Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Monday, December 1, 2008

 

I don't know about you, but I'm kind of bored already with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- and she hasn't even been appointed yet! (The journalist in me is looking forward, however, for the long-awaited disclosure of the big-bucks backers for Bill Clinton's pet projects -- I'm kind of surprised that it wasn't dumped at 4:55 p.m. on Thanksgiving Eve.) As noted earlier, I'm more eager to learn the "what" of Barack Obama's foreign policy than the "who":

Today's New York Times had a fascinating glimpse at one issue. Mass killing? He's against it.:

The choice of [Susan] Rice to represent the United States before the United Nations will make her one of the most visible faces of the Obama administration to the outside world aside from Mrs. Clinton. It will also send to the world organization a prominent and forceful advocate of stronger action, including military force if necessary, to stop mass killings like those in the Darfur region of Sudan in recent years.

Here's more:

During her first run at the State Department, Ms. Rice was a point person in responding to Al Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But her most searing experience was visiting Rwanda after the 1994 genocide when she was still on the N.S.C. staff.

As she later described the scene, the hundreds, if not thousands, of decomposing, hacked up bodies that she saw haunted her and fueled a desire to never let it happen again.

“I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required,” she told The Atlantic Monthly in 2001. She eventually became a sharp critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the Darfur killings and last year testified before Congress on behalf of an American-led bombing campaign or naval blockade to force a recalcitrant Sudanese government to stop the slaughter.

There's no bigger foreign policy facing America than when and if to use military force. The only instance that the overwhelming majority of the nation will support are clear cases of self-defense; the reason people rallied because the 2001 use of force in Afghanistan was because this was a government that had harbored and trained terrorists who mounted a direct attack on the United States. Conversely, Iraq should have been a non-starter -- ultimately tied to American geopolitical dominance and other factors that should not be a legitimate causus belli.

Genocide is a tipping point. I believe that the United States has an obligation to rally world military support and play an active role when there's an opportunity to stop a program of genocide while it's in progress. For the most part, we've regretted the times we didn't get involved -- most notably Rwanda -- and seen mostly positive results when we have taken action, as in took place in Bosnia a few years later. It's true, however, that a humanitarian mission that started with noble intentions -- in Somalia in 1992-93 -- went horribly awry.

The obvious lesson is that military missions with a humanitarian bent shouldn't be launched willy-nilly -- and we all hope for a world in which American troops would never need to fight abroad. But if they must, I'm much rather seen our powerful (bloatedly so) military machine used to stop mass killings rather than establishing hegemony in oil-exporting regions. I'm glad to see that President-elect Obama assembling a team that views the world this way as well.

Posted by Will Bunch @ 10:19 AM  Permalink | 17 comments
Comments   
Posted 10:32 PM, 12/01/2008
Archimedes
No military missions should be launched without a clear goal and some understanding of where who we would be fighting and what the consequences or winning or losing might be. As Obama said, he's not against all wars, just dumb ones. Me, too.,
Posted 05:55 PM, 12/01/2008
James TL
I am not in favor of intervening into civil wars. When did I say that? That is not our business. If Obama does that I will not support it. We should save our military for those who attack us or our allies. Iraq did not attack us, therefore I did not agree with our invasion. Afganistan is where the terrorists were. Why did we pull most of our troops out so soon? Probably won't answer me but still I have to ask. Now it appears that we are going to have to go back in. Don't you believe in finishing the job?
Posted 05:42 PM, 12/01/2008
James TL
1
Posted 04:17 PM, 12/01/2008
urkidnmepal
Tango - dont get your bowels in an uproar, pal. Dr. Bunch's quote "I believe that the United States has an obligation to rally world military support and play an active role when there's an opportunity to stop a program of genocide while it's in progress."...was wondering whether Hussein was committing genocide over the years. And I dont mean B. Hussein.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Posted 03:09 PM, 12/01/2008
James TL
q
Posted 01:02 PM, 12/01/2008
James TL
z
Posted 12:37 PM, 12/01/2008
urkidnmepal
How would you classify Saddam Hussein's actions?
Posted 12:36 PM, 12/01/2008
James TL
Not true B. atkinson. We do care about the lives of our military. We just don't want them to be used or killed for no reason. There was no reason for us to attack Iraq. We should have stayed in Afganistan with a larger force rather than attack a country that didn't attack us (not that Saddam Hussein didn't deserve to be deposed and later executed, he did. It was the only thing we did right in Iraq). If Obama does the same as Bush, I, for one will be on here blaming him for it. Since that hasn't happened yet (in fact it will still be 11 more weeks until he is sworn in), let's not jump to conclusions shall we? I would assume that you, being a patriotic American, would like Obama to succeed and be a good president. Give him a chance.
Posted 11:50 AM, 12/01/2008
LJL
It's just not going to be as much fun around here with adults running the government, especially pragmatic, rational ones.
Comment removed.
Posted 11:17 AM, 12/01/2008
SBVFT Contributor
We will of course need to get the permission of the UN Security Council, right Libz? MARK STEYN: "Here's the lesson of the past three years: The UN kills. In 2003, you'll recall, the US was reviled as a unilateralist cowboy because it and its coalition of the poodles waged an illegal war unauthorised by the UN against a sovereign state run by a thug regime that was no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders, which it killed in large numbers (Kurds and Shia). Well, Washington learned its lesson. Faced with another thug regime that's no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders which it kills in large numbers (African Muslims and southern Christians), the unilateralist cowboy decided to go by the book. No unlawful actions here. Instead, meetings at the UN. Consultations with allies. Possible referral to the Security Council. And as I wrote on this page in July 2004: "The problem is, by the time you've gone through the UN, everyone's dead." And as I wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph in September 2004: "The US agreed to go the UN route and it looks like they'll have a really strongish compromise resolution ready to go about a week after the last villager's been murdered and his wife gang-raped." Several hundred thousand corpses later Clooney is now demanding a "stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur". Agreed. So let's get on to the details. If by "multinational" Clooney means a military intervention authorised by the UN, then he's a poseur and a fraud, and we should pay him no further heed. Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own. "
Posted 11:09 AM, 12/01/2008
Captain Awesome
Obama talked tough about Pakistan. It looks like he may get a chance to back up his words with actions.
Comment removed.
Posted 10:49 AM, 12/01/2008
jmc
Isn't the litmus test for military action whether the attackee actually attacked us? I mean, that's what I've been hearing ad nauseum for eight years. All you leftist "hawks" better be thinking clearly here. War is hard, war is bloody, American soldiers will be killed, and so will innocent civilians. War is still war whether it is waged by a Republican or a Democrat. Don't think it will be a picnic just because Obama is running the show. Be prepared for the political consequences if things go badly. You have to support it 24/7, not vote for it then head for the hills once the problems start.
Posted 10:36 AM, 12/01/2008
chasing history
Bush didn't lift a finger to stop genocide in Darfur because the people were brown and had no oil.
17 comments | View All | Paginate Comments
About Will Bunch
Will's book: Learn about it here and purchase it here.

Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.

E-mail Will by clicking here.

PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...

...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.

Thanks.

Blog Roll
Philly/National
 
Atrios
 
Kiko's House
 
Suburban Guerilla
 
Booman Tribune
 
All-Spin Zone
 
Philly (Dragonballyee)
 
Afro-Netizen
 
Rowhouse Logic
 
MyDD
 
Bad Attitudes
 
Billmon
 
iFlipFlop
 
CorrenteWire
 
upyernoz
 
Tattered Coat
 
Fables of the Reconstruction
 
Slacktivist
Philly
 
Citizen Mom
 
The Next Mayor
 
Philly Future
 
Philadelphia Will Do
 
Philebrity
 
Young Philly Politics
 
Phillyblog
 
Welcome to Phillyville
 
Phawker
 
A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
 
Keystone Blog
 
Philadelphia - America's Hometown
 
BlankBaby
 
Above Average Jane
 
Phillyist
 
Metroblogging Philadelphia
 
The Clog
Politics
 
Josh Marshall
 
Daily Kos
 
Juan Cole
 
Oliver Willis
 
Andy Borowitz
 
War and Piece
 
Wonkette
 
BuzzFlash
 
Raw Story
 
Cursor
 
Crooks and Liars
 
Swing State Project
 
Kevin Drum
 
Talk Left
 
AmericaBlog
 
Hullabaloo
 
Mad Kane
 
Think Progress
 
Jesus' General
 
The Carpetbagger Report
 
Majikthise
 
Echidne of the Snakes
 
David Sirota
 
Glenn Greenwald
 
TBogg
 
Fire Dog Lake
 
Taylor Marsh
 
Matthew Yglesias
 
Jon Swift
 
Drudge Report
Sports
 
Beer Leaguer
 
The 700 Level
 
Dick Polman
 
Balls, Sticks and Stuff
 
Shallow Center
 
Philling Station
 
Phillies Nation
 
A Citizen's Blog
 
The Good Phight
Media
 
Romenesko
 
Editor and Publisher
 
Pressthink
 
Buzzmachine
 
The Inksniffer
 
Media Bloodhound
 
Eat the Press
 
Mickey Kaus
 
Media (Huffington Post)
If you must
 
Blinq
 
The Corner
 
Instapundit
 
Andrew Sullivan
 
Free Republic
 
James Taranto
 
Blonde Sagacity
 
ScrappleFace
 
Blogorrhea