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
  • A July 4th Fact of Facts: America is Land of Immigrants
  • Poll: Trump strong on jobs, weak on tweets, viewed as reckless, thin-skinned, sexist
  • President Trump, It doesn't feel like Independence Day
  • YIPPIE! The naked truth about free speech, cherished especially on Independence Day

mass2On July 4, 1778, George Washington doubled liquor rations for the soldiers quartered in Princeton, NJ, as a way to celebrate Independence Day. It’s fitting, therefore, that the Fourth of July is America's top-selling beer holiday, according to the Beer Institute. It estimated, in 2013, that sales of beer on the 4th could total $1 billion, doubtlessly higher today. “In moderation,” claims a CA brewery investor, Grover McKean, “beer is tasty and healthy.” Who could disagree?

Read More

joe mikaAs Donald Trump faces the top world leaders this week, including a face-time with Vladimir Putin, and as his healthcare proposals face an uphill climb, his poll numbers for how the nation views him could be better.

According to a morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday morning, his tweets, including that against MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, and his personality are not helping him, at all.

Read More

indy dayII know the calendar says we are approaching the 4th of July, but, it just doesn’t feel like Independence Day.

Perhaps it should.  It’s hot as heck.  The airlines have been packed. The hot dogs are ready for grilling.  The umps are saying, "play ball". The patriotic activities are scheduled. The fireworks are ready-for-blasting. 

Yet, it just doesn’t feel like independence day.

Read More

bill rights2To President Thomas Jefferson, July 4th celebrated more than the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He thought it was a link to the future. The message prominent colonists sent to King George III led to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the initial and most prominent feature of which is the First Amendment that guarantees free speech. It’s part of the country’s fundamental essence that each man and woman can say what they feel about government, or anything else, proving President Donald Trump needs some civics lessons.

Read More

latter-blum2

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1