Can Intervention Work? - book recommendation

[clivethecelt]

Just finished the first half of this book by Rory Stewart and Gerald Knaus. I must confess to being slightly biased, as Stewart's previous works have struck a chord here. There's a couple of reviews at these links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... eview.html
http://www.amazon.com/Intervention-Amne ... ewpoints=1

[Biggus Dickus]

Just finished the first half of this book by Rory Stewart and Gerald Knaus. I must confess to being slightly biased, as Stewart's previous works have struck a chord here. There's a couple of reviews at these links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... eview.html
http://www.amazon.com/Intervention-Amne ... ewpoints=1

Well.............there is the question.............in my understanding of what is happening now, it's a double edged sword..... does intervention ever work...in real terms for the people of the poor country invaded, for the soldiers of both sides and particular the invading soldiers, the wealth of the people (tax payers)from the invading countries...the answer is a big NO.......but for the people/companies/banks who organise these "Hits" Yes.
They get everyone to do their bidding including governments, and armies, then rape and pillage that countries resources dry....whilst making a tidy sum off of everyone elses backs and lives.

Take a look at a lesson from history......You remember when Britain had an empire for instance......well it was largely the East India company who did that.....they even started wars on their own which brought in the British government.
The names of the companies change but it still goes on to this day.
I actually think the oath Army personnel take needs to be changed it used to be about protecting the realm and it's head and people...all they actually do is fight for these "Companies and Bankers" as a personal army...i think it needs to reflect that....How many would join then?

Ok that's the long and the short of it, I can see this might be considered inflamatory or conspiracy theory, my advice to those that think that this is .....Good luck to you in the world....you'll need it.
so i guess take it or leave it....I can't really add anything else to that.

On a lighter note........Intervention can work.......hehehehehe Clive......Your celtic band is about to meet it's match hahahahahahaha run...RUNAWAY hahahahha

[Cubster]

It's not inflammatory BD so much as just plain old short on fact. It's a popular view these days, but not one backed up by history.

Military intervention works if it has very clear objectives from the off and you know never lose sight of them. Plus, once the polititians have made the decision to use force they should hand said objective to the military and leave them to it without sticking their oar in and fiddling about as it becomes politically embarrassing.

Mostly this equates to staying out of someone else's business unless you have almost universal support ... good luck with that when Russia and China like to veto anything that the rest of the world wants.

[Biggus Dickus]

It's not inflammatory BD so much as just plain old short on fact. It's a popular view these days, but not one backed up by history.
Of course yes mine was a sweeping statement, but i was thinking largely of AWI, India (Clive of East India Company ) South africa 19th century. Iraq 2003....Afghan war of recent times, The taliban took a beating real quick then just went over to an insurgency but behind the scenes.....the American mining of that Nuclear compound needs time so the war can't actually end until mining has been completed, then Opium....that's worth having too.
Look up the cost in money of how much it cost to kill one taliban (based n their total casualties against military funds spent) when the military budgets for war are calculated, you'll scratch your head and wonder why it didn't all end in a week....in fact you'll also think why does it go on?

WW1 was different to my mind in that it was largely the result of an arms race by said companies and war wasn't quite so planned as inevitable.....WW2 was a tidy up of things everyone got wrong after WW1......but I have to say it put a definite end to the great depression....so?
Not all wars are covered by my statement...but it is normally about the money (Expansion)......what is an empire for but domination of people and resources?

Military intervention works if it has very clear objectives from the off and you know never lose sight of them. Plus, once the polititians have made the decision to use force they should hand said objective to the military and leave them to it without sticking their oar in and fiddling about as it becomes politically embarrassing.
I agree whole heartidly with this paragraph

Mostly this equates to staying out of someone else's business unless you have almost universal support ... good luck with that when Russia and China like to veto anything that the rest of the world wants.

Yes, the UN is a rather pointless talking shop....Look at palestine wanting to join?
Wars of national defence to external threats from super powers are a fine in my book, who ever or where ever the threat comes from, currently the real enemy "The banksters"....if they aren't dealt with soon a real war is likely to result......
i hope I clarified myself a bit there! but i do take on board what you say!

[zedeyejoe]

Military intervention works if it has very clear objectives from the off and you know never lose sight of them.

Yep like any project it is a question of objective and resources.

Getting the people on your side must be one of the objectives.

It is similar to organising a coup d'etat, see
Coup D'Etat: A Practical Handbook

It is one of the things I thought about the recent conflict in Libya, why is there not a radio station providing information about what is going on in the country. That is one of the first principles of organising a coup, control the media.

One thing we could do, is find out what mistakes we have made and not to repeat them - if of course we are planning to do such operations again.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, I think a big mistake has been not to use regiments of sepoys.

[clivethecelt]

I think Stewart's point - to a certain degree - is that we have no moral obligation to do what we cannot do, and should "be prepared to turn back if conditions turn against you" - interesting given that it's part of an Amnesty International-sponsored series. He is particularly scathing of the lack of knowledge of local cultures and political structure displayed by leaders of NATO, etc, which is his forte (Stewart's other books on Afganistan and Iraq highlight this point very clearly). Meanwhile, Perfidious Albion rumbles on ... I'm reminded of Lord Palmerston's comments, "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.", and wonder if William Hague missed the point entirely when he quoted him!

BD wrote:

On a lighter note........Intervention can work.......

Those Marines and auxiliaries of yours marching north, eh? I have a cunning plan to counter Carvel's plan to reinforce the beleaguered XX legionaries - breed!! Where's Getafix got to with those little blue pills ... ?

[Cubster]

Aye, it may seem mercenary and self-serving sometimes to stand aside from situations, but by blundering into someone else's mess without doing your homework or weighing up the risks you simply inflame the problem and draw more victims into it. The first responsibility of a nation is to protect its citizens and any global responsibility must be secondary.

It's very, very tough though to sometimes distinguish a situation where humanitarian issues necessitate a military intervention, the cost of which may be heavy for all concerned. In real life of course the labels diplomats and polititians apply to problems just pigeon hole aspects that cannot actually be separated from everything else involved. The question of where to draw the line must be a very hard one to have to make.

[zedeyejoe]

I remember Margaret Thatcher described the Falkland Islands as a matter of principle.

When asked about the transfer of Hong Kong to the Chinese, she said that that was a different matter of principle.

Yep you have to pick your battles carefully.

Of course in recent years we have the example of a successful intervention in Sierra Leone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leo ... present.29
entirely by the military commander on the spot deciding to take action - and getting it right.

[Cubster]

Well Hong Kong never belonged to Britain, it was always a 99 year lease and when the lease was up we just had to hand it over and try to look as happy as we could.

The sad thing about the Falklands was that negotiations were ongoing as to the transfer of ownership (as they had been for years uncounted in fairness) but by forcing the issue with an invading force Argentina shut the door for the foreseeable future.

Geographic convenience is no reason for any nation to claim ownership over a piece of land. If you overturned every diplomatic agreement made as part of peace negotiations then the world would have to deal with some very big problems quite quickly.

[zedeyejoe]

Hong Kong was indeed British territory in perpetuity, it was the New Territories that were under 99 year lease. But apparently Hong Kong did not have enough water without the New Territories, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong# ... lonial_era