Another foreign policy flamebait idea

[MikeSofaer]

So since Tim was brave enough to actually post a suggestion for action that didn't include a link to a blog to give it credibility, I feel I can do no less, so here is my crackpot idea, that I nevertheless like:

I want to start a charitable NGO that provides arms and training to people all over the world who are the victims of genocide. No political maneuvering, no letters, no conferences. Just 10,000 M16 and 200 ex-army combat instructors to the Sudanese refugee camps. The world's governments have shown they cannot be relied on to stop these sorts of situations, and furthermore, I perfer self-defence to third-party defence. Why should the Sudanese blacks have to rely on other people for their protection? Why can't they defend themselves? So I want to arm them so at the very least it's a fight and not a slaughter.

One big problem is that it's against US law to do something like this, as well as probably a bunch of arms-control treaties. But enough money can get a lot done.

So who's with me?

[extarbags]

Well, here's the problem: basically, we can't trust anybody. I think from now on we should move forward assuming that every government we prop up will eventually declare us their sworn enemy, and everyone we give a gun to will eventually try to shoot us with it. So I'd like to avoid arming more people who may/probably will become our enemies sometime.

[BrewersDroop]

It would certainly have made manifest destiny more interesting.

[SpoofyChop]

HA!

Well this is also a highly terrible idea, but since it involves inciting people to fight rather than paying them not to fight, I'm all for it since I'm clearly a bloodthirsty Republican.

:D

[MikeSofaer]

Can it be called "inciting" people to fight when they are already being murdered wholesale? I think of it as "empowering" people to defend themselves.

[SpoofyChop]

Can it be called "inciting" people to fight when they are already being murdered wholesale? I think of it as "empowering" people to defend themselves.

Good point.

[russellmz00]

your idea sucks and will never work.

you need trained semi-disciplined people to use m-16s. switch to ak-47s: they are designed for armies full of soldiers who don't clean their guns.

[Bren]

It worked for the Mujadin!

[Nellie]

I want to start a charitable NGO that provides arms and training to people all over the world who are the victims of genocide.

So you not only give them the means to defend themselves, your arms and training tip the balance in their favour and a wave of revenge killing takes place. Do you now go back and train and arm the original agressors to "defend" themselves?

[Chris Nahr]

Why not? Then place cameras on helicopters, and we have a real life gladiator arena! :D

[Shmtur]

I want to start a charitable NGO that provides arms and training to people all over the world who are the victims of genocide.

So you not only give them the means to defend themselves, your arms and training tip the balance in their favour and a wave of revenge killing takes place. Do you now go back and train and arm the original agressors to "defend" themselves?

No, they were armed in the first place. That's why they're the original aggressors.

We could, in turn, just nuke them from orbit.

[Jason McCullough]

You'd be assassinated in about 15 minutes.

[MikeSofaer]

Assasinated? You think it would be that successful?

[Jason McCullough]

I don't think you'd t even get the chance. It'd require a private military.

Fun bonus game: what qualifies as genocide?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I want to start a charitable NGO that provides arms and training to people all over the world who are the victims of genocide. No political maneuvering, no letters, no conferences. Just 10,000 M16 and 200 ex-army combat instructors to the Sudanese refugee camps. The world's governments have shown they cannot be relied on to stop these sorts of situations, and furthermore, I perfer self-defence to third-party defence. Why should the Sudanese blacks have to rely on other people for their protection? Why can't they defend themselves? So I want to arm them so at the very least it's a fight and not a slaughter.

And then your sensibilities are not offended, because while people are still getting slaughtered, at least they have the opportunity to fight back, gosh darn it! So it's a marginal improvement, I suppose.

Creating a viable fighting force out of disorganized refugees is not going to happen. You could train them first, but that would involve training, and giving guns to, every group that could be persecuted. As we all know turning a country of groups that distrust each other into a country of armed groups that distrust each other usually helps stabilize things enourmously.

I would suggest that prevention of conflicts, or at least stopping them quickly, would be preferrable, since it involves a lot less dying.

[Ben]

I have to say, I'm not sure whether Tim's idea could be topped, but wow. Every so often I wonder how the Bush administration fucks so many things up and I think "A man off the street would do better!" Mike and Tim show that no, a man on the street would not do better.

A billion times better yet still horrible idea would be an NGO that hires mercenaries to combat genocide. Unforunately, that NGO would last about 15 minutes before it goes from combating genocide to intervening on the side of whoever donated more money.

[MikeSofaer]

A lot of people seem to be arguing along the lines Casper Weinberger argued in Bosnia. We should keep the embargo on the Muslims even though the Serbs are getting guns from the Russians because if we let the Muslims arm themselves then more people would die. I don't find that a terribly convincing argument, or even a moderately ethical position to take. Borders on despicable to my way of thinking.

Similarly, I'm not convinced by the argument that in the interest of Sudan's stability we shouldn't be helping the blacks arm themselves against their murderers.

As we all know turning a country of groups that distrust each other into a country of armed groups that distrust each other usually helps stabilize things enourmously.

One of the groups is already armed, so yes, it would stabilize things, unless you consider genocide more stable than combat.

OK, Ben, what would go wrong?

And Jason, the only reason I'd be assasinated is if people thought the idea would be effective. If it would be that much of a force in the world then it's probably worth doing.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

First of all, let me apologise for the tone of my previous post.

A lot of people seem to be arguing along the lines Casper Weinberger argued in Bosnia. We should keep the embargo on the Muslims even though the Serbs are getting guns from the Russians because if we let the Muslims arm themselves then more people would die. I don't find that a terribly convincing argument, or even a moderately ethical position to take. Borders on despicable to my way of thinking.

Given that the argument was correct, would it still be unethical to your way of thinking? If so, why?

As we all know turning a country of groups that distrust each other into a country of armed groups that distrust each other usually helps stabilize things enourmously.

One of the groups is already armed, so yes, it would stabilize things, unless you consider genocide more stable than combat.

Well, again, you have two scenarios. First, you can arm people after a genocide starts. It will probably be too late, as the people being killed are disorganized and untrained, and a disproportionate number of them are elderly, infirm and children. Remember also that you don't just need the able-bodied of the refugee population to fight, but they also need to take care of those who cannot, often under very adverse conditions. Also, you are creating a powerful incentive for larger and quicker genocides, as the aggressors know they must kill their opponents quickly, before you can arm them.

In order to avoid the above problems, you can arm groups that you deem in risk of being the victims of genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. These will usually be minority groups that are already under some level of oppression from a more powerful group in their country. You now have two possible, and in my mind, likely, ways for the situation to deteriorate. First, the oppressed my decide that that they will use their new weapons to free themselves from oppression. Second, the oppressors may decide that the oppressed are now too much of a threat, and move to eliminate them.

[russellmz00]

I have to say, I'm not sure whether Tim's idea could be topped, but wow. Every so often I wonder how the Bush administration fucks so many things up and I think "A man off the street would do better!" Mike and Tim show that no, a man on the street would not do better.

A billion times better yet still horrible idea would be an NGO that hires mercenaries to combat genocide. Unforunately, that NGO would last about 15 minutes before it goes from combating genocide to intervening on the side of whoever donated more money.

tim and mike actively sought out people and asked why their foreign policy suggestions might actually suck and be horrible. bush tosses out people who might ask him questions about ss at taxpayer paid "townhall" meetings.

[Tim Partlett]

I have to say, I'm not sure whether Tim's idea could be topped, but wow. Every so often I wonder how the Bush administration fucks so many things up and I think "A man off the street would do better!" Mike and Tim show that no, a man on the street would not do better.

Quality trolling, Ben. I haven't even posted in the thread and you are insulting me. There's a little bit of a difference between what I suggested and actual policy: I threw it out as a possible idea to be discussed by the intelligent people of this board. I didn't say that I would actually employ such a policy if I were in charge of any body with the power to do so. An intelligent person recognises that ideas are perfected through the refinement of discussion and debate. A moron thinks all ideas he doesn't agree with are therefore shit.

[MikeSofaer]

First of all, let me apologise for the tone of my previous post.

A lot of people seem to be arguing along the lines Casper Weinberger argued in Bosnia. We should keep the embargo on the Muslims even though the Serbs are getting guns from the Russians because if we let the Muslims arm themselves then more people would die. I don't find that a terribly convincing argument, or even a moderately ethical position to take. Borders on despicable to my way of thinking.

Given that the argument was correct, would it still be unethical to your way of thinking? If so, why?

Yes, still unethical. If you prevent a muder victim from struggling so that the murderer will take fewer wounds, thereby reducing the total bodily harm dealt in the encounter, you are complicit in the murder, in my admittedly far-out opinion.

As we all know turning a country of groups that distrust each other into a country of armed groups that distrust each other usually helps stabilize things enourmously.

One of the groups is already armed, so yes, it would stabilize things, unless you consider genocide more stable than combat.

Well, again, you have two scenarios. First, you can arm people after a genocide starts. It will probably be too late, as the people being killed are disorganized and untrained, and a disproportionate number of them are elderly, infirm and children. Remember also that you don't just need the able-bodied of the refugee population to fight, but they also need to take care of those who cannot, often under very adverse conditions. Also, you are creating a powerful incentive for larger and quicker genocides, as the aggressors know they must kill their opponents quickly, before you can arm them.

In order to avoid the above problems, you can arm groups that you deem in risk of being the victims of genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. These will usually be minority groups that are already under some level of oppression from a more powerful group in their country. You now have two possible, and in my mind, likely, ways for the situation to deteriorate. First, the oppressed my decide that that they will use their new weapons to free themselves from oppression. Second, the oppressors may decide that the oppressed are now too much of a threat, and move to eliminate them.

I disagree, I think a lot of what drives these things is an imbalance of weaponry. People commit genocide when it's easy. These African genocides are not carefully planned affairs, organized by people just waiting to adopt blitzmurder genocide tactics if their plans are threatened. They are basically opportunists can be stopped by fighting. And they have to be fought by someone, and who better than the people they are slaughtering? My sensibilites on this issue were probably formed by my teachers showing off the numbers on their arms, and by hearing the story off Warsaw and the anger that inspired, but I feel that any Jew who has ever said never again bears responsibility to stop genocide wherever and to whomever it occurs. Not enough is being done and I'm trying to come up with a way to do something, not just express empty solidarity or reassure myself that inaction is acceptable because any possible action would result in more deaths.

[Anders Hallin]

Yes, still unethical. If you prevent a muder victim from struggling so that the murderer will take fewer wounds, thereby reducing the total bodily harm dealt in the encounter, you are complicit in the murder, in my admittedly far-out opinion.
I think in a genocide situation, a likely scenario is this:
A village that isn't very well-defended is slaughtered. The people you armed arrive a day or two too late. The perpetrators are long gone. However, a village of their people is just a couple of miles away, full of unarmed men, women and children...

And I think it's a band-aid solution that may well further prevent a long-term solution. I think genocide situations must be stopped long before they become genocide situations.

[Qenan]

your idea sucks and will never work.

you need trained semi-disciplined people to use m-16s. switch to ak-47s: they are designed for armies full of soldiers who don't clean their guns.

I think this should be "post of the day".

[Ben]

That's not trolling, Tim. You came up with a stupid idea. Cope.

[MikeSofaer]

That's not trolling, Tim. You came up with a stupid idea. Cope.
He should have proposed nuking Moscow.

[Tim Partlett]

So, Ben, posting ideas for discussion on a discussion forum is trolling, but you insulting me in a thread that I haven't even posted in is not?

That requires a big LOL.