From: Artillo5@cs.com
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 22:17:42 MST
In a message dated 3/17/2003 1:00:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes:
> Suppose, for example, that (for some unknown reason) the
> Bush administration concluded that a frightful slaughter
> of many thousands of people was underway in, say, Ruwanda,
> and that the U.S. should take over that country for a
> period of years. Would there be worldwide protests?
> Would there be people on this list savagely denouncing
> the U.S.? Of course not. We know this; because: are
> they criticizing (or even conscious of) France doing the
> same thing in the Ivory Coast? No, of course not.
>
> Well, why not? Well, I will tell you why not. Because taking
> over Ruwanda to suppress genocide would not in any way advance
> the interests of the U.S. in the world situation. Therefore,
> it would be unobjectionable!
>
> I was recessed from this list when Clinton invaded Bosnia.
> Were the same usual suspects making a fuss then? (I really
> would like to know, thanks.)
Thanks for bringing this up, Lee. I was discussing this very subject with
some colleagues at work this afternoon. I was trying to determine the
difference between what is going on now with Iraq and the other incedents you
mentioned above. I think in some ways that it comes down to approach and
overall level of media exposure (of course there are gazillions of other
factors, but hear me out).
Approach-wise, I would say that the coalition (in the case of Bosnia, not
terribly familiar with the Rwanda crisis, sorry to say) took the stance of
"peacekeepers" rather than "invaders". Everyone agreed that Milosovic was an
evil man, and that we should go in and stop his troops from their "ethnic
clensing" activities. I can't remember ever seeing a single person protesting
that the US shouldn't go in and help out those that would be opressed. I
really don't see much difference between what occurred there versus what has
been happening in Iraq.
BUT... I think that part of the problem is that a lot of people really do see
Bush's tactics as "Cowboy mentality", even if his motives are purely to
liberate the people. How different would the situation be today if the Bush
administration maintained an approach as "peacekeepers" and "guardians of the
human rights of hte Iraqi people", rather than acting like the sheriff coming
into town to tell the bad guy to get outta dodge? Does anybody recall if we
offered Milosovic an ultimatum? That whole era is kind of fuzzy to me, which
brings me to my second point....
Media Exposure:
The Gulf states have had the "benefit" of a previous conflict in very recent
history that involved a great many nations, and as a consequence recieved a
large amount of press coverage. From what I can recall, events in Kosovo,
Rwanda, etc. did not have nearly as much exposure, so the general public was
pretty much oblivious (The "far away land" syndrome I like to call it, and I
am just as guilty as the rest of us!). We knew for sure we were doing the
right thing, and our allies were cooperating with as a coherent team (that's
just my perception of what happened over there, I could be wrong!). I'm not
exactly sure why humanitarian disasters get less coverage or stay in the
public mind less, but maybe it has a little to do with the fact that we get
into our gas-guzzling automobiles every day, and we react very negatively
when the price of gas goes up further than we think it should. Anybody else
have some other ideas about what makes this event different than ones in the
past???
Arti
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 22:24:56 MST