Gary of Amygdala left an interesting comment in response to my "Congo - The Roots, And The Trap..." post, then reproduced the comment on his blog [broken permalink].
I thought it deserved a response, and hoped his permalinks would work again. Alas, he remains a Blogspot.com captive, so it's worth highlighting and revisiting that discussion the long way. Since Gary's permalinks for that week are completely shot, I'm going to have to reproduce his words here...
"I've written a lot about this. And I have a very simple take. Perhaps it's too simplistic, but there it is.I'm going to start by saying yes, this sounds juvenile. Thing is, I know Gary isn't that way. I think he's expressing the fundamental moral impulse animating his concern, and on that level this is fine. Of course, as Gary himself notes, it's necessary to go beyond this beginning.Substitute the word "Jews" for "Lendu" or "Hema."
Then say, gee, gosh, it would cost a lot to save them. Tough luck if millions die, because it's expensive, it's awkward, it's tough, to save them.
Bye, bye, Jews. Too bad. It's expensive to save them. It's expensive to save you black people, you Hema, you Lendu. It's tough to keep track of your names, even. Even your clan, your tribe, your people.
Bye-bye. Die in peace. Die by the thousands. Die by the tens of thousands. Die by the hundreds of thousands. Die by the millions. I have fast food. Bye-bye. I don't need to go to trouble. Bye-bye. Die well. Bye-bye. My conscience is untroubled. I could have saved you for a few days of work, but I don't want to be troubled. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.
Die well.
I can't be bothered to take a few minutes or hours to help stop it.
Bye-bye. Die well. Die."
Indeed it is. However horrible the situation, thinking must not end at that point. Not if you actually wants to save anyone, and craft a policy your fellow citizens will support.
For there are always practical considerations. Saving the Jews was more than hard - it took the whole Second World War, fought for other reasons, to do it. It was not "a few hours or minutes," it was a major commitment. Just as Iraq is. Just as Congo would be. For many, it would be ALL their hours and minutes. Let's not forget that, or trivialize what's involved.
I'll also note that even WWII largely failed as a vehicle for saving the Jews, and would have largely failed even if the allies had made that reason a focus of their war aims, bombed the camps, etc. Europe's Jews were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, unarmed and facing real human evil. "Die well" was indeed the order of the day for many.
As it is for many people in Africa, and will be whatever we decide.
I was very impressed by the people in my Congo thread, many of whom posted well thought-out options and noted important constraints. There are indeed limits to America's capabilities, and short of wartime mobilization it has reached them and more. There are also limits for any international force to take into account, which is why Jay's idea of safe zones with strong perimeter defenses is a useful contribution if conducted seriously rather than as Srebrenica II.
Outside those safer zones, and in other places like the Sudan, tens of thousands and more will die. We can't be everywhere. We should be in some of these places. Practical considerations, cold-blooded capabilities analysis, and confidence in the long-term plan forward (or belief that survival offers no alternative) will determine both where we choose to be. They will also determine how much can and will be done to bring down those casualty numbers. If you're interested, Michael Totten's comments on the recent Robert Kaplan interview "The Hard Edge of American Values" are very much on point in terms of the broader goals America might consider pursuing. If one follows the link, Kaplan himself also has some good nuts and bolts advice.
Sometimes, however, the depressing answer to how much we can do is: "not much" -- or "not much, unless we're prepared to jettison many of our existing beliefs." In which case, tragedy may be all that's left. Sometimes, in a fallen world where human evil is real, the only legacy for the future is a cautionary tale.
UPDATES:
- Michael Totten also has a Liberia article today - same issues, different country: "Our Forgotten Colony." Good linkage into Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy," which is very relevant.
- Courtney disagrees with Michael and chimes in with some excellent background on the Liberian situation.
- The Poor Man has an article of his own about the Congo, complete with a map and some serious reservations: "More Troops in DRC?"
This is the obverse my response to the question often raised of "if you're going to do X, then why not Y, Z, P, D, and Q, too?" - IMO the proper response to that is just because we cannot do something everywhere doesn't mean we should do nothing in X.
People have a hard time seeing just how big Congo is and the fact that this particular aspect of the situation there isn't necessarily the only one in the Congo (news media just happen to have been around to report this particular piece), or throughout a region (just as right now Liberia is getting some notice; "intervene" - ok, how? Just to keep a cease fire together until next time - which is how Liberia arrived at where it is now? Or take a side and take the other side out? Or find both sides to be horrible, attrocity-committing scumers and take them both out and then stay to build from scratch?)
Fact is, we have finite resources. IMO if we want to do IRAQ right we need to pay more and send more. It's easy for some to say "oh, you just want to let them die in Congo, eh?"
Not necessarily. But are the people asking that question willing to pay the price - in considerably higher defense spending, considerably more Americans sent abroad for a considerably longer period of time, and considerably more wounded?
We could eliminate the tax cut AND eliminate various social spending programs (both those about to pass ahem and those passed or increased in funding over the last couple years), tighten our belts and do what it would take to sort these places out.
I'm actually more or less up for it (as I've been writting the last two days on my blog). I just wonder how many of those for whom it is easy to say "oh, we're going to stand by and watch them die" are willing to commit the resources it takes not just to go in and calm things down for a few months so we feel warm and fuzzy about ourselves (then fly out again, as, IIRC, the last UN presence in this region did) and pat ourselves on the back while it slides back into the status quo ante.
I also think that those who act as if this is easy and cheap and the only reason we don't bother is indifference should at least read this Atlantic Monthly article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/10/langewiesche.htm
This is a case of be careful what you wish for.
Tyranny anywhere is a threat to Americans everywhere. As a policy objective in the War on Terrorism no pirate/terrorist bases will be allowed in Africa to support Al-Qaeda or its mind children.
Military Professional Resources Incorporate (MPRI) was an instrument of American policy in the Balkans and effectively replaced American ground Forces for the Clinton Administration in dealing with the Bosnian Serbs. Operating as a combination of several Special Forces A-Teams and General Staff planning cell, they turned the Croation Army into the forces that shattered the armed forces of the Boslian Serb state-let. This in turn made the Dayton Peace Accords possible.
Given the lack of American occupation ground forces, an American PMC approach to dealing with African disorder seem to me to be inevitable.
The "American East Africa Corporation," anyone?