Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Actually I meant "warfare" ironically, but quotes don't show up properly in diary titles.

There is much discussion right now about delivering aid to Burma without the consent or participation of the ruling junta. Both British and French officials have hinted at such action.

As for real intervention, the situation in Rwanda remains the biggest blot on the humanitarian record of the past several decades. Darfur is getting some aid, mostly despite the fake cooperation of the central government.

Then there is Clinton's (called NATO's as a face-saving measure) intervention when Serbia's crazed leaders went too far. I think most observers who don't have a stake in the outcome think this worked out better for most people.

We shouldn't let the mixed motives, poor planning and excessive militarism used in Iraq deter us from discussing better ways to deal with oppressive regimes in the future. Just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. There are lots of smart people in the world and sometimes one of them comes up with a novel idea.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh without doubt it's hard. But the locals will always have numerical supremacy and if the local govt decides they're not welcome things could get messy.

Our modern military supremacy is very good at destroying cities but as we've found in Iraq, not so good at targetting militias hidden amongst populations. It's a more level playing field, the americans couldn't achieve anything in somalia because of that.

Peacekeeping means there has to be a peace to keep. We might as well suggest that NATO goes in to enforce the '67 border in Palestine, ain't gonna happen.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun May 18th, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series