Bahrain - a conundrum for the interventionists

**Sarmatian** · 03-22-2011, 14:12

Originally Posted by TinCow

Intervention is only merited when the number of deaths likely to result from the intervention is less than the number that is likely to result without it.

Sounds like one of Murphy's laws. How do we count the refugees? Half a point? Kids are worth two each and destroyed homes count only if it's a tie?

Seriously, in that sentence there's likely and deaths two times. You may wanna rethink it.

**TinCow** · 03-22-2011, 15:03

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Sounds like one of Murphy's laws. How do we count the refugees? Half a point? Kids are worth two each and destroyed homes count only if it's a tie?

Seriously, in that sentence there's likely and deaths two times. You may wanna rethink it.

No, I don't. I'm perfectly happy with that definition. Your dislike of the words does not invalidate it.

**Sarmatian** · 03-22-2011, 17:18

Originally Posted by TinCow

No, I don't. I'm perfectly happy with that definition. Your dislike of the words does not invalidate it.

No, what invalidates it is the fact that there is no way to accurately assess number of deaths in either scenario.

**TinCow** · 03-22-2011, 17:33

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No, what invalidates it is the fact that there is no way to accurately assess number of deaths in either scenario.

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

**Sarmatian** · 03-22-2011, 17:47

Originally Posted by TinCow

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to even remotely accuratelly assess the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for an intervention.

**Sarmatian** · 03-22-2011, 17:49

Originally Posted by TinCow

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to make an even remotely accurate assessment of the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for intervention.

**TinCow** · 03-22-2011, 18:41

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to make an even remotely accurate assessment of the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for intervention.

Every single method for determining whether to intervene is going to be subject to a subjective determination. There is no 'accurate' method because there is, frankly, no right answer. Some people will say intervention should always be done to protect human rights, even if no one is dying. Some people will say intervention should never be done for any reason, even mass genocide. There is no authority that can say one view is right and the other is wrong.

For me, it is a cost-benefit analysis that is weighed in human lives. We're going to have to guess no matter which method we use, so my preference is to guess in a manner that is designed to keep as many people alive as possible. Yes, I have to guess to determine whether more people will die with or without intervention, but since guessing is required in every single case that doesn't really seem to be a negative to me. Guessing and subjective determinations are part and parcel of the entire question of intervention, so what difference does it make if the guessing involves the numbers of human lives lost?

**PanzerJaeger** · 03-23-2011, 06:28

The problem is that there was no real evidence that a genocide was imminent. The violent suppression of an armed rebellion by a dictator does not make said dictator a genocidal maniac. There were no such mass slaughters in Zawiya, Ras Lanuf, or Ajdabiya after Gaddafi forces retook them.

And Sarmation brings up an important point. We intervene on behalf of armed rebels who have a means to defend themselves, but do nothing as governments slaughter protestors? Oddly enough, of all the Arab leaders facing uprisings, Gaddafi is actually the most justified in retaliating with military force.