RSS
Digg | 
Del.icio.us
When Megan McArdle poses the question, "To fight or not to fight?" she hypothesizes that the answer largely rests on whether the United States opts to involve itself in a foreign intervention. Without American participation, she contends, "no one else is going to do it for us--the African Union cannot make peace in Darfur, none of Iraq's neighbors can help it if it erupts into civil war, and so forth."
To this Matthew Yglesias adds the much-needed caveat that the participation of other countries in foreign interventions can in fact add value in terms of both military effectiveness and political legitimacy. He also rightly cautions that this argument -- that American initiative is the only way to mount a serious intervention -- can dangerously provide cover for a more naked unilateralist streak.
I would add the important reminder that not all "fighting" is equal, and, more significantly, that not all interventions must amount to combat. War-fighting, counter-insurgency, and peacekeeping are, just to name a few, all very different phenomena that each operate according to very different rules and whose effectiveness require very different types of involvement. To McArdle's example that "the African Union cannot make peace in Darfur," then, the obvious answer is of course not. The peacekeeping force in Darfur is exactly that: a peacekeeping force. Peace does not come at the barrel of a gun -- least of all at the barrel of an American gun -- and the only ones that can make peace, unfortunately, are the parties at war themselves.
This does not mean that the U.S. and other countries have no role to play in such peacebuilding situations. Rather, these type of scenarios demand, if anything, more multilateral involvement, as international diplomatic pressure -- particularly from neighboring countries with a stake in stabilizing their region -- will go a lot farther in pressing for a peace accord than will American troops.
Comments
Right, but he wasn't talking about peacekeeping, he was talking about actually stopping a conflict. You can argue that we should never bother, because both sides will just pick up again when we leave, which I think is not true, but I'm prepared to listen to opposing arguments on that. The point is that if you want to stop a conflict--not enforce an already agreed ceasefire--you need serious troops.
Posted by: Megan McArdle at July 8, 2008 1:14 PM
Arguably, though, sending in troops -- particularly American ones -- to a place like Darfur, or say, Somalia, might only exacerbate the conflict. I don't necessarily take al-Qaeda's threats seriously, but the mere fact that they've recognized the opportunity of calling for attacks on the UN in both of these places suggests how these causes could escalate in violence.
Committing troops to intervene preventively in some scenarios of aggression, such as Milosevic's campaigns or even the early phases of the genocide in Darfur, may be the best way of effectuating peace, but in others, like the anarchic, banditry-filled locus of human displacement that is Darfur now, neither the African Union nor the United States military could shoot its way to a cessation of violence.
It's unfortunate that a sustainable peace often does require commitments from both sides, because, in Darfur at least, both the government and many rebel factions seem intent on continuing to pursue military solutions. This increases the urgency of achieving a ceasefire, but it doesn't change the best mechanism for bringing it about, which I don't think can possibly be the use of outright, "fighting" military force.
Posted by: John Boonstra at July 8, 2008 1:47 PM
I--and Stephen Carter--agree that there may be many conflicts where we can't or shouldn't intervene. I have libertarian friends who argue that we can't do any good in any of them. The point is only that if we don't, there will be no intervention; the conflict will play out its course.
Posted by: Megan McArdle at July 8, 2008 2:22 PM
Over the course of history that is precisely what conflicts do...they play out their course.
Rather than sending in guns and tanks, perhaps we ought to be devoting more study to these rebel groups. Who are they? Who are the leaders? Why do the groups exist? what are their objectives? Are there steps that the international community could take to engage their leadership in meaningful discussion and planning. Can they be encouraged to stop their violence in order to make progress toward their primary goals?
There are hundreds more questions to be asked and in the course of asking solutions may be found.
We know from long historical experience that military intervention tends to damage both the intervenor and those who are intervened against.
My view is that we don't make a sufficient effort to seek out and implement alternative strategies.
Posted by: jim reed at July 8, 2008 5:47 PM
