<<You know, I've seen you express this sentiment before, and I don't think it's right. While it is true that we would've taken some heat from the nations of the world if Kosovo had turned into a humanitarian catastrophe and it could have been demonstrated that our intervention could have stopped the catastrophe (which it obviously hasn't, but that's another matter), that in itself is clearly not a justification for any of our actions.>>
But a very clever point escapes your argument Bob: if it could have been shown in hindsight that the West could have averted a disaster, that very fact would be noted as an indictment. Look at how so many people respond to our involvement, it reads off like they have all consulted the same script: why Kosovo, why not Rwanda, why not Sudan, why not East Timor? If a negative sanction is damnable, so is a lack of positive sanction before the fact, in some people's eyes. I must categorically agree with Neo, damned if we do damned if we dont.
Another little matter, note who is the beneficiary of blame. Without fail, in all but the rarest circumstances, the burden of responsibility rests on the West. Why is it that the West invariably carries the burden of responsibility for solving the world's ills, and carries the blame of the world, while those who do the most blaming, China and Russia, never proactively seek to solve a crisis, and are always the first to point the finger after the fact? Strange how the most passive and unresponsive members of the international system are the ones that escape blame for inaction. |
