Reddit Reddit reviews A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

We found 6 Reddit comments about A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
American History
United States History
A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide
Check price on Amazon

6 Reddit comments about A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide:

u/starbuck67 · 4 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

>Your argument seems to use Libya as a model of the way foreign intervention should be done. Is that what you believe?

No, its not what I believe, I just use the two as a comparison because they are similar in so many ways (civilian rebellion, autocratic leader who threatens civilian population, both in the middle east) but also to show that despite the similarities it is the differences that are crucial in determining whether an intervention is possible and/or desirable.

>Getting the public on board wasn't really an issue

Admittedly so, I would suggest you read Samantha Powers (interestingly enough Obama's nominee to be the UN ambassador) A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide where she describes this exact problem in relation to Rwanda. Political leaders felt there was no public pressure or opinion behind intervention, however in order to create that public pressure congress and the president needed to make a case to the public to get them on board. Its a circular problem, to get public buy in you need to sell them on it and other than "people are dying", "Assad is bad" and "they want a democracy" there is no real selling point to the public to whom you have to explain why an intervention necessary to the national interest/security of the United States.

>So they chose instead to arm the unaccountable populace in Libya....It seems like an awful lot of calculus and pretending to do what is politically expedient even if hypocritical over what is responsible and difficult.

Politically I am left of centre but in international relations I would call my self a realist first and a liberal second. You cannot intervene everywhere all the time even in view of the human cost, you have to figure out what it will cost you first. As Robert Gilpin (a leading international relations scholar) said "states are primarily concerned with power and security and will tailor their policies to preserve or maximise these aspects." Humanitarian interventions such as those in Syria and Libya are subject to both these facets of the realist calculus, to explain the differing outcomes of both cases the context of the situation and its implications on the vital interests of the state have to be examined.

In relation to Libya this calculus was pretty clear.

Firstly, the concerns of the European members of NATO, Libya sits on their southern periphery and exports 83% of its oil to Europe the crisis in Libya threatened both the stability of the region and the oil exports to Europe.

Secondly Qadhaffi was an erratic leader having supported terrorists and pursued nuclear weapons at various points during his tenure, the possibility of having him replaced by a more predictable government that is less of an international security risk was compelling; this also meant that there was no widespread international opposition to intervention as Libya had few friends.

Thirdly, the crisis represented a unique prospect for the USA and the Obama administration; it presented the opportunity to mark a clear break from the Bush policy of unilateral intervention with a full-scale military incursion.

Furthermore, it allowed the US to intervene in a positive manner in the Middle East during the Arab spring, which was crucial as US support for the regimes in the region had been the source of condemnation from the Arab street.

Finally, the military intervention was low risk, with no need for boots on the ground and unchallenged air superiority, Libya’s proximity to Europe precluded the need for an expensive and complicated transfer of the strategic assets necessary for the operation from other areas of the globe.

Viewed from a realist perspective the intervention outcome in Libya had conformed to the two propositions of realism, it did not impose any undue costs in equipment, men, or money on NATO. Secondly, the intervention did advance the interests of NATO members, it removed what had been an unpredictable and at times dangerous leader from Europe’s periphery, installed a government, which views NATO positively, and provided a much needed boost to the prestige of member states such as the USA.

>It seems like an awful lot of calculus and pretending to do what is politically expedient even if hypocritical over what is responsible and difficult.

The national security and vital interest concerns of the intervening states were the most important factor. In the case of Libya, the strong intervention is justified by its potential benefits to the intervener's. In Syria, the hesitance is due to the potential massive costs it would involve. Examining humanitarian crises from a realist perspective can seem overly cynical, however it is in my view far superior to perspectives which over emphasise the moral imperative over the context of the crises, the interests and capabilities of states and the wider ramifications of intervention. Human rights do not exist in a vacuum or over and above other concerns in the international sphere, in my opinion, viewing it as such weakens its authority and effectiveness.

> It really feels to me that it must be impossible for the change to be anything other than a "Easy vs. Hard" political calculus and an abandonment of principle based on the equation they create in their heads.

We all want to do something, the death toll is awful and the humanitarian crisis is even worse. What is responsible and difficult can sometimes entail staying out of it, it may seem selfish and callous. But you have consider the costs to yourself of men, materiel and treasure against the beneficial outcome that you are looking for.

As I explained in my original post I don't see that calculus working out, unless you go for a full scale intervention. Unlike Germany, Japan, and South Korea which all involved a full scale intervention and investment for decades (which was in my view almost criminally avoided in Iraq) the costs outweigh the benefits. A democratic Syria will not necessarily be friendly, bring peace to the region or help smooth relations with Russia. So as I said in the first post humanitarian aid is really the best worst option at this point while pushing for a negotiated settlement.

A humanitarian basis for foreign policy is awfully complex and involved. If you believe in it then the USA and the west should not only be in Syria but be in the Congo, Somalia, Burma/Myanmar and North Korea. Furthermore Saudi Arabia should not be an ally and China and Russia should being pushed in every way possible to respect human rights more. As I said I am a liberal but a believe far more in the liberal post WWII project of creating international institutions and norms that push for human rights rather than putting out fires all over the globe

u/RightWingersSuck · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

Samantha Power A problem from hell.

And read her sources in the bibliography

http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-America-Age-Genocide/dp/0061120146

u/nimue1692 · 2 pointsr/politics

I also suggest you read a bit about Raphael Lemkin, particularly the discussion of him in Samantha Power's book A Problem from Hell. He witnessed the holocaust. He witnessed the evils that Hitler was able to initiate. Yet after the War, when he sought to eradicate such evils, he knew, out of respect for rule of law, that very rule of law that Hitler had complete disregard for, he knew that such evils had to be defined in order to be eradicated. Thus he invented the word "genocide." Pinpointing and defining what exactly constitutes something so horrible that we cannot turn our backs to it was not an insignificant matter. To this day, the word carries such weight that when it is used to describe an event, it immediately calls for action on the part of those who have the means to intervene. The words "terrorist" and "extremist" are thrown around too lightly today, and therefore carry no definition, no call to action, as Lemkin's word does.

Hitler's atrocities required action because they were at a level that necessitated a word as strong as "genocide." The actions you are describing have not come close to the weight of Hitler's. That's not to say they are justified, or right, or excusable. It's to say that it must be agreed upon which actions are atrocious enough to require action by all parties before the entire world rises up to eradicate something that, really, no one can define.

u/funkymedina · 1 pointr/worldnews

There's a very good book about this that I read a couple of years back:
A Problem from Hell

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Read Samantha Powers' A Problem From Hell.

Definitive guide on genocide in the 20th century.

u/marshn · 1 pointr/AskReddit

A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power is one of the most impacting books I've ever read.
The topic may seem kind of narrow but it turns out to be excellent case studies in how the brain of nations operate and, given pathetic our leaders can be in the face of political pressure, I really respect her for keeping the tone of book even handed and judicious. It also covers a huge range of narratives of individuals on every level that covers humanity from the absolute worst to the most noble.