Rwanda was a horror. So are acts of genocide or brutal civil war in countless other countries we've chosen to ignore, including some in Africa right now. If the American people want to intercede in all of these conflicts, then that's a debate well worth having. However, this raises the questions of cost and mission scope. Do we put 150,000 U.S. troops in every such bloody hellhole and keep them there forever? Do we try to work with hitherto fairly ineffective international organizations such as the United Nations or the African Union so dozens of countries at least have skin in the game? Who decides when who invades where and under what terms?

"We ought to do something" is easy to say, but not so easy actually to implement.

And saying that because we can't do everything, we should do nothing isn't much of an argument.

Mike

OK. I'm willing to hear your plan, Mike. What would you have us do?

If we invade and occupy Rwanda, how many U.S. troops do we send and how long do they stay?

And what about Sudan? Kosovo? Angola? Sierra Leone? India? The Congo? Kyrgyzstan? All of these countries (and more) have seen bloody genocide and/or ethnic cleansing in modern times. Do we invade and occupy all of these countries? Or do you save some people but not others? How do you justify that?

And of course, will you, Mike, be picking up a gun and going? Or will you be sending others into harm's way while you boast about all that you've done to keep the peace?

Which are only politically motivated, having nothing whatsoever to do with balancing the budget.



And they're right. It's personal against Barack Obama. Make him the guy who was in charge when all these programs went down.



They weren't when BushJr and Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney were in charge.



Nope. I'm just not so naive as you about how the federal budget is written and managed.

Allen, Obama is proposing a reduction in spending -- not just the Republicans (although Obama's cuts would be nowhere near as deep and would be less inclined to hit programs like Head Start).

We are entering a period of more limited spending, period.

Everyone in both parties says we have to start making choices.

My choices is for a bunch of stuff other than Tomahawk missiles.

So following that logic, since the US can't solve all famine/disease/disasters/etc, we need to stop providing any money whatsoever for the countries we’re already helping. Japan can go fuck itself, as can Haiti. AIDS funding in Africa must be dropped to zero because we don't pay a dime for AIDS patients in China. It's all or nothing, right? Especially since you're probably not headed out to physically provide any of that assistance (apologies if you've been running a clinic in Sumatra for the last six months).

Does this mean that if the police can't stop every crime and catch every criminal, they should stop putting any effort in the areas where they are effective? If a single building burns to the ground, the fire department should cease all operations? Like a doctor who can't cure every disease or heal every injury, do you save some people but not others? How do you justify that?

At least the Tomahawk missiles help maintain American military supremacy which is useful for the French and the Arab League when they want to manipulate an inexperienced commander-in-chief.

*is either nuanced or agnostic on current operations in Libya, haven't decided yet*

So you agree with “arguably” then.



That’s flippant. Crossroads Arabia on no fly zones.

A no-fly zone is, by definition, a military action, not a political statement. If a country upon which a no-fly resolution is imposed does not accede to the demand, then it must be enforced. To be enforced means that aircraft and pilots must go in and shoot down offending aircraft. Before they do that, they want to ensure that they themselves will not be shot down. That means attacks on anti-aircraft installations, the rendering of airfields unusable, the destruction of all likely threats (such as radar) to their own aircraft. That means bombs and missiles will be used. Bombs and missiles create big explosions; explosions are not precise in destroying only equipment. Anyone near the equipment being destroyed is likely to be injured, if not killed. Just what did Amr Moussa expect here?



Juan Cole with ten reasons it is different.

*sigh*



Both sides are playing a game of Chicken with the budget. Republicans are using the deficit as a reason to try and cut social programs they never liked, defund non-commercial media, bust unions, undo the whole New Deal if possible. Democrats are pushing them towards that, in the hopes voters will see that and blame the R's for it come November, 2012.

Whatever the outcome, the budget will still not be balanced.

I'd be happy if we just stopped giving money to YOU.

Surely you're not as stupid as you sound here.

Do you really not see a difference between a purely humanitarian mission, such as providing aid to Japan or Haiti, and a military mission, such as sending in missiles and fighter jets?

I'd love to view what we're doing in Libya as a humanitarian mission. But we're not providing clean drinking water. We're bombing and killing people in support of a rebellion the identity of which -- the final goal of which -- remains unknown to us. Libya isn't an established nation, it's a collection of angry, rival tribes that colonial powers slapped together on a map in modern history for their own convenience. We're mucking about in affairs that we don't understand, and we're doing it with $3.7 million missiles.