This came from one of my classes this week, thought I'd throw it out and see what replies come out.
This is the situation.
You are the U.S. Government and any decision you make will be enacted.
A country in Asia which has favorable relations with the United States through a democratically elected government is running an election. Due to a lack of support for the government, an extremist movement is able to take a significant lead in the polls and is on pace to win the election. The party has claimed that should it come to power, it will severre all ties to Western nations and follow sharia law.
On the eve of the election, the military stages a coup, throwing the democratically elected party out of office, cancelling elections, and installing a military leader while expressing a desire to maintain ties to the west.
This happened within the past six hours, so there are no reports on the current situation as far as human rights abuses, persecution, etc.
What is your response to the situation as the U.S.?
And no, glassing them is not an option.
Theoretical question
-
Kaldaur
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: July 25, 2002, 2:26 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Kaldaur
- Location: Illinois
Honestly?
This is a tough hypothetical. For all our vaunted statements of upholding democracy, I would much rather have a friendly despot or dictator in a neighboring country than an enemy democracy. Since my responsibility is to protect the US people first and foremost, I think I could deal with a dictator who trades and conducts international business rather than a President who advocates war against the US or "the west".
An isolationist country would be a different matter. I don't believe that I would interfere with a democratically controlled government who rejects all ties to the west, as long as that rejection also includes terrorism and covert wars fought by citizens, not armies. In that situation, I'd have to rely on intelligence gathered from my agencies to see if the country in question really would turn down that path. If intel pointed to the fact the country was going to advocate terrorism, then I would attack. My job is to protect the interests of my country and its citizens, not uphold democracy around the world.
Disclaimer: this situation stands alone, and I'm not dealing with all the repercussions of my actions. Call it my Hypothetical Perogative. I don't have to deal with the mess that invading a foreign country will cause, I'm just dealing with the black and white. (no comments about how there is no black and white--this is a hypothetical, and it's my perogative to ignore all the problems that will spring up. Hence the above mentioned H.P.)
Also, what do you mean by "glassing them?"
This is a tough hypothetical. For all our vaunted statements of upholding democracy, I would much rather have a friendly despot or dictator in a neighboring country than an enemy democracy. Since my responsibility is to protect the US people first and foremost, I think I could deal with a dictator who trades and conducts international business rather than a President who advocates war against the US or "the west".
An isolationist country would be a different matter. I don't believe that I would interfere with a democratically controlled government who rejects all ties to the west, as long as that rejection also includes terrorism and covert wars fought by citizens, not armies. In that situation, I'd have to rely on intelligence gathered from my agencies to see if the country in question really would turn down that path. If intel pointed to the fact the country was going to advocate terrorism, then I would attack. My job is to protect the interests of my country and its citizens, not uphold democracy around the world.
Disclaimer: this situation stands alone, and I'm not dealing with all the repercussions of my actions. Call it my Hypothetical Perogative. I don't have to deal with the mess that invading a foreign country will cause, I'm just dealing with the black and white. (no comments about how there is no black and white--this is a hypothetical, and it's my perogative to ignore all the problems that will spring up. Hence the above mentioned H.P.)
Also, what do you mean by "glassing them?"
-
Dregor Thule
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
- PSN ID: dregor77
- Location: Oakville, Ontario
Work with military dictator on condition that its temporary while constitution is re-written and elections are held. Even if said dictator has no intention of relinquishing power.
Supporting a democratic election where shariah law is enacted if that party wins isn't supporting a free nation as such; because shariah law is anti-democracy.
So neither choice is appropriately democratic enough to make a judgement call on a purely moral standpoint. Pragmatically speaking though, the people are better off under a supposedly benevolent dictatorship over a theocratic hornswaggle.
Although its important to note that I am not neccesarily opposed to dictatorships anyway. I feel that a lot of countries can and do benefit from them.
Supporting a democratic election where shariah law is enacted if that party wins isn't supporting a free nation as such; because shariah law is anti-democracy.
So neither choice is appropriately democratic enough to make a judgement call on a purely moral standpoint. Pragmatically speaking though, the people are better off under a supposedly benevolent dictatorship over a theocratic hornswaggle.
Although its important to note that I am not neccesarily opposed to dictatorships anyway. I feel that a lot of countries can and do benefit from them.
What business is it of yours exactly? Are there large oil deposits? Has anyone in this regime taken pot shots at your daddy? Are they christian militia or do they talk to a different imaginary friend?
I don't even recall the last time a US government expressed "moral outrage", except as a pretext for war after the fact.
BTW, personally I do nothing. 6 hours... it will take years to know if this is a benevolent dictator (probably the best possible form of rule/government) or otherwise.
I don't even recall the last time a US government expressed "moral outrage", except as a pretext for war after the fact.
BTW, personally I do nothing. 6 hours... it will take years to know if this is a benevolent dictator (probably the best possible form of rule/government) or otherwise.
Yeah, I'm with Zaelath.
What do I do? How about wait another six hours so I can actually make an informed decision, instead of blindly acting when I have no facts?
The fact that politicians actually do make decisions in circumstances like this is one of the primary problems with our foreign policy.
Note that I'm not supporting ignoring them and letting history take it's course. I'm merely suggesting that the United States, as an uninvolved party, at least have a basic understanding of the facts of the situation before ignorantly imposing our will upon millions of other people.
What do I do? How about wait another six hours so I can actually make an informed decision, instead of blindly acting when I have no facts?
The fact that politicians actually do make decisions in circumstances like this is one of the primary problems with our foreign policy.
Note that I'm not supporting ignoring them and letting history take it's course. I'm merely suggesting that the United States, as an uninvolved party, at least have a basic understanding of the facts of the situation before ignorantly imposing our will upon millions of other people.
I try to figure out which U.S. government agency sponsored the coup. Then I tell them good work and get them to "liberate" a few other countries.
Seriously, I sit back and watch how things unfold. If the new government is benevolent then it isn't any of our business to get involved. If they start selling nukes to their "little" buddies then we worry about it.
Seriously, I sit back and watch how things unfold. If the new government is benevolent then it isn't any of our business to get involved. If they start selling nukes to their "little" buddies then we worry about it.
Deward
-
Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
There are a lot of similarities but this is not an exact copy of Pakistan.
Gen. Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup against a corrupt government that attempted to assasinate him because of his growing power. There was no election at the time as cited in the example.
The question was given to us as a test of decisions that politicians must make and why we sometimes wonder how our government forms alliances with regimes we ordinarily would not.
This example parralels Iraq in a few ways as well. Someone cited requiring the military to move towards democratic reforms and elections. However, the country HAD used a democratic process and was on the verge of electing someone the US did not want in power. This raises the question of how do you allow democratic process while preventing undesirable parties from coming to power.
Also, because this example is taking place in the present, a long term military solution is unlikely due to current obligations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.
Gen. Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup against a corrupt government that attempted to assasinate him because of his growing power. There was no election at the time as cited in the example.
The question was given to us as a test of decisions that politicians must make and why we sometimes wonder how our government forms alliances with regimes we ordinarily would not.
This example parralels Iraq in a few ways as well. Someone cited requiring the military to move towards democratic reforms and elections. However, the country HAD used a democratic process and was on the verge of electing someone the US did not want in power. This raises the question of how do you allow democratic process while preventing undesirable parties from coming to power.
Also, because this example is taking place in the present, a long term military solution is unlikely due to current obligations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.