Freedom and options

This is something I wrote in a post earlier this morning:

In any situation like this, there has to be a balancing of the benefits to humanity in general and the potential drawbacks of taking action. We also have to look at what other options are available.  Are there ways we could help the people in a repressed country take control of their own fate and support them as they overthrow their own dictator rather than going in and doing it for them? That's a question we never really asked about Iraq, as far as I know. 

Generally when a liberal points out that we have to look at what other options are available, the question of "What other options are there" gets raised.  How to Save the World has an exellent overview of some of the various other measures that can be tried, and suggestions how different options and combinations of options might be effective in other countries. 

He has also posted a map, copied below, that points out why I think that - even though freeing repressed people is both important and good - it can be a two-edged sword as a justification for war.  Look at how much of the map is purple - those are nations that are not considered "free".  Now, granted, there are various levels of repression in those countries - just because they're all purple doesn't mean they're all equally as heinous to their citizens.  But it demonstrates the size and scope of the problem of trying to free everyone.

Yes, there are times when military intervention is warranted - but as Dave notes in his overview, it should be the absolute last resort.  There were still other options we hadn't tried in Iraq which could have accomplished the freedom of the Iraqi people without war.