International Interventions and their comparability

Interestingly, the creator of that video (Kyle Kulinski) has actually spoken in favor of overseas interventionism, though he believes in a strict interpretation of the war powers clause, basically that congress should have total control over all military action. That’s not a position I agree with, but far from non-interventionism.

The specific case that video is discussing is also somewhat arguable. Biden frames it in his usual foot-in-mouth style, of course. What he’s talking about is the fact that the Obama administration withheld a loan guarantee until a state prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was out of office. Shokin was massively unpopular in Ukraine, to the point of people protesting in the streets for his removal, on account of the fact that he was completely corrupt and used his position to block anti-corruption initiatives. It wasn’t just the US pressuring for his removal either, the EU was pushing to get rid of him as well since he was suspected of several serious crimes.

I don’t think that withholding financial aid until a corrupt top official is removed is an unethical, or even surprising, course of action.

As far as the claim Obama did as poor a job as Bush, that’s demonstrably false. Not only did Obama not frivolously invade several countries like Bush did, he spent basically his entire administration cleaning up Bush’s mess in the Middle East. His campaign against ISIS was incredibly successful, and his anti-corruption and anti-insurgency initiatives in Afghanistan were far more successful than anything Bush tried. Now, I think Obama’s strategy in Syria was a massive failure. However, this was because he used to light a touch. He should have committed forces to Syria sooner, and actually enforced the “red line” he laid down for Assad.

Based on the username and statements like “so-called “defense contractors”” I’m guessing you’re unlikely to accept or even consider any other positions on this topic. However, I’ll just point out that the position that since people will die if we intervene means we should leave them to endless civil war at worst or the whims of a brutal dictator at best seems morally bankrupt. Yes, people will die either way. However a successful intervention promises a better future, while doing nothing does not.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 6th 2019 at 9:18:55 AM

@ultimatum:

The video provides evidence. You don't think proving something is better than just claiming it? In that case, I have dirt on Trump and Pence that'll lead to both of them being inpeached and I'm willing to sell it to you! Just email your credit card info and home address to thisisascam@sucker.com and I promise I'll only take $10 from your account and no more than that and then I'll totally mail you the dirt. Don't ask me to prove I have the dirt in the first place. I just do, trust me.

Also, how does coercing a judicial system in another country not count as imperialism?

Edited by SandersSupporter on Feb 6th 2019 at 9:27:22 AM

@Archonspeaks:

There's a lot to respond to there and I unfortunately have to step away from the internet soon. I'll get back to you.

So, you’re in favor of providing aid to corrupt institutions?

There’s really only a few ways your position can be taken here. Either you don’t believe the US should provide financial aid to anyone, which is a patently ridiculous position, you believe that the US should provide aid but should let the country in question do whatever they want with it, including use it for crime, or you actively support Shokin’s pro-corruption initiatives.

I’ll also add that it’s interesting you bring up this particular case. If the US withheld financial aid to Saudi Arabia on account of its numerous human rights violations that move would be almost universally praised, but it’s basically the exact same thing as what’s happening here. This story has only seen significant traction from what I like to call the “RT left”, who dislike the US so much they somehow loop over into being pro-Russia. Funnily enough Russia was a vocal critic of Shokin’s firing, and many suspected him of running interference for them in the Ukraine. Using this story to prove your case perhaps isn’t the best look.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 6th 2019 at 10:52:52 AM

At least be bothered enough the summarize this video that supposedly provides evidence of everything you're saying.

@archonspeaks: So if America needed money and Russia refused to give it to us unless a Supreme Court Justice they disliked stepped down so Trump could then appoint a justice Russia liked better, you wouldn't consider that the least bit shady?

Also, strawmanning people you disagree with by claiming they're anti-America and pro-Russia isn't your best look. It kinda makes you look ridiculous, to be honest. Reminds me of when Bush supporters used to claim Democrats were pro-Al-Qaeda.

When I earlier asked "did we make any more progress in Iraq under Obama than under Bush", I literally meant the question "did we?" because I wasn't sure. Sorry I didn't clarify that. I still don't see what makes Obama's invasion of Syria any less frivilous than any of Bush's invasions, though.

I haven't seen any video where Kulinski supported overseas intervention (and I've seen a great many of his videos), but if that's true it may be a rare point of disagreement between him and I, depending on the context. I'm fairly sure he defines non-interventionism as only using the military in self-defense, which I agree with. By that definition, there's nothing about believing Congress should have the sole power to declare war that's incompatible with non-interventionism.

Finally, if there will be suffering and death regardless of whether America intervenes or not, then how can either point of view be morally bankrupt? If I bought into some of your logic, I could just as easily claim that your perspective is morally bankrupt because you support leaving foriegn populations at the mercy of American drone operators (or missle launchers, or other people who kill civilians, but I hear about drones being used a lot more often). That's one reason I don't buy into your logic.

I just don't understand what we can accomplish in Syria now that we couldn't accomplish in Afghanistan in 17 or 18 years or Iraq in 15 or 16 years. Will you still think there's a point to it all if we're still in all three countries 100 years from now?

What would success in any of these nation-building wars even look like?

Edited by SandersSupporter on Feb 6th 2019 at 12:22:23 PM

It would be shady because the Russians would be lying about the corruption and about their motive for withholding aid.

If you think that the Ukrainian official wasn’t corrupt and that the US had an altered motive than that at least follows, but then the argument is over that, not if withholding government support because of ethical questions is somehow imperialism.

Because it has? Because we stopped a genocide in Syria? Because we were smarter about it, because our cause was more just? Shit, because instead of ignoring the local people we worked with them m

Also since were people on the left against allying with anarcho-communists? Many of the Kurdishg groups are communist revolutionaries, but for some reason we should leave them to die?

Also we didn’t try to do the same as in Iraq, Afganistan and Vietnam, in Iraq there was no genocide or widespread popular revolt, instead we overthrew a government that was more stable than previously because we wanted its resources. In Afganistan we overthrew an enemy regime that aided an attack against us, we then bungled the state building process because we got to busy preparing for Iraq (also because Pakistan made things difficult). In Vietnam the focus was on defeating communism and supporting a brutal regime against both its own people and a neighbouring nation.

The four situations are very different, if you want comparable situations let’s look at Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya.

Yes.

Also it turns out there’s more to history than just Obama and Bush, we’ve got a number of good examples for under Clinton, plus there’s also Libya, which while a half done job was still much better handled than Iraq of Afghanistan.

Because Obama didn’t invade Syria, an I nation is a specific thing, a targeted air campaign to cripple opossing ground forces and enable local troops to regain control is not an invasion. Nor is engaging in peacekeeping when invited in by either the local or the U.N. (as in former Yugoslavia) an invasion.

Obama never invaded anywhere, that’s the difference.

More is acomlishable in Syria (and Libya) because there’s strong local popular support for outside help.

Look let’s go for a simple analogy, I have friends many of whom have problems in their life, if they invite me into her home to help them get things back on track I can do a lot of good, if I barge into their home and forcibly take control over their life and demand they do things my way so they can improve things will go nowhere fast.

That’s the difference, the difference with helping is always if you’re wanted, our helped is wanted and asked for in Syria (and to an extent in Libya), nobody asked us to go into Iraq or of Afganistan, that was all our idea.

That’s before we touch on all the boneheaded stupid desicions that had to be made to get Iraq and Afganistan into the state they’re in today.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 6th 2019 at 8:39:22 PM

"the Russians would be lying about the corruption and about their motive for withholding aid."

Says who? In real life, even people doing bad things are usually not Card Carrying Villains. Maybe Russia would genuinely believe that it's doing the right thing and thus conclude a legal official is corrupt as soon as that official returns a verdict Russia doesn't like. Maybe America and the EU are thinking along similar lines in this case, classifying that prosecutor as corrupt simply because he's not doing what the west wants. Even if he is corrupt, that's unlikely to be the reason the US government wants him gone since they're fine with corruption when it benefits them.

Anyway, getting an official replaced with one who does what you want is obviously an extension of your power, and trying to extend your country's power is the dictionary definition of "imperialism" even if it's good imperialism.

"because our cause was more just"

I've never been clear on what our cause is in Syria.

"In Iraq there was no genocide"

But didn't Hussien use chemical weapons on his own people?

"instead we overthrew a government that was more stable than previously because we wanted their resources"

I suspect our involvement in Syria is mostly about resources and/or a Cold War mentality of having to beat Russia.

Not sure what you mean about anarcho-communists. I never said anything about them and haven't the faintest idea what anarcho-communists is.

"The four situations are very different."

But they have two very important similarities. They're all cases where we attempted nation building and/or got involved in someone else's civil war and in none of them did we accomplish our objectives.

"turns out there's more to history than just Obama and Bush"

Yup; it even turns out I included a pre-Bush example. You do know Vietnam happened under Johnson, right?

"Obama didn't invade Syria"

Entering a country's airspace and bombing them isn't an invasion? Surely you don't really believe that.

Edited by SandersSupporter on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:13:41 AM

An invasion would be boots on ground,troops deployed ect, bomb runs are just an invasion of their airspace,not a full on invasion

It’s really not the definition of imperialism, it’s the definition of geopolitical influencing, but imperialism is a specific kind of geopolitical influencing that involves exploitation of the powerless by the powerful.

The cause myself and other are advocating for is the stopping of genocide, the enforcing of international laws against chemical weapon usage, the protecting of free expression and the prevention of power growth amongst destabalising international actors.

Not in the timeframe leading up to the invasion of Iraq, it would been a legitimate reason to overthrow him when he was doing it, many years after the fact it’s a pretty weak cover story.

Having to beat Russia yes (but that’s a good thing), resources no, resource exploitation of the kind seen in Iraq is very difficult and requires both a full occupation and prep time for the disaster capitalist vultures that feed in such a situation. There’s been none of that in Syria, on the ground local allies make Iraq-style resource exploitation a non-starter.

Long story short the groups being backed in Syria aren’t some military dictatorship, authoritarian strongman or religious extremists, they’re a multi-ethnic, gender-equal group of leftists, but for some reason much of the international left want to leave them to die.

Nation building and civil war involvement are different things, the US did nation building in both Japan and Germany after World War Two, it’s gotten involved in civil wars and then left after, hell Syria hasn’t truly involved an attempt at nation building, that’s a much more long term thing than the active situation allows.

Also Syria isn’t over, so it’s not fair to say it failed, Hell the main objective of preventing ISIS growth was a great success.

In the context in which you used the word no that’s not an invasion, it’s an attack, but it hasn’t even been an attack on the government of Syria (the US hasn’t bombed Assad), it was a series of attack on an unrecognised rebel group that crossed international borders.

Russia repeatedly ranks as one of the most corrupt developed Nations in the world. The fact that you seem to be denying that is worrying.

Edited by megaeliz on Feb 6th 2019 at 7:09:38 AM

Could be they're a shill.

Literally they get their glorious REAL SOCIALISM and are willing to let them being killed in the name of Anti """Imperialism""".

That's why I want nothing to do with the label.

Hell you get more than that out of the Kurds, if they establish an indepndant Kurdistan connecting multiple Kurdish regions we will see the end of an artificially drawn border in the sand made by the French and British empires.

Socialists of colour tearing down imperial borders, what’s not to love for anti-imperialists?

That USA, evilest nation in history at the same level of the Nazis (who were beaten only for the soviets!), is uh..."fine" with that.

Said this. Is possible being Anti Imperialist without being a socialist. I hate how they take all the labels for opossing the far right.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Feb 6th 2019 at 8:14:57 AM

Sanders Supporter: The comparison between the US and Russia and the Ukraine and the US is absurd. Not a good comparison at all.

The US and the Ukraine are allies. They asked the US for support. The US has the means to provide support. None of those things are true for Russia, and Russia to top it off is one of the most consistently malicious and corrupt counties on the planet.

Of course, your pro-Assad and pro-Russia stances are beginning to become very clear. “RT leftism” indeed.

My question, then, is this; In the case of Viktor Shokin, what do you believe the US should have done? I’ll remind you that even the Ukrainian people wanted him gone, they were protesting in the streets for his removal. Really the only groups who wanted him to stay were criminals and Russia.

More broadly, I suppose my question is this; if an ally requests financial aid, should a country be able to place preconditions on the delivery of that aid?

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 6th 2019 at 6:56:30 AM

"However, I'll just point out that the position that since people will die if we intervene means we should leave them to endless civil war at worst or the whims of a brutal dictator at best seems morally bankrupt. Yes, people will die either way. However a successful intervention promises a better future, while doing nothing does not."

I'm not going to call strawman, because there are people stupid enough to believe the position Archon describes.

My position agrees with Archon's, but this hinges on the stated contingency that the intervention must be successful, and not in a Pyrrhic way for the locals. A decisive victory for democracy and freedom is the optimal outcome, but that's not what we're getting. We're getting wars that have been going on for eighteen, sixteen, and eight years respectively, leaving the countries overall worse off than they were under a fucking Islamist theocracy and two military dictatorships respectively, one of which was under global embargo.

Personally, I cannot stand RT people, regardless of whether they're 'left' or 'right', they're mostly, plainly, massively wrong. However, if people have come to dislike and mistrust you enough that they'll uncritically follow anyone who attacks you, you have, at the very least, a PR problem. RT has a Bannonesque way of starting with real problems and then swerving into moon logic.

Regarding the hypothetical of using soft power to influence government appointments under false pretenses, please let me know if the US hasn't done exactly that before. One of the things that Trump struggles to understand is that that's the sort of thing that foreign aid is for. It's not the poorest countries that are the recipients of the most aid.

As for Rojava, they're doing wonderful things there, but I feel like they're as doomed as their Spanish Civil War counterparts. Democracy ,justice, and freedom stand to gain from their sustainable victory, but none of the Great Powers, be they Super or Regional, does. I'm getting a political equivalent of The Firefly Effect.

Just a comment but taking real facts and taking them in counterfactual directions is the sign of good if not great propaganda in that if you're entirely lying then it becomes easy to debunk your claims but if you base it on a foundation of (relative) truth then your narrative become significantly more effective.

Just an interesting point I wanted to share

Here’s the thing: thinking it’s going to be a decisive and quick victory is why we’re not getting any victory at all. Putting these countries back together is a long process, and it’s one we need to fully commit to for it to work.

Not all interventions need to be decisive and have a clear end point in order to show a net gain, either for the intervening country, the international community, or the people who actually live there. Afghanistan, Sudan and other places are or were failed states in which a vacuum of power and the lack of the rule of law allowed authoritarian terrror groups to gain control over territory and people using armed force. If the peacekeeping forces in these areas withdrew there is a very good chance that law and order would collapse again, threatening both the local residents and the citizens of the intervening countries. As long as we stay there, people are safer and better off than if we leave. Sure, it would be ideal to build a self-governing state that could look after the interests of its people with representation, but in some cases, for a variety of reasons, that might not be practical with the resources available. Why sufficient resources arent available to build a self-governing democracy is another discussion, but regarless of that, justification of an international intervention need only meet the "better than the available alternatives" criteria to be justifiable. One needs public support in both the country supplying the forces, and the people who live in the intervention zone. If you can meet that, and are willing to pay the price in money and lives, then I see no reason why certain interventions cant become indefinate in nature.

Edited by DeMarquis on Feb 7th 2019 at 8:52:59 AM

Yeah look at Somalia, it has no end point, but it's better, it's been slowly improving for years because of the African Union intervention, eventually we may well see a fully functional Somali state, but it's gonna be a while.

This stuff can take an awful long time, we're still not done in Bosnia, over twenty years on, but it's better.

Spartan, you make an excellent point. Today at work people brought up the Protocols Of The Sages Of Zion. I was the designated guy expected to push back against it. Like, I'm the 'officialist' who believes the Moon Landing happened. I'm the gullible one. What am I supposed to do in the face of how widespread, intricate, and deep-seated this stuff is?

"Putting these countries back together is a long process, and it’s one we need to fully commit to for it to work."

Yeah, but I don't think the US will. I don't even think they can. And even if they could and would, if the help consists of imposing things like the dogmatic application of Austrian Austerity economics, disempowerment of the locals' sovereignty and representation in favour of economic juntas, making the country an open playground for the US businesses and billionaires with the right connections, like in, say, freaking Puerto Rico, we're not likely to see much improvement. And all of that, paid for with the US taxpayer's money, blood, sweat, toil, and tears.

"As long as we stay there, people are safer and better off than if we leave."

Yeah, how long before you ride into the sunset, cowboy?

"justification of an international intervention need only meet the "better than the available alternatives" criteria to be justifiable."

That's exactly what needs to be established.

"One needs public support in both the country supplying the forces, and the people who live in the intervention zone. If you can meet that,"

How? Hold a referendum in a war zone? Hey, oppressive government, let us conduct a representative poll to ensure your population would welcome us coming to depose you through lethal force.

"and are willing to pay the price in money and lives,"

Are 'you',though? Whose lives, whose money, and how do you get their informed consent?

"then I see no reason why certain interventions cant become indefinate in nature."

Well, if all those conditions are met, neither do I.

I'm sorry I got a little snippy here, but I find 'if intervention is done right, it should be done' to be a really frustrating point to make, because the syllogism is obvious, but the premise is highly hypothetical.

Edited by Oruka on Feb 7th 2019 at 10:33:26 AM

It looks like Afghanistan might become another lesson in failure for interventions. If the Trump adminastration really does end up withdrawing its' troops by 2020, I have little hope that the Afghan government could avoid a second Saigon. Some people say that things are different now, that the new generation which has been educated would not accept it if the Taliban would impose their old ways on them. I am afraid that this optimism might be misplaced... .

The fact that you think I'm denying it is puzzling.