Calculating the lives safed by the intervention against those that have been lost in the civil war poses indeed a moral problem. However, there are two aspects that need to be taken into account:

1. We only know by hindsight how many lives have been lost until the war ends. Hard to imagine to tell the population of Benghazi: "We are able to safe your lives but won't do so because, perhaps, maybe, possibly, the ensuing civil war might kill more of your fellow countrymen." At the moment of decision, we know that it is possible to avert a looming massacre. What we don't know is: how long will it take before the war ends and how many lives will it cost. measuring "known lives safed by intervention" against "hypothetical lives safed by non-intervention" is tricky in my view.

2. Take Srebrenica as an example: by hindsight we know that the shock of the genocide in srebrenica contributed largely to the decision of the international community to step in and bomb the Serb militias into submission. No Srebrenica, no NATO bombs on the Serbs, no Dayton peace agreement.

Now Imagine we were able to travel back in time and had the chance to avert the Srebrenica genocide. If we were to count lives safed, we would have to guess: is it better to save 8.000 innocents murdered in Srebrenica and have the Bosnian civil war go on with probably many more casualties in the months and years ahead? Or should we opt for turning a blind eye on the genocide knowing that the event will galvanize a response of the international community that will ultimately lead to an end of the civil war? Tricky! The latter would be the mathematically more plausibel option. But neither politics nor ethics are doing the math right. If those who say that "we failed in Srebrenica" aren't liers or just short-sighted, then there is much to the argument that there are crimes that we simply cannot tollerate, even if eventually more people die from our intervention than from us just standing idly by.

I think that war is not about how many people's life they can save, you know for example, US have the power to finish any war within just 1 or 2 months, they even have the power not to even start it at all, it sounds wacky but in my opinion wars are for those who have the ability to stay longer to cover up the real insight and get more chance to study the ground and see how much more they can get into their posession or what they're going to benefit (talking about land, oil, reputation, technology, you name it) and this only happens on field, while people where thinking how to: save my marriage, they come back from work and finds that their wife is no longer alive, or they get the notice somehow, what was the point of everything they were planning; who is leading the war interests have nothing to do, at all with people, I don't think they care enough to even stop a war based on so many deaths.

The whole idea of precedents in IP is ridiculous and should be ignored. Do you remember in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, one of the arguments against it was that it would set a "bad precedent" that would allow "pre-emptive wars" in the future? The Iraq war was undoubtedly a colossal blunder, but the "bad precedent" argument remains incredibly stupid. Do we imagine that someday, maybe 30 years from now, Country X's generals will be sitting around and one of them says, "Country Y is probably going to attack us soon. I wish there were some way we could attack them pre-emptively, to gain the advantage of surprise and first strike, but unfortunately no country has ever attacked another country pre-emptively, so we can't. Too bad," and then another member of the junta says, "Hey, wait a sec! Didn't the US pre-emptively attack Iraq back in 2003? So you see, there is a precedent for it. We can do it after all!" First of all, if a "precedent" needs to be set, I think it's been set about a million times already. We have 5,000 years of recorded history in which to find precedents, if they're needed, which they aren't. Also, a precedent is not needed for anything nations do in IP. There's no court of law in which they can be tried, no judge which can hold them to account. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Libya intervention has indeed "set a precedent" that R2P is now the law, that humanitarian intervention to protect civilians is now required. Now let's say 5 years from now there's a humanitarian crisis in weak African Country Z, but powerful Eurasian Country W won't intervene, won't exercise their "responsibility to protect." What will the other members of the "international community" do about it? Go to war against Country W to enforce the "precedent"? Obviously, they will do nothing, because such precedents are dead letters the instant they cease to be useful to the Great Powers.

Blair started down the slippery slope to Iraq after a successful intervention by British troops in Sierra Leone. This was started, unofficially, when a senior officer sent to evacuate foreign nationals realised that his force was capable of stopping a viscious rebel movement in its tracks. On that occasion the intervention was on the side of the government and initially did not even have the approval of HMG let alone the international community. Nevertheless, it was a success.

Mentioned in this article is the idea that the only way to protect civilians in practical terms was to side with the rebels. The tone is also that Qaddafi was a bad guy. One does not have to think to far to imagine that "humanitarian" intervention was a mere pretext for a political intervention. Richard Haass has said as much. And while the author wants us to imagine that Qaddafi's conscripts are not willing participants in the defense of their country, it must also be noted that many of the so-called "liberators" are said to have come from outside Libya's borders. Otherwise, this essay pretty much has it right, and is an excellent contribution to the current dialogue on the dilemma presented to future planners. Powell's statement might have been better put, or better interpreted, "Break it, pay for it." That's probably what he meant when he said, "Break it, own it."

Humanitarian Intervention is such a tricky issue. If things hadn't gotten well the West would be getting lambasted for another failed intervention. So will this set a precedent? Of course not -- the West has been getting involved in other countries wars -- whether intra or civil -- since the dawn of Western power.

Alex @ Goals

And Palestinian land will shrink, suicide bombers will respond, rockets will be launched and Israelis killed. Now Hezbollah and Sunnis have started up again in Lebanon. And Iran is powering up its nuclear capacity. Israel may feel impelled to react at some point if it calculates either Lebanon or Iran needs to be nipped in the bud. Add Syria to the toxic mix in Lebanon; and if things boil over there then Palestine will be left to sit and stew on the perennial international back burner. Hope, at this point, is not even a diamond in the rough. porno porno porno porno web tasarım

Let's say, with regard to argument, the Libya intervention offers indeed "set the precedent" that R2P has become the law, which humanitarian treatment to protect ordinary people is now needed. Now let's imagine 5 years through now there is a humanitarian turmoil in fragile African Nation Z, however powerful Eurasian Nation W will not intervene, will not exercise their own "responsibility to protect.Inch What will another members of the actual "international community" do about this?