Read this immediately.
Ron Rosenbaum writes that we should be asking substantive questions of our presidential candidates:
"What would you do if you saw another Rwanda developing? In other words, a genocide that has little to do with previous U.S. intervention and is not our fault in any direct way, but one we could prevent - at a cost: U.S. troops, U.S. lives. President Clinton has apologized for his failure to intervene in Rwanda. Do you agree that the United States should commit itself to preventing genocide anywhere it threatens to occur?"
My follow-up question: when asking questions like the one above, are we simplifying genocide prevention by only investigating military options? What about long term policy? Or despite the post-genocide blame and restrospective declarations, are we ignoring the fact that U.S. military action is necessary to stop genocide?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment