What about R2P?

Interesting to hear politicians - albeit NATO politicians, not just Canadian ones - finally making this argument:

He and others noted, however, that NATO would not end its military engagement in Afghanistan, if only because to do so would essentially hand control of the country back to the Taliban and be a major blow to the organization and its "responsibility to protect."

That doctrine was articulated by Canada after engagements in eastern Europe and Africa in the 1990s. Politicians were quizzed on the humanitarian intervention protocol, known as R2P, by cadets who could soon be charged with enforcing it.

"It seemed quite simple after the events in the Balkans and Rwanda," noted Hugh Bayley, a Labour MP in the United Kingdom, but he noted the alliance is not able to solve all the problems in the world regardless of its intentions.

"It was drafted for situations where a state totally and utterly failed to protect the human rights of its own citizens ... but there are so many situations where human rights are impaired by state governments, We do not have the military capability to intervene in them all."

At the risk of beating the drum a bit too monotonously, I'm wondering why this argument hasn't been made more pointedly to the moderate Canadian political left who originally espoused the R2P doctrine. This is one mission where humanitarian and security goals dovetail quite conveniently. Why it hasn't been presented that way continues to confound me.

(ht: e-mail correspondent Pokeroo)