I've gotta write an OP-ED with another guy on all this. It's a Lincoln Douglas style debate on whether the US should get involved with the revolution there, My opponent taking the side that we shouldn't, me taking the opposite. I personally think we shouldn't get involved. Anyway, I'm a bit nervous about writing the article right now because of how fast the situation is still developing.
We're in sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I lean towards "DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT" mostly because every time we've been involved with setting up governments in the middle east, we fuck it up horribly, or the people who leave in charge fuck it up horribly, culminating with a nation of anti-American psychopaths. If we do nothing, and shit goes south, we can always say "Hey, man, we didn't have anything to do with it."
This is a shame. This was where I was getting most of my news on the situation from.
I'm really hoping for the best. I wish I could show my solidarity with the youth who long for freedom and democracy. I hope it does not turn out like Iran, but I think that the people have the right attitude.
I personally think we shouldn't get involved.
This is how democracy will happen in the middle east. If the people are unhappy they will rise up eventually, and when they succeed they will, I think, value their freedom much more than if democracy was forced on them by an outside party.
I've gotta write an OP-ED with another guy on all this. It's a Lincoln Douglas style debate on whether the US should get involved with the revolution there, My opponent taking the side that we shouldn't, me taking the opposite. I personally think we shouldn't get involved. Anyway, I'm a bit nervous about writing the article right now because of how fast the situation is still developing.
That sounds like a good assignment to me. I mean, it's a complex and important question, but there's also a lot of room to make different styles of argument. This is a topic where great oratory and/or writing can matter a lot. A good challenge.
Personally, I'm still a bit torn. US involvement would definitely make the situation fall to one side or another. There's no question about it. This is always the most difficult question for anyone who wields any degree of authority: when do I exercise my authority?
There's no denying that Mubarak is an asshole. The problem is, we need him, and he's a known quantity. If he goes down and someone worse takes his place, nobody wins. If the US backs the protesters - or more properly, applies the screws to Mubarak - and it fails, then we've just wrecked our relationship with the guy in charge of the Suez.
But if we back the protesters and it actually works - if we do the bold and noble thing - then we've changed the world for the better. We've done one of the big things that we like to think a superpower should do.
We're lucky in that we have the luxury of sitting back and making up our minds. Many other people don't have that option.
EDIT: I do also generally side towards non-involvement, but every time we do that, I die a little bit inside. Maybe if we actually fought for idealism every now and again, we might actually bring it to life. Just maybe.
EDIT: I do also generally side towards non-involvement, but every time we do that, I die a little bit inside. Maybe if we actually fought for idealism every now and again, we might actually bring it to life. Just maybe.
I believe that we should intervene in peacekeeping capacity if things get really out of hand, and you have genocide and stuff going on. (Rwanda?) However, I think a movement like this should be done by the citizens themselves. That way they will really value it, kind of like the Americans value their revolution and the Indians theirs. We should cheer them from the sidelines and help keep the violence to a minimum. However, no offensive measures and no bombing.
I believe that we should intervene in peacekeeping capacity if things get really out of hand, and you have genocide and stuff going on. (Rwanda?) However, I think a movement like this should be done by the citizens themselves. That way they will really value it, kind of like the Americans value their revolution and the Indians theirs. We should cheer them from the sidelines and help keep the violence to a minimum. However, no offensive measures and no bombing.
My main issue is that we've basically been saying the same thing for 30 years - "Oh you, Mubarak. You'd better give your people freedoms this time around. We mean it. We're super cereal." - and we've basically been getting the same response for the past 30 years.
I like it when my government does things.
However, no offensive measures and no bombing.
Ah, but that's not what I meant. Obama said "take concrete steps." What if instead Obama said, "You will give people in your country the right to form political parties by 2012, or we will withdraw [some amount] of foreign aid?" And then actually do it?
Yeeeah... I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like it when we make empty threats, but I also don't think we should be determining how every other country is governed. The thing is that the government of a country will have a lot more apparent authority if the people of the country set it up. If we go in and set up a people-friendly government, assuming we could, it would still give rise to questions of authority because it was set up by an outsider.
Not that I like massive death or anything, but revolution has its purposes.
If we go in and set up a people-friendly government, assuming we could, it would still give rise to questions of authority because it was set up by an outsider.
Yeah, there is that problem. Sure, we could just assassinate Mubarak and install some kind of puppet government, but that hasn't really worked out for us before.
That's why I would advocate some kind of economic pressure with clear terms.
but I also don't think we should be determining how every other country is governed
We wouldn't be, though. The Egyptian people will sort that out. We would just put pressure on Mubarak to bend to the will of his people.
Again, I know that's not what happens from a practical standpoint. I know how these things work in the real world. Every now and then, though, I'd really like the US to stand up and say, "You know what? Fuck you, you dictatorial asshole," and then exercise some diplomatic muscle to make something happen.
I've also just watched a shitload of The West Wing, so I'm in an idealist mindset right now.
But I also do believe that if you never ever actually follow through on an ideal, you'll never make it a reality. The US pressuring Mubarak to step down would change the political landscape in the Middle East, I think. For better or worse, I dunno, but things over there have followed a vicious cycle for a while. How do you change that except by forcing that change? The country often touts itself as being a force for change and freedom and liberation and all that crap, and here, when we could maybe actually do some freeing and liberating, we straddle the fence. It's frustrating.
Not that I like massive death or anything, but revolution has its purposes.
The other problem is that the history of revolution in the Middle East has been towards more radical government. It seems to me like a "good" revolution gets going, falters as it gets crushed by the current oppressive government, and then picks up steam when it gets taken over by bigger radicals.
It's tricky and ridiculously dangerous territory, which is why we won't go there.
Why would we pressure Mubarak to step down when he's been of the strongest allies in the Middle East with the U.S.? Are you guys forgetting the past thirty years in which we actively gave aid and support to this regime? Additionally, Israel is freaking out right now as Mubarak was a strong force in preventing any major powers in the region from attacking them. Actively supporting the overthrow of them is spitting in the face of Israel, and a significantly large portion of U.S. voters.
Apart from that, we need to stop fucking around with other countries. I'm sick of this "White Man's America's Burden" to police the world and ensure safety for all.
Why would we pressure Mubarak to step down when he's been of the strongest allies in the Middle East with the U.S.?
Because he's a dictatorial asshole. Also, it looks bad when we support guys like that. Also, we could probably use that $30 billion in aid somewhere else, like fixing things here.
However, I don't think we need to pressure him to step down - just to free up his country more. Then, his people will oust him and install what they want.
Additionally, Israel is freaking out right now as Mubarak was a strong force in preventing any major powers in the region from attacking them. Actively supporting the overthrow of them is spitting in the face of Israel, and a significantly large portion of U.S. voters.
That is definitely a huge issue. Mubarak has led a stable regime, which is really an uncommon thing over in the Middle East.
However, we might not have a choice in the matter at all. Mubarak could very well just go away entirely by virtue of the current revolution. The people want change and will have it one way or another. The question is how we will be perceived by a new regime should one come to be.
Apart from that, we need to stop fucking around with other countries. I'm sick of this "White Man'sAmerica's Burden" to police the world and ensure safety for all.
Sure, OK, but what do you do when 1)the people in a country are asking for you to help, 2)people in the international community are pressuring you to help, and 3)your old ally is teetering on the brink of collapse?
Personally, I'm all about getting the fuck out of the Middle East, forever.
Apart from that, we need to stop fucking around with other countries. I'm sick of this "White Man'sAmerica's Burden" to police the world and ensure safety for all.
There are quite a few reason's for America's burden, but these two are the biggest.
While we are the biggest and the baddest country there is, we still depend greatly on others. Many of those others we depend on may not like us very much. For example with Egypt, we really fucking need the Suez canal to stay open to us, to be safe, and for there to not suddenly be a gigantic toll on using it. Otherwise, we are fuuuuucked. So even if not for the Egyptian people, or any other people, we need to police other parts of the world for our own sake.
Secondly, there is a moral problem. If you are in a situation where it is possible for you to save someone's life, are you not morally obligated to do it? I'm not talking legally, strictly morally. If you had a chance to save someone's life, and you didn't, how would you feel the next day? How much regret would you have?
The problem here is that when you have an incredibly powerful military that can overwhelm all others, along with that power comes the ability to save many many lives. If you don't have the power, you won't feel a moral problem because there was nothing you could do. But by being so powerful, you gain the ability to just physically stop genocides, topple evil dictators, rescue enslaved peoples, etc. How would you feel having this power and not using it? All those people could be saved, you have the power to save them so easily, but you do nothing. Ask Bill Clinton how he regrets not doing more in Rwanda.
The only solution/thought I can offer here is that it would help the world a fuckton if China felt the same way we did. After us, China is the biggest. Population wise, they are the biggest. Yet, people still look to us as #1, for now. Yet, if you watch news about Egypt, all eyes and ears are on Egypt itself, but also on Obama. Yes, we gave much aid to Egypt and they are our political allies, but why not any ears or eyes on Wen Jiabao (premiere of China)? They're so large, are they not also morally obligated to oust evil regimes (other than themselves), stop genocides, and save lives?
I support a return to isolationism. U.S. meddling in world affairs over the past half-century has had mixed results and an enormous bill. With the Cold War over, it's time to turn our eyes homeward. Also, while I wish the best to the Egyptian revolutionaries, this is their war to fight. Liberties are most cherished when they are hard-won. Haven't we learned this yet, after helping guerrillas overthrow despots in a dozen brush-fire revolutions? I mean, we put Saddam Hussein in power. We put the Taliban in power. How many times do we have to do this dance?
What is it, like 25% of our oil imports come from the Middle East or otherwise depend on the Suez Canal?
Like I said, I totally support getting the fuck out of this stone-age sandy hellhole forever. Let 'em blow each other up. Does it suck? Sure. Do we have problems of our own to attend to? Fuck yes. We just need to figure out how to make up for that lost Middle East oil, and we'll be OK.
Hey, maybe we can get with Norway on the oil thing.
I support a return to isolationism. U.S. meddling in world affairs over the past half-century has had mixed results and an enormous bill. With the Cold War over, it's time to turn our eyes homeward. Also, while I wish the best to the Egyptian revolutionaries, this is their war to fight. Liberties are most cherished when they are hard-won. Haven't we learned this yet, after helping guerrillas overthrow despots in a dozen brush-fire revolutions? I mean, we put Saddam Hussein in power. We put the Taliban in power. How many times do we have to do this dance?
It's a catch-22. An isolationist policy will not reduce hate for the US, though it may shift it. Likewise, it will cause just as many, if not more, problems than it solves.
Almost every country on earth is interdependent on other countries with which they do not necessarily share common goals and ideologies. If you abandon those relationships, you get fucked because you lose whatever you were getting out of it. If you stick with it, you hurt, because they might fuck you over. Just like being in a relationship with another person. Once you trust them, they can fuck you over, but you also hurt if they leave.
Also, can you really just stand there and watch horrible things happen around the world, and not do anything, even when it was well within your power to do so? Not me.
I'm just watching for another "Iranian revolution" where the secular folks in the protests are undermined by the radical Muslims (in this case the Muslim Brotherhood). So I'm not sure what is the best bet for Egypt and the US. I think the letting the People decide is probably the best thing to do, the US just sitting on the sideline saying "Please just be peaceful". Is probably a good call.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a strange group. It really has sort of an identity crisis as to whether it is peaceful muslims, like my neighbors, or the terrorist ones. I think basically what happens is it is the largest muslim political party, so it gets support from all muslims even though they disagree. So really if the muslim brotherhood becomes a majority party in Egypt, it could go either way. It depends on exactly which individual people are elected, and not so much on which party they are in.
Also, can you really just stand there and watch horrible things happen around the world, and not do anything, even when it was well within your power to do so? Not me.
Rwanda.
Suppose the exact same thing started happening today. To anyone who supports US isolationism, tell me that you would be OK with us watching outright genocide that we have the power to prevent.
Egypt is a tricky situation. I can't exactly write out my long opinion, considering I'm at work, but the short version is as such:
Obama should state simply that the US will recognize whatever government the Egyption people support and accept ambassadors therefrom. Leave it at that. No intervention, no explicit repudiation of either side. Just a clear statement that the US will recognize a duly elected democracy regardless of its stances. See where that goes.
It's a safe bet. Egypt's popular movement today has a lot of Islam within it, but the core ideology is one of political liberalization. A Muslim government that oppressed its people similarly to the current regime would not last. A stable, even if conservative, government in this relatively modern and secularizing nation would be unable to resist the long-term pull of further liberalization.
An isolationist policy will not reduce hate for the US, though it may shift it. Likewise, it will cause just as many, if not more, problems than it solves.
I'm not concerned with hate for the U.S. I'm concerned with fiscal solvency.
How long can we overextend our budget to rescue wayward nations? Bush's wartime agenda cost us $4 trillion during his presidency alone, let alone the financial legacy passed to Obama. Military spending is more than half the federal budget. During his State of the Union speech, Obama said military heads have suggested $13 billion in cuts to military spending that is not necessary -- that's a drop in a bucket. Defense has to be cut.
Isolationism doesn't mean abandoning nations diplomatically, nor does it mean ceasing aid to those nations. But the Roosevelt Corollary isn't working, and it's costing too much. Interdependence these days has far more to do with economics than force; both our dollar and our workforce is weak. We need to worry about eliminating our debt rather than inflating it.
Also, can you really just stand there and watch horrible things happen around the world, and not do anything, even when it was well within your power to do so? Not me.
Is it within our power? Is it? Honestly?
Have you ever had a friend who was slipping into self-destructive behaviors? An intervention might work, but how effective is punching your friend in the mouth, burning his clothes, killing his cat, and squatting in his house? That's what we're doing to Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes your friend just has to make bad choices and experience the pain of the consequences.
Obama should state simply that the US will recognize whatever government the Egyptionpeoplesupport and accept ambassadors therefrom. Leave it at that. No intervention, no explicit repudiation of either side. Just a clear statement that the US will recognize a duly elected democracy regardless of its stances. See where that goes.
That's exactly what President Obama did and I support that stance.
"In Washington, President Barack Obama voiced support for an "orderly transition" in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians. He also called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to take concrete steps towards political reform, and to refrain from using violence against protesters."
Obama should state simply that the US will recognize whatever government the Egyptionpeoplesupport and accept ambassadors therefrom. Leave it at that. No intervention, no explicit repudiation of either side. Just a clear statement that the US will recognize a duly elected democracy regardless of its stances. See where that goes.
That's exactly what President Obama did and I support that stance.
"In Washington, President Barack Obama voiced support for an "orderly transition" in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians. He also called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to take concrete steps towards political reform, and to refrain from using violence against protesters."
A lot of people don't realize this, but "aid" to other countries is actually aid to the US. They aren't gifts of money. They are loans. As long as those countries don't default, it awesome for the US. We give them big loans, they use those loans to buy things from us! It's no different than when Best Buy sells you a TV with financing. It's just that Best Buy doesn't call that giving you "aid." Maybe they should.
Is it within our power? Is it? Honestly?
Have you ever had a friend who was slipping into self-destructive behaviors? An intervention might work, but how effective is punching your friend in the mouth, burning his clothes, killing his cat, and squatting in his house? That's what we're doing to Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes your friend just has to make bad choices and experience the pain of the consequences.
Iraq and Afghanistan are bad examples. One reason is that those were not really places that needed immediate help in the kind that a military presence can provide. Secondly, the method in which our military helped was not helpful. Look instead at the example of genocide by Slobodan Milosevich. We went in and totally did good. Why? Because it was a situation where military could help, and we went about it the right way. We didn't invade and try to take over like in Iraq and Afghanistan. We just went in a made peace. We could have done the same in Rwanda, and many other places as well. When there are such heinous human rights violations, you have to at least try.
He also called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to take concrete steps towards political reform, and to refrain from using violence against protesters.
Yes, I liked this. I want to know what Obama thinks those "concrete steps" ought to be. At least the first one. You basically give Mubarak a slight public challenge. If he actually does it, then he wins back a lot of confidence from his people.
But otherwise, I do think it's best to sit by the sidelines.
Yes, I liked this. I want to know what Obama thinks those "concrete steps" ought to be. At least the first one. You basically give Mubarak a slight public challenge. If he actually does it, then he wins back a lot of confidence from his people.
But otherwise, I do think it's best to sit by the sidelines.
Why would he state what he thought concrete steps would be? The people of Egypt will say when concrete steps have been made not President Obama.
Really? so there was not a failure of a government either inept or in transition to prevent the genocide of a particular group of people along ethic or tribal lines?
Obviously they are different, but to say you couldn't apply some of the tactics employed in our successful operation in Bosnia to Rwanda is pretty mystifying.
Really? so there was not a failure of a government either inept or in transition to prevent the genocide of a particular group of people along ethic or tribal lines?
I know he's not going to say it, but the reason people think of it as different is because it was white people.
Comments
Seriously, how long can a country keep going on like this? This will be very interesting to watch.
If we do nothing, and shit goes south, we can always say "Hey, man, we didn't have anything to do with it."
I'm really hoping for the best. I wish I could show my solidarity with the youth who long for freedom and democracy. I hope it does not turn out like Iran, but I think that the people have the right attitude. This is how democracy will happen in the middle east. If the people are unhappy they will rise up eventually, and when they succeed they will, I think, value their freedom much more than if democracy was forced on them by an outside party.
Personally, I'm still a bit torn. US involvement would definitely make the situation fall to one side or another. There's no question about it. This is always the most difficult question for anyone who wields any degree of authority: when do I exercise my authority?
There's no denying that Mubarak is an asshole. The problem is, we need him, and he's a known quantity. If he goes down and someone worse takes his place, nobody wins. If the US backs the protesters - or more properly, applies the screws to Mubarak - and it fails, then we've just wrecked our relationship with the guy in charge of the Suez.
But if we back the protesters and it actually works - if we do the bold and noble thing - then we've changed the world for the better. We've done one of the big things that we like to think a superpower should do.
We're lucky in that we have the luxury of sitting back and making up our minds. Many other people don't have that option.
EDIT: I do also generally side towards non-involvement, but every time we do that, I die a little bit inside. Maybe if we actually fought for idealism every now and again, we might actually bring it to life. Just maybe.
I like it when my government does things. Ah, but that's not what I meant. Obama said "take concrete steps." What if instead Obama said, "You will give people in your country the right to form political parties by 2012, or we will withdraw [some amount] of foreign aid?" And then actually do it?
Not that I like massive death or anything, but revolution has its purposes.
That's why I would advocate some kind of economic pressure with clear terms. We wouldn't be, though. The Egyptian people will sort that out. We would just put pressure on Mubarak to bend to the will of his people.
Again, I know that's not what happens from a practical standpoint. I know how these things work in the real world. Every now and then, though, I'd really like the US to stand up and say, "You know what? Fuck you, you dictatorial asshole," and then exercise some diplomatic muscle to make something happen.
I've also just watched a shitload of The West Wing, so I'm in an idealist mindset right now.
But I also do believe that if you never ever actually follow through on an ideal, you'll never make it a reality. The US pressuring Mubarak to step down would change the political landscape in the Middle East, I think. For better or worse, I dunno, but things over there have followed a vicious cycle for a while. How do you change that except by forcing that change? The country often touts itself as being a force for change and freedom and liberation and all that crap, and here, when we could maybe actually do some freeing and liberating, we straddle the fence. It's frustrating. The other problem is that the history of revolution in the Middle East has been towards more radical government. It seems to me like a "good" revolution gets going, falters as it gets crushed by the current oppressive government, and then picks up steam when it gets taken over by bigger radicals.
It's tricky and ridiculously dangerous territory, which is why we won't go there.
Apart from that, we need to stop fucking around with other countries. I'm sick of this "White Man's America's Burden" to police the world and ensure safety for all.
However, I don't think we need to pressure him to step down - just to free up his country more. Then, his people will oust him and install what they want. That is definitely a huge issue. Mubarak has led a stable regime, which is really an uncommon thing over in the Middle East.
However, we might not have a choice in the matter at all. Mubarak could very well just go away entirely by virtue of the current revolution. The people want change and will have it one way or another. The question is how we will be perceived by a new regime should one come to be. Sure, OK, but what do you do when 1)the people in a country are asking for you to help, 2)people in the international community are pressuring you to help, and 3)your old ally is teetering on the brink of collapse?
Personally, I'm all about getting the fuck out of the Middle East, forever.
While we are the biggest and the baddest country there is, we still depend greatly on others. Many of those others we depend on may not like us very much. For example with Egypt, we really fucking need the Suez canal to stay open to us, to be safe, and for there to not suddenly be a gigantic toll on using it. Otherwise, we are fuuuuucked. So even if not for the Egyptian people, or any other people, we need to police other parts of the world for our own sake.
Secondly, there is a moral problem. If you are in a situation where it is possible for you to save someone's life, are you not morally obligated to do it? I'm not talking legally, strictly morally. If you had a chance to save someone's life, and you didn't, how would you feel the next day? How much regret would you have?
The problem here is that when you have an incredibly powerful military that can overwhelm all others, along with that power comes the ability to save many many lives. If you don't have the power, you won't feel a moral problem because there was nothing you could do. But by being so powerful, you gain the ability to just physically stop genocides, topple evil dictators, rescue enslaved peoples, etc. How would you feel having this power and not using it? All those people could be saved, you have the power to save them so easily, but you do nothing. Ask Bill Clinton how he regrets not doing more in Rwanda.
The only solution/thought I can offer here is that it would help the world a fuckton if China felt the same way we did. After us, China is the biggest. Population wise, they are the biggest. Yet, people still look to us as #1, for now. Yet, if you watch news about Egypt, all eyes and ears are on Egypt itself, but also on Obama. Yes, we gave much aid to Egypt and they are our political allies, but why not any ears or eyes on Wen Jiabao (premiere of China)? They're so large, are they not also morally obligated to oust evil regimes (other than themselves), stop genocides, and save lives?
Like I said, I totally support getting the fuck out of this stone-age sandy hellhole forever. Let 'em blow each other up. Does it suck? Sure. Do we have problems of our own to attend to? Fuck yes. We just need to figure out how to make up for that lost Middle East oil, and we'll be OK.
Hey, maybe we can get with Norway on the oil thing.
Almost every country on earth is interdependent on other countries with which they do not necessarily share common goals and ideologies. If you abandon those relationships, you get fucked because you lose whatever you were getting out of it. If you stick with it, you hurt, because they might fuck you over. Just like being in a relationship with another person. Once you trust them, they can fuck you over, but you also hurt if they leave.
Also, can you really just stand there and watch horrible things happen around the world, and not do anything, even when it was well within your power to do so? Not me.
Suppose the exact same thing started happening today. To anyone who supports US isolationism, tell me that you would be OK with us watching outright genocide that we have the power to prevent.
Egypt is a tricky situation. I can't exactly write out my long opinion, considering I'm at work, but the short version is as such:
Obama should state simply that the US will recognize whatever government the Egyption people support and accept ambassadors therefrom. Leave it at that. No intervention, no explicit repudiation of either side. Just a clear statement that the US will recognize a duly elected democracy regardless of its stances. See where that goes.
It's a safe bet. Egypt's popular movement today has a lot of Islam within it, but the core ideology is one of political liberalization. A Muslim government that oppressed its people similarly to the current regime would not last. A stable, even if conservative, government in this relatively modern and secularizing nation would be unable to resist the long-term pull of further liberalization.
How long can we overextend our budget to rescue wayward nations? Bush's wartime agenda cost us $4 trillion during his presidency alone, let alone the financial legacy passed to Obama. Military spending is more than half the federal budget. During his State of the Union speech, Obama said military heads have suggested $13 billion in cuts to military spending that is not necessary -- that's a drop in a bucket. Defense has to be cut.
Isolationism doesn't mean abandoning nations diplomatically, nor does it mean ceasing aid to those nations. But the Roosevelt Corollary isn't working, and it's costing too much. Interdependence these days has far more to do with economics than force; both our dollar and our workforce is weak. We need to worry about eliminating our debt rather than inflating it. Is it within our power? Is it? Honestly?
Have you ever had a friend who was slipping into self-destructive behaviors? An intervention might work, but how effective is punching your friend in the mouth, burning his clothes, killing his cat, and squatting in his house? That's what we're doing to Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes your friend just has to make bad choices and experience the pain of the consequences.
"In Washington, President Barack Obama voiced support for an "orderly transition" in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians. He also called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to take concrete steps towards political reform, and to refrain from using violence against protesters."
But otherwise, I do think it's best to sit by the sidelines.
Obviously they are different, but to say you couldn't apply some of the tactics employed in our successful operation in Bosnia to Rwanda is pretty mystifying.