The Obama and McCain Doctrines on Intervention

First, I would like to reproduce Tom Brokaw's question on humanitarian intervention from last night's debate in its entirety, because I was so happy he asked it, I nearly jumped out of my chair.

"Let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.

Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.

What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?"

Obama responded first, noting that moral issues, if not national security issues, are at stake. I have a slight problem with what came next:

"If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?"

If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act."

We definitely could have. Both times. But that will be saved for another discussion.

But then he said, "So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

Yes. Yes, it does.

And he urged international cooperation to end the violence. Very nice.

While McCain's response seemed a little convoluted at times, and tugged less at the heartstrings of activists, he highlighted two critically important issues that constantly confront anti-genocide efforts: The inherent costs of direct military intervention, and the unintended consequences of action taken without careful considering of the context.

Sadly, stopping genocide isn't has simple as sending in a military force--and frankly, sending in a military force isn't a simple prospect at all.