Could miltary action be justified on health grounds?

tallaght01

My biggest interest in the world of medicine is international health.

I've been doing a lot of reading, as I've got a few weeks off at the moment, and I've gotten to the stage where a degree of hopelessness is replacing my excitement at possibly getting involved in this area as a career move.

Looking at the situation in Dharfur......2 million refugees in camps, living in squalor, with disease everywhere. Huge amounts of rape by armed gangs, including very young girls. HIV, diarrhoeal disease, TB, malaria and malnutrition spreading. The sheer psych trauma these people are experiencing.

Same in the Congo, and several other sub-saharan conutries.

In Zimbabwe, we have a cholera epidemic, which has affected 60,000 people, and killed over 3 thousand. Mugabe isn't doing an awful lot about it.

Somalia hasn't got a functioning government, and in the meantime NGOs are running a healthcare service that really just skims the surface of the population's healthcare needs in a country where HIV, TB, dehydration and malaria are rife. Sexual abuse is endemic.

The UN talks a lot, but really does nothing of substance in terms of reigning in the madmen who inflict significant distress onto their population.

I think only one member of the African Union has told Mugabe he should step down. Their military forces are useless,a nd are pretty corrupt.

the Burmese government do horrific things to their own people, and the Thai government treat refugess from Burma like criminals.

I could go on.

I don't really know where things are going in the developing world.

I get really angry about it. And sometimes i wonder should we be taking military action. Should a UN force throw Mugabe out of power? Should we install stable government in Somalia by force (I think this would be a very different animal than the black hawk down single special forces raid that went very wrong)? Should we stop the Dharfur genocide by flexing some military muscle?

I don't know. I've a feeling the public wouldn't tolerate it. But i just thought I'd throw it out there, more to get a feeling for what people than anything else. And also to open up debate about what we should actually do, if military intervention isn't an option. Sanctions? Be more proactive in bringing war criminals to trial?

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

My biggest interest in the world of medicine is international health.

I've been doing a lot of reading, as I've got a few weeks off at the moment, and I've gotten to the stage where a degree of hopelessness is replacing my excitement at possibly getting involved in this area as a career move.

Looking at the situation in Dharfur......2 million refugees in camps, living in squalor, with disease everywhere. Huge amounts of rape by armed gangs, including very young girls. HIV, diarrhoeal disease, TB, malaria and malnutrition spreading. The sheer psych trauma these people are experiencing.

Same in the Congo, and several other sub-saharan conutries.

In Zimbabwe, we have a cholera epidemic, which has affected 60,000 people, and killed over 3 thousand. Mugabe isn't doing an awful lot about it.

Somalia hasn't got a functioning government, and in the meantime NGOs are running a healthcare service that really just skims the surface of the population's healthcare needs in a country where HIV, TB, dehydration and malaria are rife. Sexual abuse is endemic.

The UN talks a lot, but really does nothing of substance in terms of reigning in the madmen who inflict significant distress onto their population.

I think only one member of the African Union has told Mugabe he should step down. Their military forces are useless,a nd are pretty corrupt.

the Burmese government do horrific things to their own people, and the Thai government treat refugess from Burma like criminals.

I could go on.

I don't really know where things are going in the developing world.

I get really angry about it. And sometimes i wonder should we be taking military action. Should a UN force throw Mugabe out of power? Should we install stable government in Somalia by force (I think this would be a very different animal than the black hawk down single special forces raid that went very wrong)? Should we stop the Dharfur genocide by flexing some military muscle?

I don't know. I've a feeling the public wouldn't tolerate it. But i just thought I'd throw it out there, more to get a feeling for what people than anything else. And also to open up debate about what we should actually do, if military intervention isn't an option. Sanctions? Be more proactive in bringing war criminals to trial?

Didn't Bush try something simular?

tallaght01

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't Bush try something simular?

Well, I would hope people who were motivated by trying to improve health, and actually responding to injustice would make a better job of it.

I don't know, though. The Balkans intervention was too late, but they made less of a balls of that than they have in Iraq.

Traumadoc

Tried it in Somalia, did not end very well.

tallaght01

Traumadoc wrote: »

Tried it in Somalia, did not end very well.

Now I'm no military man....but I would hope that any intervention of this type would involve a bigger force than a special forces batallion trying to hunt down a few warlords in downtown Mogadishu.


I'm not even saying military intervention is right. I'm just putting it out there for thoughts.

Traumadoc

There was a lot more than just the Americans there, there was pakistanis malaysians, Italians even Irish. There were nearly 30,000 troops from 29 nations.

tallaght01

Traumadoc wrote: »

There was a lot more than just the Americans there, there was pakistanis malaysians, Italians even Irish. There were nearly 30,000 troops from 29 nations.

My understanding of the events, and I read a book about it a LONG time ago, so memory may be faulty...was that a special forces groups went in, and then the huge mass of malaysians, pakistanis etc were sent into get them out when it all went wrong.

However, this had very different objectives than a form of what you might call "humanitarian military intervention". The Mogadishu battle involved trying to capture warlords in their own territory in an urban environment.

Is that a reason not to try and help the 2 million refugees in Darfur, for example?

DrIndy

The single biggest and most effective medical interventions are social and political.

Removing the handle off the pump in london saved thousands from cholera. Political will and DDT removed malaria from italy likewise it is political will to implement vaccine programmes that has nearly eliminated polio.

In simple terms though - troops should protect health centres even if they cannot alter the political systems

Traumadoc

tallaght01 wrote: »

My understanding of the events, and I read a book about it a LONG time ago, so memory may be faulty...was that a special forces groups went in, and then the huge mass of malaysians, pakistanis etc were sent into get them out when it all went wrong.

However, this had very different objectives than a form of what you might call "humanitarian military intervention". The Mogadishu battle involved trying to capture warlords in their own territory in an urban environment.

Is that a reason not to try and help the 2 million refugees in Darfur, for example?

The somalia intervention was a military intervention initially to bring food to a war torn country, however food supply was the way a lot of the warlords controlled the population. The UN took this power away from the warlords who responded by attacking the UN forces (initially the Pakistanis who lost 24 sodiers in one incident) the US then sent in the rangers and the mountain division and the whole thing spiralled out of control.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm

The sad thing was that when the next humanitarian crisis occurred, the UN and the US were too scared to get involved in a civil war and 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered.

We currently have troops in Dafur - but there seems to be very little information coming out about the mission there.

tallaght01

Traumadoc wrote: »

The somalia intervention was a military intervention initially to bring food to a war torn country, however food supply was the way a lot of the warlords controlled the population. The UN took this power away from the warlords who responded by attacking the UN forces (initially the Pakistanis who lost 24 sodiers in one incident) the US then sent in the rangers and the mountain division and the whole thing spiralled out of control.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm

The sad thing was that when the next humanitarian crisis occurred, the UN and the US were too scared to get involved in a civil war and 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered.

We currently have troops in Dafur - but there seems to be very little information coming out about the mission there.

Yea, but the point is that it was something like 150 men attacking them on their own turf.

But the fact that it was a disaster makes the question more pertinent. Are we never going to intervene again? What about the next Rwanda? Some say that America would have to be nuked before they could go to war again with the support of their public.

Would their public support Obama telling Mugabe that he has 7 days to step down, or fact the consequences, for example? I'm anti-war in a big way, but I do sometimes wonder if this is the only way.

It was what Sierra Leon needed. Intervention was what Rwanda needed, and the Balkans.

I just think that, essentially, some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen are being commited arond the world, and we're pretty depressingly impotent when it comes to dealing with it.

I do feel that as healthcare professionals, we should spend some time thinking about the health implications for a huge chunk of the world's population that are affected.
Well, that makes my point even more relevant.

Traumadoc

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-03.htm

tallaght01

Traumadoc wrote: »

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-03.htm

Ironically, the oil is possibly what's stopping the people of Darfur from getting help.

China have been very reluctant to take action, and they're on the security council. They're also a huge oil trading partner of Sudan's.

The money the Sudanese govt gets from this trade is presumably funding the war against their own civilians.

Capt'n Midnight

tallaght01 wrote: »

My understanding of the events, and I read a book about it a LONG time ago, so memory may be faulty...was that a special forces groups went in, and then the huge mass of malaysians, pakistanis etc were sent into get them out when it all went wrong

Black Hawk Down

lots of people killed not sure if anything accomplished


problem with UN peace keeping missions is they have to wait until the war reaches a stalemate or they won't be able to get between them

war has made things far worse in Iraq than under Saddam, not to mention the 300,000 kids who died during the sanctions "food for oil" ( why couldn't it have been oil for luxury goods ???)

Mena

Somalia '93 was actually considered a success. They suffered heavy losses (19 I think, compared to over 1000 Somali's) but completed their objectives.

On topic, and as someone who's served in the military... I don't know. What I see today is complete apathy from the "developed" world. Zimbabwe is a case in point. Left to their own devices as they have nothing of value we'd risk "western" lives for.

However, Africa is a different animal. Tribalism is deeply ingrained. Removing Mugabe would be a step in the right direction, but having lived and worked in Africa for over 30 years, my gut tells me it would run into rapid decline soon after leaving.

What's the answer? I have no idea, if I did, I'd be collecting my Nobel right now. Should we intervene militarily? I'd say yes, but again I don't think it would amount to much in the long run.

Capt'n Midnight

tallaght01 wrote:

Would their public support Obama telling Mugabe that he has 7 days to step down, or fact the consequences, for example? I'm anti-war in a big way, but I do sometimes wonder if this is the only way.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5619887.ece
Morgan Tsvangirai agrees to join Robert Mugabe's power-sharing government

I just think that, essentially, some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen are being commited arond the world, and we're pretty depressingly impotent when it comes to dealing with it.

I do feel that as healthcare professionals, we should spend some time thinking about the health implications for a huge chunk of the world's population that are affected.
Well, that makes my point even more relevant.

If you are an underling you have two choices, don't do nasty things and get punished by the regeime now or do nasty things and maybe the UN might punish you in the future maybe. There is no pressure to do the right thing. Look how many Pinchet was allowed to stay in London, how Idi Amin was (is?) a guest of the PLO. Pol Pot never faced justice. The list is very long. How proportionate should the response be. Up to 5,000 people died in Panama so Noriega could be arrested and given a 30 year prison sentence.

Traumadoc

I am just a little suspicious about the western governments declaring Darfur a genocide, shortly after the Chinese were given the oil rights for Darfur.

Similar to what happened in Iraq shortly after the French were given oil rights in Iraq.
Same thing happened in Timor.

Western Military will go in declare Darfur a new country, who will then award the contracts to Western Oil companies.

There may be a civil war in Sudan between the various races (arab/african?) but I would question if Genocide is happening, especially compared to the millions dying in Congo.

Capt'n Midnight

Since WWII US military intervention has probably resulted in the deaths of over 10 million civilians mostly in Korea , Vietnam and Iraq. Add to this the times they used their veto on the security council.
Has their intervention saved as many ?

As for famines and sanctions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine

When Ireland experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests; that export ban did not happen in the 1840s.

Food was exported from Ethiopa in the 80's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

noted economist and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen holds the view that there was no overall shortage of rice in Bengal in 1943: availability was actually slightly higher than in 1941, when there was no famine

Flying food in and air drops is a complete waste of money and is just for PR
One truck can carry as much food as a C130

tallaght01

Mena wrote: »

On topic, and as someone who's served in the military... I don't know. What I see today is complete apathy from the "developed" world. Zimbabwe is a case in point. Left to their own devices as they have nothing of value we'd risk "western" lives for.

However, Africa is a different animal. Tribalism is deeply ingrained. Removing Mugabe would be a step in the right direction, but having lived and worked in Africa for over 30 years, my gut tells me it would run into rapid decline soon after leaving.

What's the answer? I have no idea, if I did, I'd be collecting my Nobel right now. Should we intervene militarily? I'd say yes, but again I don't think it would amount to much in the long run.

Interesting. that's what i was wondering about. I mean, Morgan Tsvangaria would b the ideal person to take over as president if it happened, but would that happen? I would worry about the powerful military taking power, though.

I'm also not convinced that we can downplay the scale of suffering in Darfur. I don't see how it's not genocide, in legal terms. The Congo was a disaster. Still is.

But what they both have in common is that military intervention was next to useless. But in both cases it was late, ineffectual, un-coordinated and corrupt.

I just don't really understand why it works in some places, and it doesn't in others.

piby

If anything I think it would certainly be a justifiable action but only if the outcome could demonstrate a significant, positive improvement. Take Zimbabwe. True the health system there has collapsed and Mugabe has deliberately failed to respond. Now while a military intervention could remove Mugabe and install a leader capable of responding, how many civilians and/or military personnel would die for this to be achieved? Also how many personnel would the intervening force lose? It may sound harsh but it may be a case of a cost:benefit ratio.

Add to that the subsequent need for rebuilding the political, economic and healthcare infrastructures and the possibility of getting 'bogged' down (a la Afghanistan and Iraq) then I can understand why a lot of nations would be reluctant to intervene in a country that, quite frankly, has no strategic/economic importance. Harsh I know but that's the way it works!

We can't rely on the Americans or British to respond top every crisis around the world. It's up to others to take on the mantle if as a global community we want to do anything about it.

Traumadoc

Interesting how China and the Western world seem to be on opposite sides in all of these conflict areas.:rolleyes:

PaddyofNine

You might be interested in the writings of Samantha Power, tallaght01. Some of here stuff is interesting:

This debate, this speech and her book.