photo credit: John Tann
I just don’t think that force of war — which is what NATO is using — is a reliable tool for achieving humanitarian goals. People say “we’re going to use war to achieve humanitarian goal X,” but the truth is, they have NO idea if they’re actually going to succeed. (Unless goal X is “cause a great deal of destruction and death,” in which case they can be fairly certain of success, but I think their claim to a humanitarian intent would be significantly weakened.)
When it comes to humanitarian goals, war is an extremely chancy tool. The people who claim that they know what they’re doing, and they’re going to be successful at using warfare as a humanitarian tool to achieve humanitarian goals without enormous bloodshed — I think those people are either self-deceiving, or simply liars. Even if they’re entirely sincere, the chances of not really achieving humanitarian ends, or of achieving them only at inhumane costs, are very high.
It’s a little like seeing a deadly poisonous wasp buzzing a few inches from a little child’s eye, while the child is in a big crowd of children. Sure, I could draw my handgun and shoot the wasp to prevent it from stinging the child to death. But the odds of that plan actually working are small, and the odds of a tragic unintended result are unacceptably high.
So even if someone says to me, “don’t you care if a small child gets stung to death,” I’m against that plan. Even if the plan works, and in retrospect people are saying “see, you were wrong to disagree,” I’m against that plan.
So, to answer Daran’s question, I’m back to being opposed.
UPDATE: See Daran’s response to me here.