This one's for you, Dave

From Srebrenica to Baghdad
What the genocide taught us about intervention.
By Christopher Hitchens, Slate

In response to my posting INRE the Clintons in Rwanda, and my expression of disgust at the WH and UN's lack of response to thwart the genocide that occurred there, my friend (and yin to my yang) Dave, posted (in part) the below comment:

What are you suggesting we should have done in Rhwanda? I don't know anyone who has proposed a viable intervention plan with any hope of succeeding.

Well, Dave... this one's for you. Notwithstanding my own direct response and reference to the most well known "intervention" for Hitler's genocide in WWII, I offer up this July 11th, 2005 column for a more contemporary consideration... courtesy of a Christopher Hitchens (Slate).

The attitude that we should ignore genocide occurring in despotic regimes is one shared by many. And, ironically enough, a vast majority are those holding left leaning principles. I've always wondered how they have reconciled the bandied about mantra of being the "party of the people" who care so much about their fellow man, with this extreme reluctance to step in to stop something as obviously, unquestionably insidious as genocide just because it may interfere with our own comforts, lives and peace of mind. This NIMBY attitude just doesn't wash. You either care about humanity, or you don't.

If the world community sits idly by and does nothing while despots eradicate their citizens, we've told dictators (now and future) they have a free pass at murder and genocide within their borders. We have effectively said the world's negative perception of so-called empire building is more important than rescuing a few hundred thousand lives of people we don't know, and never will.

To maintain proper "international relations", the UN, EU and USA sitting idle has occurred more often than not in the past decades. As a result thug mentalities have correctly assumed that they will not be facing repercussions for establishing, or maintaining, a terrorist regime. It is also a fact that terrorist actions have been increasing in the same period. Coincidence?

Yet what is worse for our world's futures? The proliferation of terrorist regimes and the welcoming climate they create for other like-minded extremists? Or the "sticks and stones" abuse taken, charged with meddling with despots or false accusations of quests to acquire terroritory and resources? (none of which is true, BTW. Afghanistan and Iraq are not set to be the 51st and 52nd states...)

Such lessons and ideals about intervention for genocide are are well presented in Mr. Hitchens Slate column.

Hitchens has also touched on something I've thought countless numbers of times when reading about how the liberation of Iraq has increasingly endangered the western denizens in free nations in it's wake. Usually it is spit out as a negative, moral conviction.

To this statement, I can't disagree and wouldn't attempt to try. Nor do I consider it negative... no more than if I stood up for family and friend against an attacker, and only saw a second wave of attacks for my efforts. I would never regret my stand, and would proudly die defending all that is important to living.

If the enemy experiences no reprisal for it's attacks, as it did for decades (embassies,military barracks, the Cole and the first WTC bombing), they only become emboldened. It was in confidence of no retaliation that they worked their way up to killing thousands on our soil on 9:11 - convinced that no matter what they did, the sleeping giant will continue to quietly sit by. Why? Because previous US leaders feared the world would shake their fingers in consternation at any other action.

But when a bold set of nations ignored the "tut tut's" of the world community and tackled the infestation of terrorists in the middle east, it stirred the hive. It's no surprise the angry pests would, of course, increase their strikes in the attempt to intimidate and cower us into submission and complacence.

But I suggest that to turn away from their increased strikes, unanswered, will prove a more costly path to travel in the future. Mr. Hitchens echos my sentiments... but with far more eloquence.

I have posted Mr. Hitchen's closing paragraphs here, but suggest it is thoughtful reading in it's entirety.

Bosnia did not cease to be a killing field, and Serbia did not cease to be an aggressive dictatorship until the United States armed forces took a hand. The neoconservatives, to their great honor, mostly supported an effort to prevent genocide being inflicted on Muslims: an enterprise in which Israeli interests were not involved. Many liberal and socialist humanitarians took the same view.

The argument about intervention and force changed forever as a result, except that many people did not notice. Just go and look up what the leaders of today's "anti-war" movement were saying then … too many civilian casualties (of all things!); the threat of a Vietnam-style "quagmire"; the lasting enmity of the Christian Orthodox world; above all the risk of a "longer war."

Yes, well, we could have guaranteed a nice, short war if we had let the practitioners of genocide have their way. Except that, within a few years, the precedent of unpunished ethnic cleansing would have spread well beyond the borders of Yugoslavia. And we would never have been able to say "never again," because dictators everywhere would have had a free pass.

Why did Saddam Hussein, that great lion of the Arab and Muslim world, denounce the American bombing of the Muslim-killing Milosevic? Why did Qaddafi do the same? For the very same reason that Christian fascists in Serbia now denounce the intervention in Iraq: They know that the main foe is the United States and that this fact transcends all the others.

There has been a great deal of nonsense published in the last week to the effect that an alliance with the United States can put other countries like Britain in the position of being "targeted." Why deny this? I reflect on what was not done at Srebrenica, and on what ought to have been done in Rwanda, and on what was put off too long with the Taliban and the Baathists, and I think what an honor it is to have such enemies. Co-existence with them is not possible, which is good, because it is not desirable or tolerable, either. The Srebrenica memorial stands as enduring testimony to that inescapable conclusion.