Monday, 07 March 2011 13:08
Should U.S. Intervene In Jasmine Revolutions In Africa, Asia, Libya?
Written by 

Are we embarking upon a new paradigm with the reaction to the “Jasmine Revolution”?


Traditionally, national boundaries have been inviolable.  What happened within a nation was that country’s business and no other country or group of countries had the right to intervene.  


The impact of intervention has to be carefully calculated. Note the American Civil War. More men died in this conflict than in all of America’s other wars combined.  Over 460,000 soldiers perished during that four year conflict.   Despite the horrors, foreign nations kept their distance.  It was an American affair.  Consider…what if Great Britain or France had been so outraged about the carnage that they had demanded a negotiated settlement?   What would our nation look like today?  How much longer would the South have embraced slavery?


When we look at the world today, revolutions are the norm.  Most of Africa is in turmoil from Zimbabwe to Libya, from the Ivory Coast to Somalia.   The same applies to the Middle East.  In each of these nations people have taken a public stand against their government, but have all the people done so?  Or, is the outrage expressed by a very vocal minority within camera range? Note: the signs are in English.  


Egypt has 80 million people, but the media reported only about 1 million took to the streets even after success had been achieved.  Why so few; only 1.25% of the population?  How representative is the popular revolution there?  Are the majority more concerned about civil war and chaos?  What is really going on?


In some instances the governments have fallen like Egypt and Tunisia.  Other governments have responded with counter-attacks to maintain their position like Yemen, Iran, and Libya.  The bloodshed may be horrific, but nothing on the scale of Rwanda.


Thus the question arises. At what point do foreign nations employ their influence, treasure, manpower, and military might to intervene in the internal affairs of another country to determine its fate?    Is there really anything the West can do?  Perhaps the bigger question is: “Is there anything the West should do?”


Consider the issue carefully.   What would happen if two million people descended upon Washington D.C. and violently demanded that the President and Congress should resign? The image would fill the field of a camera’s view.  Would Americans merely cast aside our constitution to satisfy the whims of this .65% of the population?  What of the beliefs of the other 306 million citizens? Do their concerns not matter?


Worse, suppose these people became violent and military force was needed to re-impose order.  Would the United States face condemnation and invasion by foreign powers that support the dissident cause? 


The point being, the world had better be very careful in its response to the problems that are unfolding around the globe.   Embarking upon a policy of intervention can have unintended consequences far beyond the benevolent dreams of proponents.  It is a dangerous door to walk through.


Certainly, it is difficult to merely stand by and watch terror unfold, but once you step in you own the problem!   Could the eventual outcome prove to be worse for the people than the “abusive government” replaced?  Iran? Zimbabwe? 


Furthermore, once this new interventionist  policy is in place, one must ask: would Western Europe and the United States invade China should another Tiananmen Square event like that in 1989 occur?  Or, is this policy conveniently directed only against weak third world nations?


There is a lot to consider!  America had best look very carefully before it leaps!!!

by Ron Chapman



Login to post comments
  • Cat Fights on the Hot Cement Confederate New Orleans statues
  • Ex-Saints, Bears, Bills, NFL Exec, Jim W. Miller discusses NFL Draft tomorrow
  • Trump's new plan; Curtains on tax returns release; 40% say Trump-Russia; Probing Obama admin
  • Watch Louisiana Governor Edwards talk about CAT Tax failure

catRarely, have I seen few issues that have generated as much raw heat, tension, and passion than the Confederate monuments controversy. 

Just as existed during the real civil war, where brothers battled brothers, social media is the battleground, particularly Facebook, pitting friend against friend.

On one side of the tense divide, there are those who are protecting the New Orleans civil war era monuments.  Burnt in effigy, forever, is the symbol of Mayor Mitch Landrieu for up-ending what the monument protectors consider to be the loving civil society of New Orleans.

Lately, events have turned somewhat militaristic.

Some protectors of the Confederate monuments have been staying vigilant, in person and online, even surveilling during the wee hours of the morning, waiting for the next Mayor Landrieu attack. On Sunday morning, with protections of snipers, masked workers and a dumbstruck audience, the worst of all of the monuments was cut and carried., the Liberty Monument. 

Read More

miller nfl live2 5It’s D-Day or Draft Day tomorrow in the NFL.

More specifically, Thursday represents the first day of the NFL draft 2017.

Read More


trump curtainsThe major President Trump news of the day focuses upon taxes, not only the tax cuts he is proposing but his own taxes, which he obviously, refuses to unveil.


Read More

edwards play money 1

At a press conference today, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards said the CAT Tax did not pass the House Ways and Means Committee.  The Governor, in addressing the media said that "the fate of that bill was decided long before we unveiled it".

Read More


Sen. Appel talks budget, economy


Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1