The message was clear. It was to be a humanitarian intervention only:
But history is filled with examples of military interventions so justified–the logic of which eventually leads to unintended consequences. Indeed, since the intervention we have seen that Western support of the rebels was apparently not carefully considered…and might have even resulted in the arming of certain “flickers of Al Qaeda.”
On Holy Thursday US Predator Drones entered the theater. Perhaps not coincidentally, Easter Sunday brought with it calls for directly attacking Gaddafi by folks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. After all, wouldn’t this solve the stalemate in the civil war? It looks good in comparison to the ground troop solution proposed by the EU.
Has macro-proportionality (admittedly in hindsight) already been violated? Can the creeping logic of this military intervention be stopped?
There is definitely a matter of creep occurring. This appears to be more from the lack of planning, unforeseen circumstances and other contingencies rather than an intentional desire to escalate hostilities. Sad to say, what has become clear in this conflict is that our allies are incapable of carrying out the most basic of military operations. This leaves the U.S. in an unfortunate position. Given the fact that many of our European allies have drastically reduced their military budgets there will be more pressure on the U.S. to step in to further conflicts.
Is there a way to meaningfully calculate macro-proportionality in light of unforeseen circumstances and contingencies (like the relative attention span of leadership…or, heck, even change in leadership)?
In discussing the use of force, moral theologians often focus on modern weaponry as the major danger concerning proportionality. And technology certainly is a major threat to proportionality; however, your post highlights for me a very different threat to proportionality – attention span!
Proportionality requires patience and fortitude – and in our culture, I think that means perpetual problem with creeping escalation because of the push for quick resolution. The calls of McCain and Graham are, in my opinion, key examples of this. The Virtue of Fortitude, reclaimed and understood as it is in Aquinas, provides the answer. However, as a society, we generally lack this virtue. Culturally, fortitude has often been reduced to simply “courage,” which loses the rich depth it has in Aquinas – fortitude as steadfastness. Cultivating this virtue is I think the way we protect proportionality and mission in Libya – but that is easier said than done.
I don’t think you can calculate it in that way….but perhaps I am misunderstanding what you’re trying to get at by calculating macro-proportionality. There’s the overall judgment – which can’t ultimately be done until the situation is over…what you can and must do is evaluate each step and/or proposed step to see if it meets the criteria of proportionality. The problem I see is that proportionality stops being meaningfully considered after a certain point – – given the technology and weapons we possess and the limited attention span of both US population and politicians – – proportionality as a real concern gets sacrificed in the name of “winning” “finishing” or “election cycle.”
Meghan, my worry is that even if you dismiss the concerns you have (and I don’t think there is any way to do so…you make excellent points), macro-proportionality demands that you try to anticipate whether the benefits of a particular military intervention will be proportionate with its anticipated harms. Can this be done today in a meaningful way? Leaving aside the complicated question about whether the goods to be considered are even commensurable in the first place, does the radical uncertainty of modern warfare (including the instability of modern democratic leadership) make such calculation impossible?
I do not know – I share your concerns.
I have less of a problem/concern with the “calculation” which I do think can be done in a reasonable, yet limited way. My problem is with human ability to follow through…..I don’t think the problem is we don’t know what proportionality demands – but that we chose not to follow it. (admitting, there are things we cannot know, foresee, prevent….). And this is a problem to which I do not have an answer –
The question about forseeing and calculating outcomes is an intelligence question. There are various analytical and forecasting techniques for tactical situations and strategic scenarios. It requires a lot of data collection through various types of INTs such as HUMINT, IMINT SIGINT and etc. There is a lot of modeling that goes on to predict outcomes within a probability window. This being said, despite a fairly analytical and rigorous process of reviewing qualitative and quantitative data, it is not an exact science. And yes, there is the “political” problem which often gets in the way of the best analysis. While intelligence analysts provide ideas on likely scenarios and outcomes, it is policy makers who make the final call. I believe there can be “meaningful” and effective ways of determining outcomes depending on what your a priori objective are, but to control all the contingincies and have all the necessary intel is impossible.