It was due to Jeff Gassman that I started this blog. He created one earlier this year (please check out his blog, The Right Eye, in the links area). It was one Thursday night of drinking at Psycho Suzie's Motor Lounge, one of the finest establishments in Minneapolis (think the Brady Bunch Hawaii episodes coming to life in Minnesota) where I posed to him a hypothetical situation which I thought would be suitable for his blog. However, he did not take up the challenge, so here goes my attempt.
It was earlier this summer as the conflict between Israel and Hizbolla. As with most conflicts, innocent civilians die. Our discussion did not center on who was right and wrong, but rather what is the role of Governments in this conflict. Not the Israeli or Lebanese Governments, but the US Government and what was its responsibility to protect US citizens overseas.
This is the question: suppose the conflict was not in Israel, or Lebanon, or Iraq. What if the conflict occurs somewhere we thought was safe - say France. What if a well organized, underground movement of Anti-Americanism was brewing in France's ghettos. Think of last years riots magnified to the level of the Rwandan genocide of the mid-90's. The target is everything and everybody American. The attack gets launched without warning and with the intention of killing everyone American. President Chirac is powerless to stop the riots and Americans are being slaughtered on the street. Say this happens during the summer when there are massive amounts of tourists in France. What is our responsibility to our fellow citizens to protect them?
The obvious answer is we as Americans should do whatever we can to help our fellow man (assuming of course that the French are incapable of stopping the killing). We should work with French to coordinate any troop deployment and evacuation US citizens. But consider two events from our not to recent past: Iran 1979 and Iraq today.
In Iran in the late 70s, an anti-American movement was taking place, which we were largely caught off guard as to how serious it was or the impact it would have. Iran under the Shah had been an ally (of sorts) for the US, although some of the events leading to deposing the Shah had caused the US to consider sanctions, including cutting off arms shipments. After the US Hostages were taken, President Carter attempted only one rescue attempt (although he was highly criticized for only this one feeble attempt). In Iraq today, Americans civilians are in danger in areas throughout the country, especially in populated areas. It is difficult to judge this situation honestly as it is still active; however, very few commentators feel that Donald Rumsfeld has sent in enough troops to protect US civilians working in Iraq, much less stop sectarian violence.
So what is the difference between these situations and the hypothetical genocide in France? It seems the civilians must follow the policy of caveat emptor when traveling. Iran had shown signs of instability, but no one expected them to take over the embassy. Perhaps if they had killed - or threatened to kill - more civilians our response would have been stronger. Or is the situation in France different because there are tourists, as opposed to government employees? It seems like the US government would feel a stronger responsibility (and liability) to insure that any civilians the employ are protected. Would it be the shocking nature of the event which would cause us to act? Certainly the horrors of 9/11 brought out the best of Americans. Would we have the opportunity to show such compassion for our fellow man if the situation was so far overseas?
No comments:
Post a Comment