Bahrain - a conundrum for the interventionists

[TinCow]

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]

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.

[Viking]

He is not justified to ignore the obligations to protect the civilian population - those unarmed. We intervened because it seemed like the rebels were loosing, and because we would expect a lot of civilian casualites in the city - just look to what is going on in Misurata. We would also expect that a decent revenge would be taken on Benghazi and the eastern cities, in particular once the Western media has been driven out of the country, just like things were prior to the uprising.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oddly enough, of all the Arab leaders facing uprisings, Gaddafi is actually the most justified in retaliating with military force.

No, Gaddafi is not entitled to to anything but his removal. This is because he is a tyrant. There is no difference between his family's and the country's coffers (he makes Zuckerberg, Gates and carlos Slim look like paupers). There is perrenail violence against his citizens. He has been an autocratic ruler, in charge since the 1960s.

Tyrants forfeit the right to govern, and must always be deposed. It is not only the right, but the duty of the rebels to overthrow their tyrant. The rebels therefore are a representative of the people of Libya and constitute the government of Libya. Gaddafi is just a warlord, an occupational force.

[Sarmatian]

No, Saudi family is not entitled to to anything but their removal. This is because they are tyrants. There is no difference between family and the country's coffers (they makes Zuckerberg, Gates and carlos Slim look like paupers). There is perrenail violence against their citizens. They have been autocratic rulers, in charge since the 1920s.

There, fixed it for you. So when is the intervention starting? Soon I hope, since the US has troops on the ground. Oh, wait, they are there actually to protect Saudi family... but I thought... oh, nevermind...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There, fixed it for you. So when is the intervention starting? Soon I hope, since the US has troops on the ground. Oh, wait, they are there actually to protect Saudi family... but I thought... oh, nevermind...

Wierdly, Monarchy functions differently from Tyranny. There is no apparent reason why this should be true, but it is, and was first observed by the Greeks. Saudi Arabia, and even more so Bahrain, seem to be making progress towards democracy. Bahrain, for example, has had a bicamal legislature since 2002 where the lower chamber is elected via universal sufferage.

[Idaho]

Bahrain, for example, has had a bicamal legislature since 2002 where the lower chamber is elected via universal sufferage.

Ahem... which is only populated by approved parties (and hence candidates) and the upper house and King have full veto powers over it. Little more than a tame housecat of a parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ahem... which is only populated by approved parties (and hence candidates) and the upper house and King have full veto powers over it. Little more than a tame housecat of a parliament.

I doubt Shia Islamists are wholly "approved".

It's still progress, the English parliament didn't start out as the final work on lawmaking either.

[Dâriûsh]

Wierdly, Monarchy functions differently from Tyranny. There is no apparent reason why this should be true, but it is, and was first observed by the Greeks. Saudi Arabia, and even more so Bahrain, seem to be making progress towards democracy. Bahrain, for example, has had a bicamal legislature since 2002 where the lower chamber is elected via universal sufferage.

Please. Any progress towards democracy in Bahrain was crushed by 2.000 Saudi security troops and the fighter jets in the skies over Manama. Likewise, any progress towards democracy in Saud has been similarly oppressed by a massive police crackdown and a religious ban on demonstrations. His highness has been on state TV thanking his people for not rising to overthrow him. I guess he quickly forgot the protesters shot by his police in Qatif.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please. Any progress towards democracy in Bahrain was crushed by 2.000 Saudi security troops and the fighter jets in the skies over Manama. Likewise, any progress towards democracy in Saud has been similarly oppressed by a massive police crackdown and a religious ban on demonstrations. His highness has been on state TV thanking his people for not rising to overthrow him. I guess he quickly forgot the protesters shot by his police in Qatif.

1,000 troops, surely? These troops are not, as yet, using machine guns to slaughter people coming out of their homes. The situations are still very different. Lest we forget, UK Police kept thousands of teenagers out in the cold at the end of last year, and before that someone died at the G20 in London.

This is not wanton slaughter, it is still very much an internal issue.

[Jolt]

Bahrain, seem to be making progress towards democracy. Bahrain, for example, has had a bicamal legislature since 2002 where the lower chamber is elected via universal sufferage.

Bahrain isn't really progressing into democracy. Conceding make-believe demands hardly means progressing towards democracy. It's the same as saying that fradulent elections are progress just because they had elections. What the bicameral legislature needs is de facto power and ability to enforce their decisions. Something that the monarchy is not willing to let go of, as is seen by their reaction to the protests.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There, fixed it for you. So when is the intervention starting? Soon I hope, since the US has troops on the ground. Oh, wait, they are there actually to protect Saudi family... but I thought... oh, nevermind...

That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.


Two different girls are dragged into two alleys. You have got a gun with one bullet. Do you a) take aim and shoot one kidnapper, b) don't intervene at all because you would be a hypocrite for only attacking one of them.

[Husar]

That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.


Two different girls are dragged into two alleys. You have got a gun with one bullet. Do you a) take aim and shoot one kidnapper, b) don't intervene at all because you would be a hypocrite for only attacking one of them.

Violence is never the answer! What he should do is sit down with both of these guys and explain to them in simple terms why their behaviour is bad.
That it hurts the economy, makes the girls unhappy and that they won't get any chocolate pudding in jail.

Also the US has 11 carrier battle groups, even with one or two busy in Libya and around Iraq that should leave enough to bomb Yemen and Bahrain.

[Sarmatian]

That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.


Two different girls are dragged into two alleys. You have got a gun with one bullet. Do you a) take aim and shoot one kidnapper, b) don't intervene at all because you would be a hypocrite for only attacking one of them.

Except that in this case, the first one appeared hours ago (Saudi Arabia) and you had a clean shot on him for a looong time (troops on the ground) and than the other one appeared and you decide to shoot him because you only had one bullet. Of course, the added benefit is that the first is giving you a lot of money on the side. I thought we put cops in jail for that kind of behaviour, not look for excuses.

Actually, one bullet isn't a fair comparison. There are a lot of bullets, but they are expensive, making the previous situation even worse.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I thought we put cops in jail for that kind of behaviour, not look for excuses.

Hey! I am the one in favour of overthrowing tyrannies. You are the one applauding them for shooting protesters.

The point can be made that there is self-interest, realpolitik, and also preference and hypocrisy. However, it is not the cops that should be put in jail for that. It is still the criminals who deserve to be locked up. You are turning this upside down. By blaming the cops for not living up to their higher standards, you are blaming them for the behaviour of the criminals, confusing the cop with the crook.

See, if you get too cynical, if there is too little social trust, if everybody is on it for himself, then you end up with a society in which crimefighters are send to jail while mafia are allowed to roam free. And the reverse, where mafia rules, where there is no social trust, where perpetrators can present themselves as victims, there it is inconceivable that the common good, humanitarian ideals, equality are impulses of policy.