the nation's college professors. you can watch the classes every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern. next, kutztown university professor john riley talked about american involvement in late 20th century international crises like the genocide in rwanda and conflicts in somalia. he said that well-intentioned international efforts can create addictions to foreign aid. specifically looks set missions .n africa this class is about an hour. >> good afternoon. this is my favorite lecture of the semester by far. it is one we did not have any years ago.

win are we willing to consider humanitarian invention? when are we willing to put your lives before hours. what are the key factors we think of from the very start in terms of whether the united states is willing to intervene and by maiziere -- in bosnia or libya? what key factors might drive us? kurt? >> human rights violations. >> human rights violations. right? higher level of crisis, the more threats, the more violations, the more rapes and things like that. the more likely we are to get in. excellent. what else? a calculation of whether it will direct we or indirectly affect us, affect our

interests? >> like what? -- likeegic interests our oil supply, obviously. national oil supply. we do not what prices to go up. r geocentric issues are in play here. we call it humanitarian intervention, when really we are concerned about classic economic interests or regional stability interests. yes, i can see it. what else can matter there, the domestic side to the equation? >> [indiscernible] public opinion. interest groups. >> [indiscernible] -- economicn output

interests. one last one. >> [indiscernible] public opinion of, like, americans, so we would probably be more likely to enter a war if a bad sort were getting information that way. >> awesome. cnn. is the mediat covering this, influencing policy members -- maybe there is a relationship with public it can -- public opinion. what i want to get at, let's pick up where we left off last class and think about the gulf war. let's talk about this new world variableshow these come into play during this humanitarian crisis. i do not have a master formula for you. i don't think one exists. i do not have a classic analysis

where you can say, this degree of media coverage is going to ofld a tight correlation whether we are going to intervene. but i inc. what we can do -- look at the gulf war, follow that, tease out different interplay's, different variables . and we will end the class and talk about intervention in syria. intervention in sierra leone. intervention in iraq. begin. remember, last class we were talking about the gulf war. an unexpected war in a lot of ways. unexpected victory in a lot of ways. the best ways. we win the war quickly, have a quick peace accord. calls for ash kurdish uprising. right? he calls for iraqis to take back their country, right?

and they do that. saddamppens of course -- hussein pushes back. he was allowed to keep helicopters. on then to turn them kurds. what looks like a fantastic an ugly feelas about it. we have potentially millions of iraq.now fleeing northern in northernons here iraq, desperately trying to get out in both directions. desperately trying to get out of turkey. turkey closes the borders. they are not looking for a million kurdish refugees to join, right? and all of a sudden we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, total innocent iraqis we encourage to rise up against saddam hussein who now died.

this is the new world order? this is how we want to react? newsalking about the media. the news media culture -- coverage of the gulf war. they are still in the region and they hear the story. they cover the story, and carry the story, not just to the american people, but the british people, to the british public. and there is a humanitarian crisis. how are we going to react? our reaction is salient. is reaction in a lot of ways breaking here. for the first time in modern history, we are looking at a un security council resolution, and what we call a kurdish humanitarian crisis, a threat to regional peace and security. we ask saddam hussein,

obviously, not to threaten his people and we authorize countries to protect the kurds. this turns out to be a british mission. most of the boots on the ground will be british. the air support will be the united states. -- safe up a set haven even in northern iraq. was a crisis- what becomes an opportunity for success. we largely save the refugees starving in the mountains. the exact opposite happens. you can tell from the picture there. we become the good guys again. we save the refugees ultimately. we have an opportunity to feel good about ourselves. finding ourselves in positive ways. if we start at this moment and look at the literature coming -- of the united nations

eventually candidate, then president bill clinton talking about using the united nations in different ways. the secretary-general calling army.standing maybe there's something we can learn about ourselves. the conflicts are continuing. intrastatete -- conflict. notice the red. the conflicts -- if i can speak -- it goes up and up and up. we start feeling a little guilty. here i'm going to personalize it a little bit. at the united

states is doing well. we won the cold war in a lot of ways. we get these ubiquitous commercials going on. you save this't for child? isn't it worth it for you? you know the one i am talking about. you turn the channel. the guilt, right? a pulitzer prize winning photograph your taken in sudan in 1993. a sudanese boy, and noticeable trip behind him there. noticed be filtered behind him there. it bothers everybody. accounts offferent how this photograph was taken and ultimately carter committed not long after he won the pulitzer. his suicide note named a lot of reasons, but he was haunted by the images. start asking yourself some

really basic questions. .hese are human beings they are, right? that is a person. war is over. these are unipolar moments. do we have the ability to do this? can we help everyone? criteria do we decide to have humanitarian intervention? i think we come back to all of those variables. how big is the crisis? how severe? how many rapes are two much, right? how far can we spread ourselves? where is public opinion on those? where is the news media on this? we are try to figure this out on the fly. there is not a game plan for this sitting around and washington, d.c. that's how we will begin.

let's look at two crises to illustrate. quintessential humanitarian crises. let's begin by looking at africa and somalia. going to thing, i'm talk about africa and somalia here. we talk about the born of africa -- the court of africa here. look how big it is. not do usl maps do justice. they flatten, right? you get a sense of -- we're talking about intervening in somalia, how much territory we are actually dealing with. fit china, the united states, india, mexico -- there are examples of all the combinations you can get in there. map, it looks slightly larger than greenness. that is not really the case.

this is a very serious challenge for the united states, obviously. is going to be mogadishu in the southern part of somalia. we will talk about the humanitarian crisis circa 1989, and it will continue to about 1995. we will start there, shoots self, go into kenya. south, and go into kenya. let's look at what we decide to do. this is an oversimplification, right? there are lots of things that caused the humanitarian crisis in somalia. i can hit a couple of them. michael baron wrote a really neat book. very controversial book. it is called "road to hell." literature,iece of

including i believe "the rolling stone." and he was charged with his experience in somalia -- somalia became addicted to humanitarian aid ultimately. goes to theerefore relationship between somalia and if the get. if i can backtrack -- this region west of somalia is called the open and region and both if you you and somalia late claim to this. >> version there. e version there. in the 1970's, he realizes he has an opportunity. he was deposed, and he is going andake advantage of this invades the western part of ethiopia and claim somalia itself.

this causes problems for the soviet union. ethiopia's who was leading to a socialist coup. and ultimately, if you would be a much more valuable partner to the soviet union. so in machiavellian politics, dumps somaliaon and joins on the ethiopian side. brought soldiers to defend ethiopia. all of a sudden, and aggressive --an -- an aggressive war, it looks like he is going to get waxed. so what do you do? somebody help me out. if you are a somali, one of the tribes of somalia, and you live

in ethiopia and if you appear just invaded somalia, but now they are losing the war and here comes the ezio can military. what do you do? >> you had for smalley and get somalianritory -- territory. >> you run away. that things are going to happen to you. the international community response. andets up refugee camps, they become permanent camps. and people, once nomadic people who are very, very self-sufficient, who dealt with lots of droughts throughout the years, are all of the sudden living in refugee camps. about the neat things refugee camps, especially the time, food is provided for you. if food is provided for you, are you likely to grow food? of course not.

and very quickly, the country becomes addicted to foreign aid. some estimates put 30% of the country's population directly dependent on foreign aid by the 1980's. , it hasre going to eat to flow in. compounding the situation, the number of arms in somalia that helps drive the conflict overall. a satellite state of the soviet union. they received all of the aid that way. jimmy carter decided after the soviet union started -- you know, somalia will be ok without our support after all, and the third largest recipient of aid. large amounts of american somaliawere shipped to as well. here's the picture i am painting you here.

lots and lots of people depending on foreign aid. lots and lots of weapons under control of a dictator who is going to be challenged in 1988. and the people are going to rise up against him. they are going to rise up against him and it is going to dissolve into civil war. it is a nasty civil war going inc. -- going in a multiple of different directions. and we have the worst humanity and -- humanitarian crisis of the day. nothing but estimates at the time. anywhere from 2 million to 3 million people are going to be dead. 2000 people are going to be dying every single day. that's an amazing number. an united nations has estimate of children five or younger by 1991, 150 them, already dead.

-- 1/5 of them already dead. it looks like this country is a level implode on we've never seen before. with the worst humanitarian crisis sitting on our door here, how are we going to respond? and of course we have the overlap after the gulf war. the initial response is very meek, very meager. authorizesnations unisom. does anyone know what that stands for? united nations operations in somalia, right? is a classic peacekeeping operation, for those of you who know the difference. operationblue helmet where they go and only with the permission of these somali government. and they are delivering the humanitarian food that is now getting jacked up at the mogadishu harper. right? of course there is no central government.

the united nations is dependent on all of these different warring groups ultimately to give them permission to come in. you can imagine how that is going to go. not so great. soldiers make it into mogadishu. they are tonight access and write to deliver the food. it is a horrible situation starting to look even worse. of thes like 60% population will die. huge, unthinkable numbers. then the united states does the unimaginable. policynable from the community and truly for the academic community. we need ultimately what unitaf. anyone know what that stands for? i will give you a hint. u.n.does not stand for any guesses?

unit. close. united intervention force. this is a us-led mission. we are not going there with permission to be there. if you remember some of the footage, literally the marines are coming in from the beaches catchhe cameras there to it. they're coming in with very aggressive rules of engagement. they have the right to defend themselves if they are attacked. they are not going to duck and cover. these are u.s. marines. they just got finished fighting the gulf war. they are not going to let some 18-year-old threaten them. it comes in as a robust military mission into somalia ad it is, by any measure,

success. it goes in, almost immediately the starvation stops. it is a fairly >> thing to move food from boats onto trolleys to get them into relief camps. almost immediately the mission begins to do what we think the mission should do what did this happen. we can think of it as the cne and -- cnn affect. of whatcertainly part brought us here. but there were studies done. what is the role of the news media here? did it bring us to somalia or did policy makers use the news media to get our attention so they could have operations in somalia? let's go dive down a second. before we go back to the black

hawk down event -- i think we are all somewhat familiar with the movie. i think it is a pretty good book overall. whatat some people and roles they played in this crisis overall. lots of actors, right? there areoks, exceptional details. in the u.s. government, at all levels, there are players, sort of the deputy level or below, trying to get the principal policymaker's attention. there are people against this intervention. do not wait to happen. u.s. nationald interests. they have doubts about the united nations' efficacy and ability to carry out these missions. then you have people like jim whatp -- it talks about policymakers there. we get a sense of that bureaucratic game we talked about.

.et's look at the opponents everybody is trying to scramble this down. flights will be coming in, i promise you. we can look at john, who you may recognize, right? famousone of the counters and a hanging chad election. bush v gore. perhaps you remember him there. and of course he was the under george w. bush. i interviewed about -- him about this. what was the u.s. policy. i thought his answer was revealing. there was no agreement. level of thevery government said we do not want starting -- starving babies. we do care. this was setting up a legitimate debate.

his real problem, his real issue was the united nations. we turn this to the united nations. we ask them to do this. do we have the capacity? they do not have a standing army. they never tried in operation of the size and scope at this point. and he said, ultimately i thought they could be effective at the political role, the basic role, but they were not going to be very good at the political level. if they go to the nationbuilding role, which we know they will do ultimately, they are going to do that hem, he says thought that it would fail. iser big inhibitors -- this going to be the defense department. dick cheney in particular. secretary of defense. was nice enough to do a few interviews on this. he made it very clear to me. it is a temptation to always go into these humanitarian crises.

but you have to have a mission objective. you have to have something you can look at at the end of the day. you cannot go in and a casual way. you see the down relationship of the defense department and their relationship to policymakers and you see a great deal of resistance. this is a great example. at one point it was proposed the army could use apache helicopters to guard refugee camp's, right? so they could at least make sure those areas were safe. do you know what the army fell initial response was? -- somalia too dusty was dusty. what was that an not statement to make? we just bought -- war had we just fought? dusty. kuwait is pretty

you are asking them to put soldiers in harm's way and it was not something the difference the pardon was particularly willing to do. however, we get policymakers trying to get people's attention. quintessential example. he wrote a book. this is his famous journal. he had his moments. he was the editor of "the washington times." in his book, he talks about the ambassador to africa. and he gives the ambassador to kenya. he as this crisis breaks, starts actively lobbying working with some of those proponents like jim bishop and herman: and d.c. torbes back in

effectively bring a response, to try to get the united states to intervene. what he did was ingenious. the wrong not it was thing is a source of debate. he wrote a very long cable, , from the day in hell washington dc it is a very long cable. it is very graphic. very poetic. like a journalist, not like an ambassador. what is unique about it, it shows up in "the washington post." he swears that he did not send it, he did not do it. somehow this was ultimately leaked to "the washington post," and they ran it on the front page of the sunday edition style section. let's see what it says.

place is a small piece of hell. my next up is the international compounds of the red cross. say 10 children die every night. baby -- they're not that many. the children are like bony birds, with just a few ounces of flesh cloaking their bodies. there had seen out of proportion, their eyes unnaturally large and luminous. they search languidly in the fold of their mother's clothes for a doug of milk, and finding none, look up without complaining." apocalypticng figures. this shows up in the style widely read section, of "the washington post" on a

sunday. this is where we see the spike of coverage taking place. this is where we see public opinion galvanized. prior to this, the american public did not know anything about somalia area we are largely unaware of this crisis. this perhaps triggers events a ultimately can react. it makes sense. thoughts before i go further? i want to catch my breath for a second. obviously the mission did not go as planned, right? we know the story. we turn the story -- the message over to the united nations, and it becomes a nation building exercise led by boutros boutros-ghali. some of theremove crime, decriminalize, bring down the weapons through the country,

disarm somalis. the men pushed back. ultimately, pakistani and u.n. peacekeepers are attacked. the united states, or the world put a bouncy on -- a bouncy on the general's head. we have the epic attempt to arresting capture. it inns up with several u.s. black hawk helicopters being down. largest firefight since vietnam with 18 soldiers perishing and at least 1000 being wounded. and the united states in the world says, what just happened? how did we go from feeding everybody,helping just going there to be the good guys, to all of a sudden be in the midst of this? again, the news media seems to matter here. perhaps it was an impediment to the mission.

bodiesknow, cnn show the come of the bodies of the airmen being dragged through the streets. we see our shoulders debt, stripped naked, being tortured. others being held captive, right? we look at the humanitarian crisis and we say, ok, what did we learn from all this? what is possible? what lesson would you take away from this? when should we help? who do we help? what matters and what does not matter? this is not easy. this is hard. you are a policymaker 1993. how would you react to this? please. >> i would fear it would be difficult to get the american public on board to support something like this again, so if i was trying to really push the to have humanitarian

efforts continue in different countries, with these images on screen of our people dying, of our people being dragged through the streets, i would find it was going to be difficult to convince people we should continue to do things like that. especially when it might be personal money they are investing or money the government ends up investing. so -- yeah, to illustrate the point i used to work for a colonel who was deployed to somalia. him thehis wife called day after that happened and his wife said, what the hell are you doing there? you said you were just feeding people. come home. have you sell that to the american public here? are we really about being the world's policeman? those kinds of questions. questions about the united nations. can they handle it -- turning it over to the united nations, can

they handle it? a famous phrase comes out of this. inarmy captain stationed selenium watches what happens and says, the lesson we have learned here is to not cross the mogadishu line. that is the phrase that comes out of it. there are bad guys and good guys. the bad guy challenged us. we put a bounty on his head. we arrested him. if we are just giving food, be neutral. we do not want to get in the middle of all this. not want to get into the domestic political context. look at rwanda. it little tiny country. keep that in the back of your mind, because everyone here is familiar with rwanda. we all know the genocide that

took place in 1994. we all have a sense of guilt, why didn't we do more? president clinton going to the airport and apologizing on behalf of the international community for not doing more. this is post some all yugoslavia is erecting of the time. capital. is the we are in particular going to pay a point of emphasis to something that is often overlooked. this area right here in the northwest part. is insight here or congo today. or congo today. there are a lot of things that

go into this. leadership roles. , it wasost basic level a conflict that was reinforced by colonial role. -- rule. rwandagians were handed as a duty after world war i, writes? they did not really have any natural resources. what does rwanda produce? some tin? zinc? coffee? to my personal preference, it's not very good. pretty bitter. they do not have diamond exports, huge resources of oil. the belgians looked at rwanda and they said, you know what? we want what is best for you. we do not want to be bothered by this. they adapted something called the hemorrhagic thesis.

you can go back to the bible, no cursing his grandson, the son of his son. was really bad social science more than a thing else. and it essentially said -- there are some races that are more advanced than other races. there were lots of measurements, ways to quantify these things. all of these measurements that said, you know what, we sort of correlate if you are a little skin,, a little lighter if you look a little more european, you would tend to do a little bit more economically and politically. in that sense, there were some races in better positions than others. the belgians use this. they said, we want rwandans to do what is best for wanton's. we want them to sort it out. the rwandans that

looked like them or the most like them. and they were the ethnic minority. and depending on what measure you want to make -- they put them in charge. depending on the demographic numbers you want to use, maybe is hutu.tsi and 20% you can imagine when the belgians leave, ultimately we run into this problem. the two seas who were in -- the charge, theyere in were in all the key positions in government, had all of the perks of government, what you think they did? >> they are going to hide. >> they're going to live.

it is the same story. they will be worried about retribution. wage on andgoing to off for about 20 or 30 years without much success. in the 1990's things begin to change. there is actually a chance they will overthrow the government. there is a guy named to gandhi who was trained in the united states. the military rpf takes northern rwanda. it's a real chance for gains here. the government is willing to make a peace deal with the rpf. the united nations immediately sends a peacekeeping force, led, of00 troops,

course, by a general delay or. and you know what is going to happen. you know the story, right? cable, goinge in a to the secretary of operations, a guy named kofi annan at the time. clearly stating he has actionable intelligence that it appears an extremist within the looking to take out extermination. they do not use the word genocide. against the to see -- tutsi. and he asks the permission of the united nations to confront these, right? we know this. version is, he is

told to stand down. we are going to be neutral. we are only in rwanda to enforce a piece. we are not going to get into the business of it and find bad guys and good guys. april 6, 1994.wn this famous line that we know anda," whichrw is a true line. "it is time to cut down the tall trees." sis whoence to the tut are a little bit taller. and the genocide begins. these are satellite images. graves. dots are mass

red our memorial sites. the entire country is in essence embroiled in this genocide. the question will be, why did we intervene? -- why didn't we intervene? why was this genocide allowed to take place? a lot of things were happening at the same time. and the strangest thing is the un security council. who is a member of the human security council -- the un security council. the rotating 10. do you know which countries are on the united nation security council at this point? rwanda is. their government was going to be uned for genocide on the

security council. some of the most surreal moments in international diplomacy. george washington university's national security archives holds a bunch of these. here are some of the conversations being had. go down. ise -- the security council perplexed, also because the rwanda justice there, albeit usually slightly. a clear genocide is taking place. security council is saying clearly, a genocide is taking place. but saying to know? themselves. no matter how one considers the it used to bes, some 1.2 million tutsi before the war, and certainly 100,000 of them have been killed off.

talk about the rwanda and ambassador. a compelling moment highlighted in yellow. is this not as though we wanted hitler to reach a cease-fire with the jews? can we have a compromise here? can we stop killing so many? the conversation with hitler in world war ii, right? our own site, the u.s. state christine side, shelley being asked, you know, what is going on in rwanda? many ask of genocide are going on, asks the reporter? that's not a question i'm in a position to answer. do you have guidance on this? not to use the word genocide? -- i haven to say

guidance which i tried to use. why are we not seeing genocide? why are we saying "acts of genocide" instead? i know you know this. >> because of the implications. >> what are the applications? >> -- what are the implications? >> because we would have a responsibility. >> we said never again, right? genocide -- the reservation clauses in the genocide will make it a little bit more competition it in the manner national court of justice, if this is genocide, the united states signed a treaty saying we are compelled to intervene when a genocide takes place.

bosnia is covina -- herzegovina.i think what we forget as anyonem as guilty -- we say we did nothing. we sat back and watched. i do not think that is right. took active participation. one of the first things we did in early april, we got the ex pats out. want, go back to "triumph of evil." you can see the british and french military going through the countryside of her wanda and saving westerners. we intervened in the ronda and genocide -- london genocide -- r wandan genocide. it is the westerners out.

important. killed, the dutch are we go from a mission of 2500 u.n. peacekeepers and the layer is screaming he was to intervene -- as the crisis escalates, we the escalates. we get out. we consider nonmilitary options. but as you know this genocide is only able to take place at such --intense level so quickly the radio. a >> thing we could of done -- a simple thing we could have done it shut down the radio. why didn't we? tom, do you want to jump in or not? please, tom.

>> [indiscernible] yes, that was one of the primary questions that came up. freedom of speech. other issues that came up? forgive me, ladies and gentlemen. i lost my slide. or not question, whether we have the technical ability to intervene in this genocide and the technical ability to shut down a radio. will the human rights committee asked them to simply say, oh, can we intervene? yes, we can do this. we can shut down a radio station without taking lives. we can do this. do not know what frequency it is being broadcast from. and then the representatives on the record -- 94.1, sir.

we took the deliberate step not to intervene. maybe that is the right answer. i am not arguing we should intervene. they said it was beyond u.s. national interests to go in there. , wemately at the very end had an intervention. we had a brief intervention. we actually had two. the french will intervene in the , veryest of rwanda successfully. trying to police the area. largely unchallenged. the u.s. operation -- as soon as the rpf in july 19 84, reached , a new humanitarian crisis emerged. we go from a genocide where people are being butchered to a refugee crisis. areof a sudden, you allegedly participating in the genocide throughout rwanda, and now the victims, the tutees --

are coming to power and they run away, right? and they will run away, you grab what you can, and you walk. it was the largest refugee crisis we have ever seen begin to emerge here. here and theture refugee camp. what obvious big concerns jump out at you? have hundreds of thousands of potential participants in the genocide now showing up on the border. what are some potential problems you might have there? look at the picture. what stuns you about this area? what might happen? >> sanitation issues, health issues. >> cholera, right?

clean drinking water. does a thing strike you -- does anything strike you? it is dark rock. volcanic rock. it is near a volcano. and right away we have basic problems with sanitation. well intodig very rock, right? that is this massive fear this will turn hundreds of intoands of refugees victims of call laura, diphtheria -- a horrible way to die. the news media and health africa -- in south africa. covers the first free election of nelson mandela. they are getting wind of this. and they are coming up to cover the crisis. i would urge you to take a look. this is not hard. 1994.

august, july, august 1994. you see the hyperbole that comes out of this. the cover.zine, "this is the beginning of the final days. this is the apocalypse." this in a waying that they never covered the genocide. there are a host of sources. there are a lot of studies on the content and level of coverage here. media were largely silent on the genocide. they are very loud and the -- voce -- for citrus iferous. ristinenoem poor -- ch amanpour. fantastic quote.

"the flow of refugees across this order has now created what could be the world's most -- worst humanitarian crisis in a generation." created the have worst humanitarian crisis in a generation. throwing stones here. i'm really not. very, veryse are difficult questions that policymakers have to answer in real-time. about putting u.s. military members and harm's way and we just learned two years earlier how disastrous that could be. you try to help in somalia. it incident dead u.s. soldiers and still thousands of somalians killed. , we stand by with the international community --

thinking broader than the united states. we intervene after the genocide have one of the largest humanitarian relief help save the perpetrators of the genocide as part of the operation. together here.s a year before the rwandan genocide, president clinton opened the holocaust museum and he said never again at the holocaust museum. right? and a year later, it happens. let's pull this together. when do we intervene? when should we intervene? when should we risk american lives, american blood? we've been looking at these all

semester long, from west africa, syria and iraq -- right? from the central african republic to sudan. as a side note, the united nations has named for of those as a level three crisis, which is the highest level crisis they can give anything. we are looking at the highest number of refugees and international displaced people. when should we commit our forces to intervene? what are those variables? opinion? ferocity of the crisis? or should we say we are not the world's policeman? what your thoughts? i think all of these are perfectly defendable. i see some of you shaking your heads. hi. please. >> i agree with the sentiment we cannot leave the world's

policeman, but when we have genocides or ask there off, we cannot allow that to happen. when we can help, it's great. much, and-- not so the conflicts going on right now -- when people are dying pointlessly and needlessly, we should definitely intervene, not to just stop around and say, hey, you know, here we are. not running an agenda. just purely to help. >> even at the cost of american lives? >> yeah. american lives -- they are people, too. american lives are no more superior than those in africa or the middle east. thing tot a simple

helping out another human. your colleagues want to jump in. i suspect they may disagree or even agree. kurt? >> from a personal point of equal, butives are when we are dealing with the united states government decision-making, we have to prioritize american lives. we should focus on public opinion and the international interest. waiting for a united nations security council interest to go stop the genocide -- i think eventually when that failed, when that time passed, i think they started pushing for the united states to take action. but they waited first four public opinion to swing -- for public opinion to swing. >> i'm not arguing. i'm just try to understand.

are you arguing that the united states should never intervene in a humanitarian crisis -- should, --aying they >> if there is public opinion behind it and all that? >> if the un security council says it is a terrible idea, i think we should definitely take heed. >> that's an interesting position. either about leadership there -- i hear a lot about leadership there. -- i knowyou would it is in the back. i'm sorry. >> [indiscernible] should and should not give aid to, because a picture can be worth a thousand words, but it might not necessarily tell the right story. >> let me concede your point. let's concede public opinion should not be the driver of a

decision-making calculus. calculus?hould be the what would you point to? you have toay understand where you are intervening first. i would say that is a large thing we do not necessarily understand. >> [indiscernible] it is doubly not an easy thing to do, but that is something that should be taken into consideration. >> what does the indigo look like? if you do not have a goal, a plan, you do not have a purpose, so you are bouncing back and forth. >> i think we are seeing that a little bit in south sudan right now where we are struggling and do not really have a policy. we only have two or three minutes left. >> i want to agree we should always intervene in humanitarian

crises, genocides, things like that, but you look at iraq and threeistan and libya, places we intervened in the last decade or so. iraq, we end up taking up half the territory. , they cannot sustain themselves. and libya -- [indiscernible] better bying things taking out aggressive regimes around the world? you know, the question is not should we do it? can we do it? >> let's go back to the question. what can we do ultimately? i think you're conflating different missions a little bit. i'm not sure that afghanistan's invasion was a humanitarian mission. but i get your point. it is not nationbuilding at all.

good. we have some good arguments and degree.nts to some the purpose of the classes not to bring you to one side or another. these are exceptionally hard lessons. up wednesday. see you next class. >> join us each saturday evening for classroom lectures from across the country on different topics and eras of american history. lectures and history are also available as podcasts. visit our website or download them from itunes. recentlyan history tv visited the macarthur memorial in norfolk, virginia, which was hosting a symposium for the world war i centennial. next, a panel discusses world war i's