Intervention Intention

The most vitally important of contemporary foreign policy questions—when is a nation justified, for whatever (read humanitarian) reasons, to intervene abroad?

Why do we sometimes let evil happen to others and sometimes rally to stop it? Whose lives matter to us? These are the key quizes - see - 

"Military missions in the name of human rights have always been dangerous undertakings, Courtney. There has always been the risk of radical destabilization and the threatening blurring of imperial and humanitarian intentions. Yet even in the imperialistic heyday of the nineteenth century, humanitarian ideals could play a significant role in shaping world politics. The failure of today's leading democracies to shoulder such responsibilities has led to catastrophes like those in Rwanda and Darfur—catastrophes that are neither inevitable nor traditional."

 Realpolitik's ancient avatar Dr K busts out of his sarcophagus long enough to deliver a hello of sorts. Since traditional Realpolitik has totally failed to provide 'stability' and/or "peace"  - as opfor"d to providing tons of instability, wars, famine, genocide and terrorism - a new era of Realpolitik may actually be way more closer to humanitarianism, democrazy promo and regime changes.

At least with intervention intention.

Check it: 

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we believe that a less explicitly strategic involvement disclaiming a U.S. national interest will make nation-buildingless complex? Do we have a preference as to which groups come to power? Or are we agnostic so long as the mechanisms are electoral? If the latter, how do we avoid fostering a new absolutism legitimized by managed plebiscites and sect-based permanent majorities? 

 What outcomes are compatible with America’s core strategic interests in the region? Will it be possible to combine strategic withdrawal from key countries and reduced military expenditures with doctrines of universal humanitarian intervention? Discussion of these issues has been largely absent from the debate over Great Satan"s foreign policy regarding the Arab Spring.

 Well, see - Great Satan"s nat"l (internat"l!!) interests is actually prett ez to define and understand. Nothing less egalitarian, tolerant societies with an off the hook lit rate, a penchant for periodic xparent elections, a free, open press, a military under civie command, an independent judiciary under lected gov oversight and a nat"l treasury under public scrutiny will do

 Anything else is just asking for trouble..

 For more than half a century, Great Satan"s policy in the Middle East has been guided by sev  security objectives: 

Preventing any power in the region from emerging as a hegemon; 

Ensuring the free flow of energy resources, still vital to the operation of the world economy; 

Attempting to broker a durable peace between Little Satan and her neighbors, including a settlement with something something Palestine. 

In the past decade, Iran has emerged as the principal challenge to all three. 

A process that ends with regional governments either too weak or too anti-Western in their orientation to lend support to these outcomes, and in which "Merican partnerships are no longer welcomed, must evoke strategic concerns — regardless of the electoral mechanisms by which these governments come to power. Within the framework of these general limits, Great Satan policy has significant scope for creativity in promoting humanitarian and democratic values. 

Great Satan should be prepared to deal with democratically elected (somewhat unhinged and girl hating m"Hammedist) governments. Yet she is also free to pursue a standard principle of traditional foreign policy — to condition her stance on the alignment of her interests with the actions of the government in question*. 

 Whoa whoa whoa!!

Sooo, Great Satan for example could wander off without disbursing fundage to Aegypt"s mighty mighty (NOT!!) military machine. Til some of those brand new shiny shiny M1 panzers (from that shiny shiny M1 Panzer factory) blitz a few Black Veil Bride complexes maybe?  

Maybe tell Land of the Pure to go crash in 3 days without massive quantities of American dollars unless those wicked women worshipping western wild Westphallic idosities of - you know - Writ of State are enforced to death on Pakistan's Haqqanilicious proxies in those wild wack unAdministered Tribal Regions? 

 Great Satan"s conduct during the Arab upheavals has so far avoided making America an obstacle to the revolutionary transformations. This is not a minor achievement. But it is one component of a successful approach. Policy will, in the end, also be judged by whether what emerges from the Arab Spring improves the reformed states’ responsibility toward the international order and humane institutions.

  Pic - "Divine Intervention"
* Those slanted letters got all slanted by CoUrTnEy for emphasizing especial emphasism