The "Responsibility to Protect" Doctrine

Isn't it interesting how the world works? Specifically the real world of politics? Allow me to explain myself and see if you don't find yourself in some level of agreement. For the sake of this piece I am not here to explain the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) doctrine, but merely to highlight the hypocrisy of it and those who back such a concept as this one. For the explanation and history thereof, click here.

Anyone else ever notice how when a Republican is in the White House and we use our military somewhere in the world there emerges this litany of accusations about "war mongering conservatism, war to enrich Big Halliburton," and all the rest of the nonsense? Notice that have ya? Well the R2P is a concept dreamed up by a dyed in the wool lefty named Samantha Power. She is a close adviser to our POTUS. So how come this R2P, which is nothing more than a justification for progressive state building, is so endorsed by many lefties? Isn't this the US being imperial? If not, why?

Almost every time a Republican president uses the military the usual suspects scream it's US imperialism and nation building. They scold us that nation building is not the job of the US, etc. They scream we are throwing around our weight so that we may confiscate the nation's oil or whatever resource they have. And if the nation we are accused of attempting to build has no resources for us to exploit, well then it's portrayed as nothing more than pure conservative hegemony, hoping to create a new client state of those hateful conservatives.

The R2P is clearly nothing more than the leftist reality of them engaging in EXACTLY what they accuse conservatism of - nation building. I swear I hate these hypocrites. Nation building is nation building. Call it a duck if one must, but it is what it is. The R2P is the progressive version of having the UN, which really means the US, do the heavy lifting of imposing the progressive political and social will upon a foreign nation and its citizens. It's how progressives disguise their political desires and force those desires into reality.

This R2P can be called upon to hide the true end. It's how the US will hide behind the UN and force foreign nations to look like progressives desire them to look. It is the justification for using the US military, under the guise of "protecting innocent citizens," to impose progressive political will. It's exactly the same as Reagan aiding the Contras against Ortega and the Sandinistas in order to try and overthrow the Daniel Ortega regime in Nicaragua in the 1980's.

It is also opined that the R2P can be used not only as justification to go into Darfur, Rawanda and basically anywhere people struggle against their governments, but it is also offered to be used to aid in humanitarian disasters. So where does that lead? Remember the Pacific Tsunami in 2004? Remember Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world being resistant to American aid? Does the R2P cover that too? Could the R2P be used against a nation's will and have UN or foreign troops landed on their shores under the guise of aid? Anyone think that will win points in the Third World? Make America any less of the "Great Satan?"

Isn't it becoming crystal clear to citizens that leftists have a long history of using a feigned concern for poor rank and file citizens as the impetus and cover for imposing their Marxist will upon a population? Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their Bolsheviks did this very thing. Hitler used this same method. It's a tried and true tactic of many despotic leaders...to use a fake concern for the citizen as cover to do all manner of evil and impose their political or social will upon citizens.

The R2P is sheer progressive hypocrisy. It's pure nation building and using a global body to lend weight to their wishes. And worst of all is the hypocrisy of progressives. I mean, am I mistaken that in our own Congress we had TWO votes to go to war with Saddam? And the UN passed 16 Security Council Resolutions demanding Saddam yield to international wishes, all to no avail. And when finally the UN authorized military action and we did it, carrying out the UN"s orders, up popped progressives screaming "war for oil." Yet now this R2P is their own version of sanctified nation building and if anyone objects, well they're just a hater right?

For the record, aren't the progressive talking points about the Egypt freedom movement portrayed as noble? And are we not now deep in arming and assisting Libyan rebels, many of whom are admitted former al-Qaeda? Aren't both these efforts clearly nothing more than progressives assisting in the overthrow of a nation in order for the outcome to look more like a progressive would like it to be? Is this rocket science, too hard for one to grasp? Isn't this EXACTLY what Reagan tried to do in Nicaragua? Damn sure is! So why was Reagan bad, but this is noble? HYPOCRISY...progressive hypocrisy and nation building to suit their globalist desires.

If one accepts the R2P as being meritorious, they are completely under the progressive spell or an obtuse soul who can't be trusted to look beyond the end of their nose for any deeper meanings, as well as to recognize the clear and undeniable truth of the matter.