Validity of Humanitarian intervention?

This first hit me during the Eminem concert , don't even get me started on "Why" but I guess the destruction that is happening in many parts of the world got me thinking if - Humanitarian intervention would ever be a good idea?

Humanitarian intervention doesn't happen for humanitarian reasons. Example: the Rwandan crisis/civil war wasn't officially called a genocide as the UN (backed by wealthy nations) then would have been forced to intervene, which it didn't want to. Mostly countries that serve political/economic/military interests are recipient of humanitarian intervention.The US doesn't want political freedom and civil liberties for Syrians. It wants to control the country and its government, as an ally of Israel and enemy of Iran.Edited by lalalee - 9 years ago

I'm copy pasting an essay I wrote for an online class assignment. It addresses an issue diametrically opposite to the topic in question, but I think several aspects are relevant.

War is Civilized

Perhaps the greatest paradox of war is that it is not barbaric or uncivilized. War is not a reflection of the carnal and animistic aspect of human nature. On the contrary war is civilized. It is the hallmark of a civilized society. War is not just about military might and power, but is an expression of culture, values and beliefs. It can represent social, economic and political bonds. Society as it stands today owes greatly to the wars of the past. Our civilization has been forged and shaped by war throughout history.

However, the question of war still looms over us. Is humanity doomed to war? Will our society and civilization continue to be shaped by the death and blood of war? Or has our civilization reached a place where we no longer need to resort to the violent means of war?

It is easy to be optimistic. Despite the ongoing violence and conflict across the globe, the perspective to war and violence has dramatically changed. Opposition to war has increased significantly over the years. War is no longer seen as easily justifiable and a necessary evil.  There is more emphasis on diplomacy, negotiations and mutually beneficial solutions. Unlike civilizations of the past we have organizations dedicated to peace on a global scale. Perhaps through incremental changes over time we can foresee a future where wars cease to exist. Human society may be shaped into a state of global peace.

This vision of a peaceful future is not just optimistic, but extremely idealistic too. War has been a continuous presence in the landscape of human history. A closer examination of human society and behavior reveals that a world without war is improbable and unrealistic. For wars to cease existing many aspects of human nature would have to cease to exist as well.

War is legal

War is negotiation

War is transaction

War is resolution

In his book "The Verdict of Battle" James Q. Whitman makes some stunning revelations about war. Unlike today where war is considered the last means to resolve disagreements, our ancestors had a radically different view of war. To them war was fought to resolve disagreements and was perhaps the most reliable and effective method to resolve conflict. The process of war was very structured and systematic. There were clear rules for winners and losers resulting in lasting resolutions of disagreement. War was not defined by its violence or atrocity, but by the courage and honor of its structure. It was a simple means to an end.

By demonizing war we have taken away from humanity its oldest and most effective tool for conflict resolution. Whitman explains how our modern ideology to promote peace and disavow war is actually counterproductive. Instead of a fair transaction to settle a dispute war has been reduced to an ideological moral battle. There is an autocracy of moral righteousness where people are forced to subscribe to a moral ideology. Outlawing of war has led war to exist outside its limits. Terrorism, insurgency, lawless occupations are all the result of stripping war of its meaning and purpose.

The paradox of war is that we need war more than we need peace. We need war as a means to settle our disputes. We need war to determine victors and losers and negotiate outcome. Without war society tends to fall into lawlessness and chaos. Moral righteousness and peace are commendable ideologies, but the irony is that often times it requires war to determine the moral right.

War is peace

War is not merely a structural necessity to resolve conflict, but war can actually be a means to peace itself. The infamous quote from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984' may sound ridiculous and absurd. However, there is profound truth to the notion that war is peace. In the novel the omnipresent and controlling state of Oceania uses War is Peace' as a means to manipulate and control its citizens through perpetual war. In reality many economists, philosophers and politicians have argued that war is actually good for peace and stability.  

Earlier this year on April 15th the Washington Post published a highly controversial op-ed. The article featured the image of a nuclear explosion with the tag line War is brutal. The alternative is worse'. Professor Ian Morris further elaborated in his piece that in the long run war makes us safer and richer. Unpalatable as it maybe, there is ironic truth to the opinion.

Just how Oceania's war with Eurasia rallies its citizens together behind big brother, war is responsible for creating a sense of nationalism. War has the ability to erase differences and bring together people as one. Every nation has several social, economic, cultural and political divisive factors. Most nations experience a constant power struggle within itself amidst its conflicting groups. Whenever this internal struggle reaches a boiling point, war is the most effective solution to maintain internal peace.

The irony of war and peace is that a global state of peace is not possible without war. Whenever humanity reaches out towards peace of one kind, it will be achieved only through the means of war of another kind.

@Lalalee



Interesting case Afghanistan-Taliban was created during one Humanitarian intervention and was removed by another, in between a nation lost .

Edited by charminggenie - 9 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

War is Civilized

Perhaps the greatest paradox of war is that it is not barbaric or uncivilized. War is not a reflection of the carnal and animistic aspect of human nature. On the contrary war is civilized. It is the hallmark of a civilized society. War is not just about military might and power, but is an expression of culture, values and beliefs. It can represent social, economic and political bonds. Society as it stands today owes greatly to the wars of the past. Our civilization has been forged and shaped by war throughout history.

History is tricky ,  it has also taught us that civilizations can be destroyed to ruins if the craze for war is not curtailed. Hiroshima ,Nagasaki , the two world wars. With the way the world has encompassed deadly weapons , a war would not leave anything much to build on . There would be never ending destruction . 

Boundaries for sure have been redrawn with every passing war but has it changed the world or the power differences in any manner ? The reasons still stand, destruction increases with each attack. 

Now war has given us alternatives, diplomacy , communication ,economic leverages to sort out the differences in a more peaceful manner. 

However, the question of war still looms over us. Is humanity doomed to war? Will our society and civilization continue to be shaped by the death and blood of war? Or has our civilization reached a place where we no longer need to resort to the violent means of war?

This vision of a peaceful future is not just optimistic, but extremely idealistic too. War has been a continuous presence in the landscape of human history. A closer examination of human society and behavior reveals that a world without war is improbable and unrealistic. For wars to cease existing many aspects of human nature would have to cease to exist as well.

There would always be wars , as long as there exists differences of any sort the power imbalance would always give you two opposite shifts. But could the face of this war be changed, i mean battles replaced by economic sanctions or any other way.  We have seen this happen in many cases- like say China and India, with all the differences on land and otherwise, these two have managed to find an alternate battleground , as the idea of a full-fledged war would be utter destruction for the world.

War is legal

War is negotiation

War is transaction

War is resolution

^^ War is never legal. It is an enforced result. It provides no resolution to any problem

In his book "The Verdict of Battle" James Q. Whitman makes some stunning revelations about war. Unlike today where war is considered the last means to resolve disagreements, our ancestors had a radically different view of war. To them war was fought to resolve disagreements and was perhaps the most reliable and effective method to resolve conflict. The process of war was very structured and systematic. There were clear rules for winners and losers resulting in lasting resolutions of disagreement. War was not defined by its violence or atrocity, but by the courage and honor of its structure. It was a simple means to an end.

By demonizing war we have taken away from humanity its oldest and most effective tool for conflict resolution. Whitman explains how our modern ideology to promote peace and disavow war is actually counterproductive. Instead of a fair transaction to settle a dispute war has been reduced to an ideological moral battle. There is an autocracy of moral righteousness where people are forced to subscribe to a moral ideology. Outlawing of war has led war to exist outside its limits. Terrorism, insurgency, lawless occupations are all the result of stripping war of its meaning and purpose.

Whitman for all his brilliant analysis undermines the human thrust for power and supremacy. The reason why the war lost it's prime meaning was because with each battle the need for win became stronger. To ensure that , war eventually became demonized. You cannot separate the two. War itself is immoral , there is innocent killing , it cannot be anything else but that. The reason why we have insurgency and terrorism is not because we have subscribed to a moral ideology but because war has become more expensive and the risky. The idea of having one would destroy the world , it;s this truth which has put rightful shackles on war. The lawlessness , terrorism can be addressed on a state level or even by International community. But can a war ever remove that - won't it let to an increase of these factors. 

The paradox of war is that we need war more than we need peace. We need war as a means to settle our disputes. We need war to determine victors and losers and negotiate outcome. Without war society tends to fall into lawlessness and chaos. Moral righteousness and peace are commendable ideologies, but the irony is that often times it requires war to determine the moral right.

Agree on the paradox but this would have be a better fit for some another era. There is no way war could have ever solve a dispute and it has never. Take Mahabharata - by bypassing all other ways of settling dispute , Kauravas chose war which destroyed -everything. War did end it all for them but the cost was too much for humanity to take. This is not about peace or about moral ideology but about survival. 

War is peace

War is not merely a structural necessity to resolve conflict, but war can actually be a means to peace itself. The infamous quote from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984' may sound ridiculous and absurd. However, there is profound truth to the notion that war is peace. In the novel the omnipresent and controlling state of Oceania uses War is Peace' as a means to manipulate and control its citizens through perpetual war. In reality many economists, philosophers and politicians have argued that war is actually good for peace and stability.  

Earlier this year on April 15th the Washington Post published a highly controversial op-ed. The article featured the image of a nuclear explosion with the tag line War is brutal. The alternative is worse'. Professor Ian Morris further elaborated in his piece that in the long run war makes us safer and richer. Unpalatable as it maybe, there is ironic truth to the opinion.

@ Bold - Not in today's time. A defeat in war would make severe economic losses . Would breed insurgency and terrorism till the next war is not fought . The cycle take a break to return with more vigor and carnage. 

Just how Oceania's war with Eurasia rallies its citizens together behind big brother, war is responsible for creating a sense of nationalism. War has the ability to erase differences and bring together people as one. Every nation has several social, economic, cultural and political divisive factors. Most nations experience a constant power struggle within itself amidst its conflicting groups. Whenever this internal struggle reaches a boiling point, war is the most effective solution to maintain internal peace.

I need another post to discuss 1984- brilliant Book .

The irony of war and peace is that a global state of peace is not possible without war. Whenever humanity reaches out towards peace of one kind, it will be achieved only through the means of war of another kind.

True but we can certainly control the way these wars are fought. Like you said - "war of another kind",

Genie, good counterpoints.

I don't mean to glorify or make war righteous. However, historically it has been a simple way to settle disputes. Of course there was a heavy price to pay in terms of death and casualties. Losers of war faced far reaching and disastrous consequences. Yet, there was a sense of fair play and even honor, integrity, dignity of being a soldier.

Nowadays we see war as something demonic and inhumane, which has given rise to the alternate 'humanitarian intervention'. While it sounds positive and ideological I find it problematic and a form of moral imperialism.

There is no possible way for a third party to actually understand and empathize the conflict between other parties or within a nation. Israel-Palestine, Syria-Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam all these were/are complex issues with a myriad of political dynamics and histories. UN or third parties intervening don't understand them completely. No matter how well intentioned the efforts it messes things up.

Unlike an all out war the issues are never resolved. The disputes simmer and fester forever. It allows fringe groups and organizations to take enter the mix and make situations more volatile. Look at the negative domino effect of all so called humanitarian interventions. All it did was give rise to splintered religious and political ideologies waging an endless war.

Same thing in Africa. Genocide, rape and tribal warfare has escalated since humanitarian intervention instead of getting better. Can the white man who once took these people as slaves really be trusted to be someone who resolves their issues?

War is feral, brutal and exacts a heavy price. The alternative has been worse. Humanitarian intervention in the name of peace has lead to the entire world being lost in little simmering wars all over that take a constant stream of human toll much heavier than an outright war.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I don't mean to glorify or make war righteous. However, historically it has been a simple way to settle disputes. Of course there was a heavy price to pay in terms of death and casualties. Losers of war faced far reaching and disastrous consequences. Yet, there was a sense of fair play and even honor, integrity, dignity of being a soldier. 

Rapes , Jauhar, looting , plundering of the defeated State was always a consequence of war everywhere. Post War scenarios were never fair or moral - Slavery. Terms of resolution, like I said it aided to more resentment and prolonged the conflict. 

Wars have very rarely been fought with ethics - Greek wars, Persian conflicts - there are list of unfair weaponry or treacherous strategies used during the war. So I am not sure about the moral ring to it. Soldiers of  defeated army were usually taken as Slaves and were condemned to a worse faith than death.

Nowadays we see war as something demonic and inhumane, which has given rise to the alternate 'humanitarian intervention'. While it sounds positive and ideological I find it problematic and a form of moral imperialism. 

But humanitarian intervention still refers to a war itself, albeit it is painted as a moral "good" one. This is my argument , this intervention is also a sought of war and is mostly fought on all wrong reasons and never will result in peace. Take Maratha war against Britishers , Nizam  ruler fought against the Marathas because they believed the latter were destructive to the peace of the region and this required intervention. This caused a "War" - So war might have changed it's name to humanitarian intervention but it still remains far away from being source of peace.

There is no possible way for a third party to actually understand and empathize the conflict between other parties or within a nation. Israel-Palestine, Syria-Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam all these were/are complex issues with a myriad of political dynamics and histories. UN or third parties intervening don't understand them completely. No matter how well intentioned the efforts it messes things up. 

Unlike an all out war the issues are never resolved. The disputes simmer and fester forever. It allows fringe groups and organizations to take enter the mix and make situations more volatile. Look at the negative domino effect of all so called humanitarian interventions. All it did was give rise to splintered religious and political ideologies waging an endless war. 

Gulf Wars , Libiyan Conflict , two world wars, plethora of war battles in Afghanistan , Indo-Pak wars, they all remain unresolved and infact wars messed the conflict further. Perhaps the scale or war strategies have evolved considering a full scale war is impossible to happen without destroying the world but still war battles have happened and in almost all cases, they have increased the tensions. 

Human interventions are Wars . Full Stop. They are strategically used because an all out large scale war is not possible . 

Same thing in Africa. Genocide, rape and tribal warfare has escalated since humanitarian intervention instead of getting better. Can the white man who once took these people as slaves really be trusted to be someone who resolves their issues?

War is feral, brutal and exacts a heavy price. The alternative has been worse. Humanitarian intervention in the name of peace has lead to the entire world being lost in little simmering wars all over that take a constant stream of human toll much heavier than an outright war. 

I think Hadey, you got me wrong , I am not suggesting humanitarian intervention as the means to ease out conflicts rather I am accusing it to be nothing but war in the garb of "good vested reasons". For me the alternatives would be economic and  diplomatic  in nature.