of B.) the cost of bombing to Yugoslavia's civilian population, their livelihood and their future.

How does this in any way contradict what I said? There were zero...that's right, zero combat-related casualties on the Allied side. The Army of Yugoslavia was absolutely useless in this entirely air war. NATO didn't even need to target the AoY, they just needed to hammer at its military-industrial power until it gave up. The hope was that this would bring Yugoslavia to heel and stop the ethnic cleansing but, as I stated earlier, the cleansing was basically finished by the time of the armistice.

So actually it was a very dirty war with NATO acting primarily against civilian targets.

No, it wasn't a "very dirty war"...your sense of proportion is distorted. Of the very few wars that have fewer casualties than this one: the Falkland War, Grenada, etc...none of them were of a proportional commitment. Regardless, NATO v Yugoslavia ranks on the low end of casualties for any war (let alone a war fought to surrender).

Given that you think that this was a "very dirty war", what would you call WWII, the Chechen Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Balkan Wars, etc? Very very very very dirty, very very very dirty, very very dirty, very dirty, dirty etc?

Context and proportion... I was indicating that even when all the aces are on the side of the intervening powers, successfully putting a stop to the ethnic cleansing in question has never been the result.

No, it wasn't a "very dirty war"...your sense of proportion is distorted. Of the very few wars that have fewer casualties than this one: the Falkland War, Grenada, etc...none of them were of a proportional commitment. Regardless, NATO v Yugoslavia ranks on the low end of casualties for any war (let alone a war fought to surrender).

Given that you think that this was a "very dirty war", what would you call WWII, the Chechen Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Balkan Wars, etc? Very very very very dirty, very very very dirty, very very dirty, very dirty, dirty etc?

Dirtiness and cleanliness of a war have nothing to do with its scale. NATO's war in 1999 was incredibly dirty in that it was fought against civilians rather than against the military. It was for the most part a campaign of state terrorism against civilian infrastructure. There are very few examples of a side in a war concentrating such a proportion of its effort to combating civilians as NATO did here. Against 200 military fatalities caused by NATO there were 2000 civilians killed by the bombing, a ratio of 1 to 10.

The Army of Yugoslavia was absolutely useless in this entirely air war. NATO didn't even need to target the AoY, they just needed to hammer at its military-industrial power until it gave up.

You are talking about things which you do not know. You even manage to be wrong in calling it an "entirely air war". The war, which begun in 1998, featured significant fighting between VJ and the KLA, before and during the bombing, which accounted for well over one half of VJ's fatalities in the war. If you have failed to comprehend even this I wonder what further we have to talk about.

VJ was useful in keeping NATO at attitudes beyond 15,000 feet and in maintaining control of the whole of Kosovo for the duration of the bombing, all the while preserving its strength so as to make the proposition of a land invasion politically untennable for NATO. VJ was not useful in thwarting NATO efforts against its civilians, which unlike the efforts against the army could be safelty conducted from attitudes beyond 15,000 feet. In other words, the very requirement that NATO should not suffer losses required that NATO go after Yugoslav civilians, because they could be attacked without hazard to oneself, whereas the VJ could empathically not be.

The reason for concessions on the Serbian side had nothing to do with the state of their military, or their "military-industrial power" (I wonder if you are actually able to define this term, or do you just like throwing it around). It had to do with the price the bombing was exacting on civilians and the threat it represented to Yugoslavia's economy and its existance as an industrial country at a time when the country was under international embargo. Cut off from imports and foreign capital it would face incredible difficulties in rebuilding anything that would be destroyed. The fear was that if the bombing continued Yugoslavia would end up in a situation approaching that of Iraq which needlessly lost hundreds of thousands of people due to UN's sanctions which came in the wake of the short, but devastating bombing in 1991.

The idea the outcome had something to do with desctruction of Serbian military industry is bizarre. This was never going to be a WWII-style war to be won by the side which could equip the greater number of soldiers or produced the most tanks and aircraft. The Serbs understood full well that as long as NATO leaders thought something would cost them significant casualties they would not have the resolve to go forth with it. This being the case it was totally beside the point if the entire Yugoslav military industry was destroyed to the last bolt. VJ already had all the weaponry it needed to inflict casulties in its posession already — if NATO had not fought asymetrically and employed terrorist tactics against its civilians rather than offered battle to the VJ.

 

Marko:

One of the two incidents you refer to, the bombing of the refugee column on April 14th constituted the incident with the most civilian deaths in the entire war. It took place over two hours and killed 73 people. If you do some research on it you will find out it was against a tractor column of refugees who were returning to their homes. Do NATO bombs massacring Albanian refugees trying to get back home raise questions for you? 

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure of what you are trying to say.  Could you rephrase?

TheFinest:

For instances in the cases of Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. was it necessarily a bad thing to take the side of the people against the oppressive governments?

 

Initially, this was one topic where I thought the right thing to do was a no brainer...don't get involved. But thinking of atrocities like those committed in Rwanda where NATO occupation could have prevented such a horror has made me rethink my whole position. People argue that Kosovo or Libya could have ended up much much worse without NATO help, and on those points it's hard to argue. War Hawks even go on to say that if you slap on a Marshall Plan in places like Libya, that everything after the conflict will be right as rain.

I say when the threat of another's country's tyranny significantly affects the freedom of my country, like Bastiat says, I would have every right to use all my force and cunning to defeat the plunderer. For instance, the moment I discovered that Nazi Germany were headed for the U.S. and posed a significant threat, I would use all my forces to join other country's and defeat him. Otherwise, if I have another country as an ally, and we made an agreement to protect each other's freedom, I'd gladly invade the country to free my ally; of course, only if we had an established agreement.

This is an interesting question. I'm curious to see the responses, specifically to my take on it as I'm sure many on here will disagree.

You can help a group of people defend themselves against aggressors. The problem comes when you force innocent third parties into the battle. A is defending themselves against B. If A forces C to help then A becomes an aggressor. If C voluntarily helps, then there is no problem. 

 

 

gotlucky:

Maybe we disagree after all, well maybe only a little.  In principle, prying the man off the woman would be aggression if they had been involved in a consensual act.

True, but if that consensual act had been presented outwardly as a rape, it's hard to blame someone for involving themselves in stopping what appears to be an aggression.

gotlucky:

  I agree with Walter Block on this type of issue, that your intent is irrelevant.

That's what I'm saying, sure.

gotlucky:

  You are liable for your actions.  It just so happens that it's probably worth the risk to pull the man off the woman and be held liable for the aggression (maybe even forgiven by the man).  But, as I said earlier, fantasy rape or taking a watch back by force in public would probably be taboo for the most part, so maybe you could get off the hook for the minor aggression used to stop the perceived violence.

Sure. It would be a de facto aggression, because the true facts are that it's consensual, but the actors have contributed to the interference of the onlooker by making it appear a rape, thus I don't think he could be held to the same level of responsibility as a true aggressor, which I why I raised the manslaughter vs murder analogy.

gotlucky:

Yes and no.  Any casualties that are directly caused by the immoral regime are the fault of the immoral regime (soldiers and rulers).  However, some people would prefer to live in slavery than see their family dead, and who are you to start a war where these people will see their family dead?  I'm mixed on the issue.  On the one hand, it's moral to liberate slaves.  But on the other hand, is it moral to start a fight/war knowing that people will die, even if you are not the one directly responsible?

I think it is. It's like the question of terrorism, where we say we do not negotiate with terrorists. That means many hostages will be killed by those terrorists when we don't give in. But we don't say that the politicians who didn't negotiate are responsible for those deaths. We accord guilt to the terrorists.

gotlucky:

Anemone:

Secondly, as warfare advances, we gain more and more ability to take out an individual without surrounding innocent casualties. That trend will continue.

I am thankful for that.  I think what would clean it up even faster would be to make soldiers legally liable for aggression.  They might think twice about bombing in civilian areas if they knew they would be held responsible for the murder of civilians.

Any such policy would need to take into account whether the soldier's actions were reasonable. Which, in war-time, very difficult. I'd certainly like to see war raised to that standard tho.

gotlucky:

Yeah, I would vastly prefer private soldiers to do the liberating over government soldiers.  I would prefer people who have a vested interest in the specifc areas than people who work for a massive bureaucracy that does not have a vested interest in the people who are being harmed.

That's exactly the scenario I'm proposing, private soldiers motivated primarily by moral outrage, held to the highest ethical standards, in black-ops style surgical strikes to right wrongs, such as sex trafficking, on individual basis. Sex slavery in SE Asia would be particularly susceptible since the practice relies on foreign-patronage, and thus is open to outsiders.

Neodoxy:

Inherently there's nothing wrong with a force going into an area and improving the lives of everyone who was oppressed by a government. Whether or not this is a government makes little inherent difference.

 

I think it makes a huge inherent difference because the government would be violating the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism. As Walter Block put it here:

If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?

Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.

However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama's skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.

@Anenome

It looks like we agree on your earlier points, so I'll start here:

Anenome:

I think it is. It's like the question of terrorism, where we say we do not negotiate with terrorists. That means many hostages will be killed by those terrorists when we don't give in. But we don't say that the politicians who didn't negotiate are responsible for those deaths. We accord guilt to the terrorists.

Terrorism is a different type of scenario.  Terrorists are the aggressors, so any deaths at their hands are their fault.  My question was in regards to someone else starting the war.  Sure, the home government aggresses against its people, but a lot of the government's power is just from vague threats of violence.  It rarely has to resort to blunt, direct threats against its own population.  If you take the logic that it is always just or moral to start a war with a government (as governments do aggress, directly or indirectly), then you must say that the Canadian or Mexican or any other government is justified in starting a war with the USA.  As it stands now, I would not like such a war to happen.  Maybe someday the circumstances would be so bad that I would prefer it, but I certainly do not want another government invading the USA in order to "liberate" me.  If another government invaded the USA, I would not agree that all resulting deaths would be the fault of the USA, only the deaths that are directly caused by the USA.  

My problem is that I don't think that just because someone is being aggressed against, that it necessarily means that stopping that aggression is the moral thing to do.  Probably most of the time it is.  But I don't agree that it always is, especially in regards to war.

Anenome:

Any such policy would need to take into account whether the soldier's actions were reasonable. Which, in war-time, very difficult. I'd certainly like to see war raised to that standard tho.

I still think that soldiers should be held to strict unlimited liability.  If they don't want to operate under such conditions, then they shouldn't be a soldier.  The point about stopping a fight in a public area is that it is almost certain that those fights are not allowed.  Even if the seeming aggressor is actually a victim trying to regain his watch, I doubt that the owners of the property would be okay with people fighting on their property.  In regards to truly public property, I imagine most communites would not tolerate such behavior.  Maybe they would under specific circumstances.

But a soldier is not operating under similar conditions, especially if he is part of the invading force.  As long as the soldier is held to the same standards a civilian would be held to, then "reasonable" as a standard is fine by me.

Anenome:

That's exactly the scenario I'm proposing, private soldiers motivated primarily by moral outrage, held to the highest ethical standards, in black-ops style surgical strikes to right wrongs, such as sex trafficking, on individual basis. Sex slavery in SE Asia would be particularly susceptible since the practice relies on foreign-patronage, and thus is open to outsiders.

Perhaps someday the people in the west will actually have true moral indignation in regards to these crimes.  Until then, it looks like nothing will be done.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure of what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase?

You said that there were at least two incidents where NATO aircraft killed Albanian civilians. I just brought in some additional information regarding one of these two incidents. I said the Albanian refugees slain were actually returning to their homes. This information is readily avaliable and is not to the best of my knowledge controversial.

The reason I introduced this information was to try to spark some interest in the topic and maybe move someone, to look more into these matters for themselves. I can write tons of lines about that war here, but I'm just a guy saying something on the internet forum — it isn't really effective way of changing attitudes or deepening understanding. It sticks far better when someone looks into things on their own.

It is for the most part conjecture, but it has been asserted the incident in which 73 Albanian refugees were slain was not a NATO error, but that the KLA may have marked the column in question with a laser designator for NATO aircraft to attack. NATO's official line was that its bombing was not in the support of the KLA, but in fact it is uncontroversial that KLA acted as NATO's ground force as best as it could and that it was issued NATO laser designators.

It should also not be controversial that KLA had an incentive to make sure as many Albanian would leave Kosovo as possible, and that these people would not return while the Serbs were stil in control. A few days after the bombing begun the river of Albanian refugees from Kosovo had became the stated justification for NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, so by returning to their homes, the civilians in question were in a sense threatening the viability of the foreign intervention on behalf of the KLA.

The problem with these sort of interventions is they give all kinds of players all kinds of extremely screwed-up incentives. And it is illusiory to expect no one will ever act on these incentives.

Another thing of course is how come the people in this column felt safe to return if Albanians were simultaneusly being expelled in such numbers? Would this not point there were other factors besides Serb threats that drove such number of people to flee? This group of Albanians at least must had been reasonably sure that after reaching home they would not be harmed by Serb forces, who were after all stil fully in control of the province. If what NATO had said about the Serbs were true this shouldn't have been possible.

That's exactly the scenario I'm proposing, private soldiers motivated primarily by moral outrage, held to the highest ethical standards, in black-ops style surgical strikes to right wrongs, such as sex trafficking, on individual basis. Sex slavery in SE Asia would be particularly susceptible since the practice relies on foreign-patronage, and thus is open to outsiders.

Perhaps someday the people in the west will actually have true moral indignation in regards to these crimes.  Until then, it looks like nothing will be done.

Aye, aren't we just oozing the White Man's Burden today? I think there is entirely too much indignation in the West over the rest of the world already and what the West needs to do is take a good long look in the mirror, and stop saving everyone from themselves. Yes, lets have Westerners organize armies for the liberation of sex workers in SE Asia — just how patronizing can you get? What if trainloads of worried SE Asians came over to war for the liberation of sex workers in the US? SE Asia doesn't need your saving, stop imagining that it does. You aren't champions and the rest of the world isn't composed of equal parts pathetic victims and satanic opressors.

Really? I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head: Chechnya, WWII (civilian casualties far exceeded military casualties and yes, they were targeted: Allied firebombing and strategic bombing, Soviet "cleansing" operations all across its own empire and the countries it invaded, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Japan all over the Asian Rim, etc), the Balkan Wars pre-WWI, Turkey pre-WWI (v the Greeks) and during WWI (v the Armenians), the Korean War, Vietnam, etc etc.

Several of your examples are untrue. Western Allies conducted the great majority of their war effort in WWII against the German and Japanese militaries. Strategic bombing campaigns which targeted civilians were sideshows by comparison. A minority of their effort was directed against civilians, mayority against the military.

Soviet cleansing operations were not part of the war effort against the Axis enemy. They begun in mid 1930s and had to do with internal security not with dealing blows to Nazi Germany.

The First and Second Balkan Wars were one of the more cleanish wars mainly fought between conventional armies out in the field. So was the Greek-Turkish war of 1897. The Macedonian Insurrection of 1904-1908 was a dirty war, particularly from the Turkish side. WWI-era Ottoman repression against the Armenians, the Greeks and the Assyrians was not a war.

Also I can not agree with the Korea War assertion. Probably greater proportion of the American war effort there went against fighting the armed forces of the enemy than was the case in the Kosovo War.

Anyway I withdraw my statement. The war was not remarkable in that so much of US' war effort was directed against the civilian population. It was remarkable that so much effort when into battling civilians even though this was a war between two states both in posession of a conventional military. It wasn't that Serb fighters were guerrilas who could not be traced in the forrests or could meld into the civilian population — it was just that US could not substantially harm their uniformed army from above 15,000 feet but would not come lower for fear of own casulties.

Estimates range from 1200 to 5700 according to Wikipedia, though only 500 have been confirmed. So your confirmed ratio is 2:5 (200 military to 500 civilian) totalling 700 total deaths.

The 500 figure is a HRW figure. Seeing HRW is the instrument of the US government their numbers aren't worth crap.

For a war. Fought to surrender.

 

You keep bringing this up, the third time now, only demonstrating your ignorance. Regardless the offical American propaganda the war did not end with a surrender. It ended with an armistice, in which US dropped a number of its demands it had put forth at the beginning. After withstanding 78 days of bombing the Serbs had also brought NATO in a difficult position (politicaly) and as a consequence won a settlement that was far different from the one they would have been signing on if they had bowed at the onset of the war.

1.) NATO dropped Appendix B of the Rambouillet Agreement
2.) NATO dropped a provision according to which an independence referendum would have been called in Kosovo after 3 years, the result of which Belgrade would have to recognize
3.) NATO now agreed the force entering Kosovo would not formally be a NATO occupation force, but a UN force that would include a Russian contingent
4.) US had to vote in UNSCR1244 formally reaffirming Yugoslavia's soverignity over Kosovo and envisioning the eventual return of hundreds of Serbian police to the province — the Serbs would not sign the armistice until the resolution had been voted in

The extent of NATO concessions were such that some commentators had suggested NATO would have probably been able to get an agreement like this in the beginning, without a war. I do not personally share this view, but I do think it is not far off. 


Situation in Kosovo today is indeed such as if Serbia had suffered a straightforward defeat in 1999, but this is not a consequence of the substance of the 1999 agreement. It is the consequence of the fall of Milošević in 2000 in a color revolution, which gave rise to successive pro-Western governments in Belgrade that sought to undermine the Serbian position on Kosovo and to give away even what had been successfully defended in 1999.

You keep forgetting the basis of my point so I'll repeat it again: "even when all the aces are on the side of the intervening powers, successfully putting a stop to the ethnic cleansing in question has never been the result".

I intentionally ignored this because it is science-fiction just like the surrender theme you keep bringing up, that I also actively sought to ignore until this post.

Just that you are framing this as a matter of stopping ethnic cleansing is ridicilous. In fact there was no ethnic cleansing until after the bombs started falling. NATO intervention did not just fail to stop ethnic cleansing, but made it possible and inevitable.

Before the bombing there were refugees, most of them internal, but these were people who fled the fighting as such, not the one or the other belligerent. Ie, they evacuated in the same manner people flee before announcements of hurricanes.

Only a few days into the bombing refugees started to appear who reported being kicked out from their homes — as you would probably expect would happen in any similar case, for example in America to Muslims if China was dropping bombs on the United States explicitly on the behalf of the United States' Muslim population. Even so such expulsions were not the only cause of the incredible increase in the number of refugees. Fighting between VJ and the KLA, the danger of NATO bombs, the fact Albanians were aware that by taking a trek to a refugee camp in Macedonia or Albania they were helping the Albanian cause in Kosovo probably all played a role.

I could here cite General Clark (SACE) who swore that it was the highly publicized planning for a ground invasion that pushed Milosevic to surrender...

Which means exactly jack shit. Clark doesn't know the reasons Milošević acted as he did, he would not be beyond lying if he did and certainly has an incentive to just make whatever he thinks shows him in the best light.

and that on top of that it was international opposition--making the US realize that it would essentially have to go it alone on the ground.

If the Americans can not invade without the Germans at their side and the Germans won't invade because VJ may shoot some of them, then the fact VJ is able to fight back is what is keeping the Americans away.

Of course the very reason US was not willing to go in alone is because they thought it could potentially turn messy. Then Clinton would have to eat all the crap from it rather than having it spread around with Chirac, Blair and Schroder. So again, if the VJ had not been capable of shooting back there would have been no obstacle to a stroll into sunny Kosovo.

@Marko

Thanks for the info and clearing it up.

Aye, aren't we just oozing the White Man's Burden today? I think there is entirely too much indignation in the West over the rest of the world already and what the West needs to do is take a good long look in the mirror, and stop saving everyone from themselves.

For the most part, this is true.  My point about "true" moral indignation (get ready for the no true scotsman fallacy!) was that I don't believe that most white westerners really have moral indignation about many of the atrocities that occur throughout the world.  As I said earlier in my conversation with Anenome:

gotlucky:

I would vastly prefer private soldiers to do the liberating over government soldiers.  I would prefer people who have a vested interest in the specifc areas than people who work for a massive bureaucracy that does not have a vested interest in the people who are being harmed.

Most westerners do not have a vested interest in other areas of the world.  They can feel outrage at whatever they want, but they don't have an interest in everything they are outraged at.  Here is an analogy: when someone else has something of personal value stolen, we feel bad about it because we know it meant something to him and he is hurting about it.  When it's something of value to us that has been stolen, we don't just feel bad, we feel the pain that the other guy had felt.  It's entirely different.  Another analogy could be about police brutality.  Sure, most of us here feel outrage when we read about or see videos on police brutality.  But hell, if it happened to us, it becomes personal.

That's what I'm talking about.  Most westerners may feel moral indignation about whatever is going on in the world, but they are not connected to it.  It's an entirely different kind of moral indignation when these injustices happen to you or someone you know/care about.

Marko:

Yes, lets have Westerners organize armies for the liberation of sex workers in SE Asia — just how patronizing can you get?

We were not talking about armies.

Marko:

What if trainloads of worried SE Asians came over to war for the liberation of sex workers in the US?

And liberated whom?  Are they voluntary sex workers?  Then they don't need liberating.  If they are there because they are being forced to be there by gangs, then I don't care who liberates them.  The liberators could be from Ghana for all I care.

Marko:

SE Asia doesn't need your saving, stop imagining that it does.

We are not talking about the entirety of SE Asia.  Anenome brought up the sex trade in SE Asia, and I assume he is talking about women who are prostitutes because they are being forced to be prostitutes by gangs.  Why is he interested in the involuntary sex trade in SE Asia instead of other areas of the world?  I don't know.  Maybe he has a particular interest in that region that we are not aware of.

Marko:

You aren't champions and the rest of the world isn't composed of equal parts pathetic victims and satanic opressors.

I beg to differ.  I'm pretty sure that everyone who isn't me is either a damsel in distress, a puny man who can't help the damsels, or a villain.

No interventions are acceptable exept for:

1. Protecting property you own in that nation from destruction or theft

2. Defeating an enemy who is obviously and demonstrably preparing to attack you next