Libya is not Rwanda

Foreign Policy by Paul D. Miller | Mar. 31, 2011 (Opinion)

Historical analogies are sloppy thinking. U.S. policymakers went to war in Korea and Vietnam because they wanted to avoid another Munich. Liberals believe that Iraq is another Vietnam. Paleoconservatives worry that Libya is another Iraq, while liberals fear it is another Rwanda. These are rhetorical shortcuts that partisans use to excuse themselves from having to think very carefully or learn the details of each new case. One hopes the strategists in the ... Full Story »

Posted by Jon Mitchell

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S., Politics
Topics: Human Rights, War, Foreign Policy, Obama Administration, Libya
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Jon Mitchell - Mar 31, 2011 - 12:29 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Jon Mitchell (review), Michael Shaver (review), zahidzsw (review), Bob Herrschaft (review), Beth Knibbe (review), Freda Anderson (review), wanjiku M. (review), Elsie Reed (review), Sirajul Islam (review), Kadidjha Traore (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Jon Mitchell - Mar 31, 2011 - 12:30 PM PDT
Related Comments: Obama Administration (3)

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Sirajul Islam
4.1
 by Sirajul Islam - Apr. 9, 2011

Good opinion piece by Paul D. Miller. Yes, historical analogies are sloppy thinking, and comparisons must be premature, at least, at this moment.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
Michael Shaver
3.7
 by Michael Shaver - Mar. 31, 2011

"Libya is not Rwanda" by Paul D Miller is a wonderful short article that aims to educate and inspire the reader into perhaps taking a little more time to understand foreign-policy and its implications. "Libya is not Rwanda" is part history lesson, part foreign-policy semantics, and part following your conscience by doing what is right with respect to each individual incident. Mr. Miller has provided a very concise and accurate assessment, one that hopefully will inspire many discussions, a very well written story.

Reading something like this gives me hope that maybe others who read it will use it as a reason to research the history of the incidents that he speaks about. These events are all similar but not the same and yet they are all equally horrific while sharing only one unifying characteristic, which is that the world forgets all too quickly.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Bob Herrschaft
3.5
 by Bob Herrschaft - Mar. 31, 2011

The author makes a valid point about the definition of what constitutes genocide and it's true that the term is used too loosely as it makes more sense when it's restricted to the systematic elimination of an ethnic minority by the majority in power. Therefore, it doesn't really apply to Libya, which doesn't mean there wasn't humanitarian and strategic interests for intervention.

While I agree with the author that "historical analogies are sloppy thinking" and believe his generalizations about knee-jerk ideological thinking holds a lot of truth, I don't think the same criteria should be held up to Obama's speech. The President wasn't addressing an academic symposium. If he used the word"genocide" or implied preventing another Ruanda, it's because words and concepts get redefined by a sloppy media. The message was in tact; let's cut him some slack on this one.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Beth Knibbe
4.0
 by Beth Knibbe - Apr. 1, 2011
See Full Review » (7 answers)
Kadidjha Traore
3.8
 by Kadidjha Traore - Apr. 6, 2011

I think this was a good contrast because sometimes people get confused with conflicts that may happen in Africa. It gives a very clear and direct reason why Libya and Rawanda are two very different entities.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jon Mitchell
3.9
 by Jon Mitchell - Mar. 31, 2011
Jon posted this story.
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Freda Anderson
4.0
 by Freda Anderson - Apr. 1, 2011
See Full Review » (10 answers)
wanjiku M.
3.0
 by wanjiku M. - Apr. 1, 2011
See Full Review » (2 answers)
zahidzsw
2.8
 by zahidzsw - Mar. 31, 2011

yes

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Elsie Reed
3.1
 by Elsie Reed - Apr. 2, 2011
See Full Review » (3 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 10 reviews (34% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
3.3
Insight
3.6
Style
3.7
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
5.0
Context
4.1
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.1
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.6
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
3.8
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!