"It turns out that, all other things being equal, the U.S. is likely to engage in military campaigns for humanitarian reasons that focus on human rights protection rather than for its own security interests such as democracy promotion or terrorism reduction."
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Claire_Voltaire
That's not what the paper's findings actually show. What the findings show is that the case studies suggest HR is the only constant. But, it fails to account for the fact that info regarding security and top secret foreign policy issues is not going to be readily available.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I see. You take issue with the unknowns. We have to rely on known knowns and known unknowns. There’s always going to be that but I think the conclusion still fits.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Claire_Voltaire
If they'd said "US govts are more likely to intervene on HR pretexts than security ones", I wouldn't have had a problem. As it is, it makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data, applies quantitative measures to qualitative factors, and draws causation from correlation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
It's a pretty respectable journal and is peer reviewed so I doubt they would publish a piece that's riddled with issues. But if you see it that way, I guess it would be up to you to point out the inconsistencies and perhaps shine a light on it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Claire_Voltaire
Bad papers get published all the time. As for the inconsistencies, I feel I've already pointed them out: the article's authors can't claim that HR is the only constant in govt intentions when they are not privy to those intentions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I just replied on the above. I do agree that ascribing intentions is a vague territory but accepting that an HR is a constant remains reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Claire_Voltaire
This is precisely my issue. I'm fine with them saying that the stated aims of most interventions are HR, but not that they are the actual aims. This debate is similar to the Chomsky-Harris one. I normally prefer Harris, but on this one I side with Chomsky. https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I understand and I can definitely accept this claim on both accounts ascribing malice or benevolence. However, I align with the Harris claim here only for the fact that we do have an HR constant here which changes the formula of war. WW2 is a good example.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Claire_Voltaire @G_S_Bhogal
The US didn't necessarily act on benevolence towards their allies, however, standing on the right side of history matters more than your initial or even throughout intentions. So it isn't a blank good or bad, it's also which side are you on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Agreed. One can do good while not having the best of intentions, because intentions and actions are separate from each other. Understanding this makes us more rational than the academic paper, which sought to conclusively state the intentions of the US govt as being HR oriented.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Let’s say you have 50 countries in humanitarian crisis. You pick 5 that also has self interest and/or direct security threat. Does it take away from the need or the intention? Perhaps but it’s still a just cause.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Claire_Voltaire
Sure. If it reduces suffering in the world, then intentions don't matter. Food to a starving kid won't be any less nourishing if it was a result of business rather than compassion. That's why I support many interventionist policies even though I'm suspicious of their true motives
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.