In this country we set limits for exposure to potentially deadly chemicals by cost benefit analysis. We literally assign a value to a single life, count up the potential lives we place at risk and weigh that against the cost of reducing that risk. It's a gruesome calculus, but we simply don't have the money to protect everyone from all known chemical hazards.
Similarly, we cannot save everyone in the world from murder by brutal dictators. We can't even save most. The money just isn't there and the actions necessary to accomplish such a goal aren't clear either. We need to prioritize and at best save some lives, far less than would be ideal or even allow us to claim that humans can be expected to behave humanely and value human life as a precious gift.
It's strange that given our limitations, a world that watched millions die in North Korea and Cambodia, nearly a million die in Rwanda and continues to watch hundreds of thousands die in Darfur suddenly decided to go all out and save a few thousand innocents in Libya. We could probably save that many or more at home with a similar amount of money by improving our care for the sick in areas of poverty.
Despite Obama's rhetoric about the humanitarian motivation for our involvement, we wouldn't be involved if Libya didn't have oil. Our actions to save lives world-wide have for the last 30 years (probably longer) have really been about our economic interests and have been expensive enterprises that have not been well thought out. So it goes with Libya.
We have no plan in Libya, just a hope that Gaddafi will be removed. But there is no guarantee that this will happen and even if it does happen, there is no guarantee that his replacement(s) will be better. If we are going to try and save lives with an open ended, expensive and vague plan, we should do it where many, many more lives can be saved. Right now that place is Darfur. Why aren't we there?
No comments:
Post a Comment