Reply #24: Now I'm confused [View All]

You asked for examples where we had recently invaded a country that was no threat to us. I provided 4, one from the Clinton Administration, one from Bush I, one from Reagan and one from Johnson.

Now you tell me that those were not "invasions" but "police actions".

Could you please elaborate on the difference? I'm putting together a simple table to see if I can spot the difference

Action.......Pres......did U.S. troops....reason for action
.......................enforce policy by
.......................military means?
-------......---------....------..........------------------
Iraq.........Bush II........Y..............regime change
Haiti........Clinton........Y..............regime change
Panama.......Bush I.........Y..............regime change
Grenada......Reagan.........Y..............regime change
Dominican R..Johnson........Y..............regime change

Could you please add a column entitled "some thing which differentiates these in principle" to help me understand the difference. Note that size of force involved or casulties taken or inflicted are not differences in principle, only in detail.

And please remember, I'm not trying to justify the Iraqi war. I'm just pointing out that criticizing as somehow unique due to pre-emtptiveness or unilaterialism is historically inaccurate.

As to why the world criticized some of these actions and not others, I don't know. I seem to remember the OAS had a few words of condemnation regarding the Dominican Republic. Why did the world largely welcome the "peace in our time" proclamation by Neville Chamberlain? Why did the world not act to stop Italy's brutal campaign in Somilia? We have to face the fact that, in hindsight, world opinion is often terribly wrong. Maybe that is the case now, maybe not. Only history can judge.