This is a random thought that occurred to me yesterday...

Let's say, hypothetically, that a country invades another country based on information that is later recognized to be false or to otherwise not constitute a sound reason for killing hundreds of thousands of people. Although people realize that the war was not justified, an new need arises to provide military force to prevent a civil war in the occupied country. My observation: the obligation is not for the invading country to provide that "service" but to provide compensation so that the service can be provided. It is a second crime to unilaterally dictate how foreign military control will be used in a country to prevent civil war.

An alternative: if the invading country is genuinely acting from a sense of moral obligation to reduce the harm of a potential civil war, and if that country respects the autonomy of the individuals in the occupied country, then the invading country should allow the people of the invaded country to select a plan to provide internal security. Perhaps people in the invaded country would want to use funds provided by the invading country to hire people from countries who will not use their military presence as a cover to exploit the victimized country's resources.

If the invading country is not acting toward utilitarian goals that respect the autonomy of the invading country, then it would seem that the invading country's actions would be better classified as colonial expansion. Although colonialism is usually viewed as intentional acts to exploit an occupied country, it would seem to be de facto colonialism when an invading force does the same thing under the self-deceptive excuse that they are performing a noble duty. An alternative is for countries to recall the atrocities committed by nations who believed that they were working toward a greater good and consider that restraint in invading other countries might be a better path to securing a peaceful existence than would be the policy of each country clinging to its ideology and destroying those that oppose it. Respecting the autonomy of nations is not a new idea. The Treaty of Westphalia, producing Westphalian sovereignty says something of this sort.

Note that it is easy to stand on stage and argue that there is a humanitarian need to intervene in a foreign country because the leaser killed 3,000 people, but if the subsequent war causes hundreds of thousands of deaths (which is a known risk of war), is the motive really humanitarian or is it a veil for colonialism? What alternatives might produce a good outcome with lower risk of atrocities?

I get the impression you're referring to the Iraq war. From what I understand, the US government more or less installed a puppet government. Does it really matter who they give control of the armies to? Also, from what I remember, the government that the US tried to install in Vietnam didn't do too well. It's probably better if the US controls it themselves.

...who will not use their military presence as a cover to exploit the victimized country's resources.

I don't think that's a significant risk. War is expensive. Do you really think that the US would be able to launder a trillion dollars from Iraq without anyone noticing?

Note that it is easy to stand on stage and argue that there is a humanitarian need to intervene in a foreign country because the leaser killed 3,000 people

If this is Iraq you're referring to, we got rid of the leader. In any case, the question is which country is more likely to take advantage.

What alternatives might produce a good outcome with lower risk of atrocities?

I suspect you won't get much better than this if you're referring to the alternatives that involve soldiers in foreign countries. If you mean anything you can do with a trillion dollars, then it's very, very easy to find better alternatives.

DanielLC wrote: Does it really matter who they give control of the armies to?

I guess that you thought about the matter and discovered no attributes of the invading force that would be unappealing to the people who were victimized by them--unless you are saying that the puppet government would make the decision (as opposed to a popular vote--installing a puppet government might be an additional crime depending on the circumstances). How about a different approach. I hire some ruffians to break into your house and start killing your family members because somebody told me one or two people in the house were plotting against me. After killing two of your children I discover the error of my ways, but the family is in turmoil. To make thing "better," I decide to leave my ruffians in your house to prevent domestic problems, and I leave them there regardless of what you say. Does it sound like a noble offer to leave my ruffians in your house? If not, why?

Considering the way Iraq was, it's more like being in an abusive family. They would take you out of it in the metaphor without them harboring criminals. It's just that with countries there's no global government, and war is extremely expensive for all involved.

"After killing two of your children": It killed around 0.1% of the population, so that's about a month off of each member of the family. That's higher than I would have guessed, but it's hardly what you seem to imply.

"To make thing 'better,' I decide to leave my ruffians in your house to prevent domestic problems, and I leave them there regardless of what you say."

Considering attacking someone's house isn't likely to result in civil war, that's not really comparable.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq is better off than it would be if America had simply left after the war.

DanielLC, whatever our opinions, I don't think we can 'safely' make a comparison between current and past Iraq. For god's sake, there is massive disagreement among historians, military experts, sociologists, etc. I don't see how either of us really has a right to any independent opinion in such a complex scenario without having even been there...

My opinions on this aren't that well-informed, so I may be completely off on some stuff.

Just to be clear on this, I was talking about if America invaded Iraq, toppled the government, and left. Is there massive disagreement on that, or on the subject of had America not invaded at all (or rather, not invaded since the gulf war)?

My intent was to focus on the moral relevance of an invading force leaving troops in a foreign country and justifying the action as if it were the product of altruism. I didn't want to start an argument about the facts of a particular war, but there are a few things to consider about the scope of the Iraq war, starting with some of the highlights of the Wikipedia page for the Iraq War:

* "In 2008, the UNHCR reported an estimate of 4.7 million refugees (~16% of the population) with 2 million abroad (a number close to CIA projections[71]) and 2.7 million internally displaced people.[72]"

* number of war-related deaths (95% confidence interval based on samples that indicate the death rate during the war) 392,979-942,636

* "Entire neighborhoods in Baghdad were ethnically cleansed by Shia and Sunni militias and sectarian violence has broken out in every Iraqi city where there is a mixed population.[204][205][206]"

* Iraq population in 2011: about 30.4 million (see: Iraq) So the lower estimate of casualites is about 1.3%, not counting the 15% or so of the population that was displaced, many of whom became homeless and about half of which that are living in foreign countries (mostly refugee camps) where statistics on their health and survival is lacking.

Some other considerations:
* moral impacts of torture

* social effects of government leaders justifying torture

* terrorism by U.S. troops of villiages (look at the documentation of the U.S. raid on Fallujah -- I discovered that the original pictures and story published by Dahr Jamail [embedded news reporter] disappeared, but I found them on an internet archive --download now before they too are expunged from history)

GRAPHIC IMAGES OF DEAD PEOPLE KILLED IN THE U.S. RAID ON FALLUJAH:
dahjamailiraq.com archive

As you browse the pictures, consider that death statistics reflect nothing for the impact on people who are in the houses where people are executed by troops who break through the front door in the middle of the night wearing night vision goggles and shooting guns. Death statistics count nothing for the effect on people who survive in a town that has been bombed where the streets are filled with dead people. If there is one person who dies a violent death, many others are affected.

Person killed while still in bed

another person killed in bed

young person killed

young girl burned to death