Thomas Barnett takes a shot at non-interference with respect to Somalia's child-soldiers:
'When people say it's not our role to do the SysAdmin work in these places, they just need to understand who gets pressed into service when Core great powers don't show up.Take a good look at the kid's face, because he's working for you.
Feel any holier about our non-interference?
'
I don't quite understand this. We are - by definition - interfering by sending arms into Somalia, so it's not correct to pin the existence of Somalia's child soldiers on American "non interference." Furthermore, it strains credulity to suggest that were it not for American interference, Somalia would be free of child soldiers. (And I say this as someone who believes arming Somalia is deeply problematic.)
The implication of Barnett's post is that the Great Powers should avoid the moral stain of supporting dubious proxies in Somalia and just go about the work of policing the country themselves. How did that work out the first time?