|
Politically, I am as far from the Guerrilla guy as anyone here and on this issue, I would disagree with you.
IMO, opposing all intervention on principle is too sweeping. There are levels of intervention, the least reactionary or aggressive of which should be considered (or at least on the table) as part of our broad foreign policy options, even if only as a potential deterrent.
If the intervention is to protect civilians from the real possibility of massacre by a govt responding to a populist movement AND has a UN mandate, AND is not unilateral, AND has the support of the civilians of the country as well as the leaders of other countries in the region, AND does not include US boots on the ground, AND if the cost in US lives and dollars is low (by DoD standards), AND if there is little risk of a response that could cause greater harm to the country and the region, then I think it is appropriate, given the risk/rewards to both the civilians and the US.
I support this action or this limited intervention. My disagreement with Obama is in the manner in which he is trying to fudge the War Powers Act to continue the action w/o Congressional approval.
|