[Maxim Litvinov]

Why is this still binary?

It isn't - indeed my quote suggests it isn't: just because it's not one, doesn't mean it's the other is what I was saying.

Humanitarianism involves intent though - it is about a philosophical approach. There is not the possibility, therefore, of the allied forces in Afghanistan somehow being humanitarian in an unintentional (but welcome) way while pursuing a non-humanitarian agenda.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the US seem to have taken a approach that once the 'bad guys' are gone, the locals will just naturally gravitate towards democracy, effective and pro-US government.

That doesn't really sound credible though does it - we have even more experience with that approach not working than we do in being disappointed in the outcome of peacekeeping. Of course, if the main aim was eliminating the threats (a more realist line) RATHER than establishing effective government (a more liberal one), then the approach makes more sense.

[Smilin' Dave]

It isn't - indeed my quote suggests it isn't: just because it's not one, doesn't mean it's the other is what I was saying.

You've firmly grounded your responses in humanitarian vs. imperialism terms at every given opportunity till now. In fact I'll go further, your first two quotes by me seem to omit the the crux of my argument each time. So that this:

Seeing intervention as strictly humanitarian or imperialist is false. There is an overlap between humanitarian objectives, practical concerns and an array of political objectives (including varieties of imperialism).

A wonderful world of grey areas and practicality becomes this:

Seeing intervention as strictly humanitarian or imperialist is false.

Where even my disagreement becomes binary (yes/no) and your counter was a clear-cut subdivision (cause/effect). It probably wasn't intended, but it projects a certain approach.

There is not the possibility, therefore, of the allied forces in Afghanistan somehow being humanitarian in an unintentional (but welcome) way while pursuing a non-humanitarian agenda.

One need not practice a particular system of ethics to act in a manner that is humane or for want of a better word, good. When we accept that intervention can have many reasons, rather than just one, it becomes quite possible for a force to act with good intentions, and even have some good outcomes while at the same time doing harm.

That doesn't really sound credible though does it - we have even more experience with that approach not working than we do in being disappointed in the outcome of peacekeeping

While reasons can overlap, they don't need to either. Fears of ineffectual peacekeeping may or may not overlap with ideas about society and governance.

Of course, if the main aim was eliminating the threats (a more realist line) RATHER than establishing effective government (a more liberal one), then the approach makes more sense.

But we are not dealing with liberals in the American sense thought, we are talking about a group of leaders who put a lot of store in the idea of small government. Even this could have been the result of a convergence of forces:
- Partisans want a particular form of government because they think it will work, others because of utopian delusion etc.
- Certain thinkers within the military perhaps perceived certain advantages in a small/weak government (no future threat, no local interference in follow-on operations)
- Certain thinkers within industry perhaps perceived certain advantages in a small/weak government (lower likelyhood of state ownership of resources, limited regulations etc.)
- People wanting a cheap war probably liked the idea of a government that someone else created and would require few inputs from the occupying forces
- People wanting a quick war would have been attracted by the belief that an Iraqi government would just spring up and replace the Baathists
...and so on.

Lets go even further back. Is Cartertonian part of a machine that cranks out killbots?
- What does Cart aim to do as an individual?
- What do the recruits think?
- Do the military even want killbots instead of thinking men?
- What do the politicians who control the funding and dictate a lot of policy in this particular sector want?
Instead Cartertonian was given a binary choice:

Either you will explain to these initiates the significance of revolutionary ideology and the importance of undermining the imperial institution - or you will endorse it.

Apparently, you are with us or against us?

Anyway, I've rambled on for long enough. KFlint can have his thread back.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You've firmly grounded your responses in humanitarian vs. imperialism terms at every given opportunity till now

Not really. I didn't even mention imperialism until you brought it up. I think you are confusing me with MB. As I pointed out in my last post, I don't think something has to be either imperialist or humanitarian.

One need not practice a particular system of ethics to act in a manner that is humane or for want of a better word, good. When we accept that intervention can have many reasons, rather than just one, it becomes quite possible for a force to act with good intentions, and even have some good outcomes while at the same time doing harm.

Humanitarianism is an intentional position - it reflects a thinking policy. I agree that good intentions can produce bad results and vice versa, but to be *humanitarian* you have to at least have the good intentions. It is my position - and I believe MB.'s as well - that a study of Afghanistan shows that the US forces have not had such humanitarian intentions. The two primary pieces of evidence here seem to be (a) that Afghanistan wouldn't be the first theatre you'd choose if your intention was to maximise humanitarian outcomes and (b) that the strategy adopted in Afghanistan would be different if your intention was humanitarian.

We are talking about a group of leaders who put a lot of store in the idea of small government.

I don't think this is accurate. Bush and Obama are not libertarians and neither are the top military brass - in fact they all have strong backgrounds in being part of major state institutions rather than rejecting those institutions.

[InterestedInPolitics]

Maybe I'm missing some subtle inference, here, KFLint. I'm a Brit ex-army, now airforce officer. In any nation the airforce and the navy are significantly more dependent upon Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics than the army and always have been.

Your selection of advertisements appears to do nothing other than further reinforce what is already the case.

Your statement regarding the importance of technology to the Air Force and Navy is true, but it still doesn't change the fact that wars are not won by technology, but rather, as I have said before, human beings. So in the end, it boils down to the foundation, the man, the infantryman. That's what ultimately wins the war. Not science or technology. Speaking from a tactical viewpoint, somebody who is very good with tactics can circumvent and at times render superior firepower and technology useless. In order to counter such craftiness, it takes another infantryman who is just as tactically proficient or better.