In comments to this post Marshall Art writes the following:
In any case, I believe our country is a force for good in the world. I believe also, that there has been no other country that has shown any real stones to be a force for good in the world. It's not a matter of being a policeman of the world, yet with our great power comes great responsibility. It's all well and good for people, particularly on the left, to want us to cough up every dime for every impoverished or devastated country around the world. Indeed, we continually show our generous nature, both nationally as well as a collective of individual donations, and it makes me proud. But should our might be needed? Good gosh no, where do we get the right to interfere? Both our wealth and our might can be used for good and as long as there are assholes running other countries, they need to know that there are good guys ready to go toe to toe for the sake of the planet. It also inspires lesser nations to join in (more often than not). This is a good thing. I'd rather it not change. I don't think the world could stand it.
I used to think of these things only in terms of national interest. But just as our financial largesse has positive implications that aren't easily realized, so too can our willingness to assert ourselves when deemed necessary. I also don't believe that we need to always have world consensus when we see wrongs being committed that we feel are better put down. If you were a big, muscle bound fighter with vast self-defense training, you might not know the reason why that smaller guy or woman is gettin' a beatin'. Are you just going to let it happen when you have the might to at least interrupt for an explanation? It might be risky for you. But that little guy is bleeding profusely and could be seriously harmed or killed. It's the same in the world. It's our call when we use our might or money based on OUR notions of need. I see nothing wrong with the principle and I do think the world benefits if our help influences the world. I'd love to see the world become more like us in many ways. Wouldn't you?
If one considers this particular bit of reflection in light of two recent posts by Glenn Greenwald, here and here, it shows clearly the moral and political bankruptcy of conservative approaches to foreign policy, and the unquestioned worship of American power by far too many people, not just in the Foreign Policy Community, but in the conservative camp as well.
The first Greenwald post above concerns a debate between a blogger and an alleged expert on international relations who claims there was a defensible argument for an invasion of Iraq, and that there are defensible arguments for invading Iran and North Korea as well. The only issue is the prudence or lack thereof in doing so, not whether such an act would be justifiable. Greenwald notes that behind such a statement is the unquestioned belief in the goodness and necessity of American power. As long as we are "the world's lone superpower" (although I no longer believe that to be the case, thanks to George W. Bush), international relations devolves, in the end, to a question of when we send in our troops, not whether. While those Greenwald discusses may have all sorts of fancy titles, their arguments sound pretty much like Marhsall's, which is a wonderful summation of this particular view (I am not insulting Marshall or his presentation of his position, by the way; I believe he sums up this particular way of viewing the world far better than any supposed "expert" could do).
The latter Greenwald article, which should be considered in tandem with the former, concerns the right-wing belief - almost a doctrine necessary to their entire way of viewing the world - that the United States is in a fight for its life against Muslim hordes who wish to invade us and to paraphrase Ann Coulter, "kill our leaders and convert us all to Islam". Greenwald points out this is not some distant fear, but for far too many on the right an immediate threat to our very existence.
On the one hand, we have an inordinate worship and trust in both our own goodness and military power. On the other hand, we have an inordinate fear of the desire on the part of "Islamists" (whoever they may be) to make of us a Muslim nation. These twin extreme desires drive an almost fanatical desire to strike out at any even alleged threat that may exist.
Combined with the view that the United States can arrogate to itself the use of force (something all other countries in the world are denied, except perhaps Israel) including nuclear weapons, we have a recipe for disaster of epic proportions. When the views of the so-called foreign policy experts and the most fringe elements of our national political spectrum can combine to work for such ill as they have in Iraq, and as they may still do in Iran, we should all be very afraid of those convinced we can still go out there and do some good.
6 comments:
"great power comes great responsibility"
Its the superhero mentality in full force.
I couldnt get to the second Greenwald link there. I like the summary though.
That line is from the first Spiderman movie, which should tell you something about the mentality. They like to torture because of a TV series, and they take philosophical advice from a movie about a kid who becomes a spider. Egads.
Not to mention the rest of the "Manifest Destiny"-esk post. This bleeds into all the comments and ideas that we are inherently "good".
In the Greenwald post.. I really liked (err... disliked) the simplicity of the "clash of civilizations". Boiling things down to us v. them.. or good v. evil. Really, not every thing has or needs a "v." in the middle. And again.. this binary view of the world is far to simple. Even as individuals we are complex. A society is a collection of these complex individuals… All we have to do is look at our own nation. Even the most simple of snapshots would result in a diverse population.
Finally, Iraq was not invaded to “help” anybody but the US. Marshall, get this through your head, please. It was all about WMDs (or at least that’s how it was sold). I was there. I remember. So were you. Just get up to 88 mph in your DeLorean. Today, conservatives are trying to re-brand this as saving the people of Iraq.
Good post, Geoffrey. It is telling, I think, that for all the clamoring for war by the right-wing, when it comes to the sons and daughters of the privileged, they can serve by helping their multi-millionaire Dad get the Republican nomination. Those who actually risk their lives and limbs to fight for the conservative foreign policy are shoved aside, denied care, have their votes stolen, and are otherwise treated like scum by the very people who send them to die.
Mercy sakes alive! What utter nonsense from your liberal friends! And one from you, too. We "like" to torture? We get philosophical advice from Spiderman? C'mon. Please separate your insults from your point. It detracts from your credibility and puts your intellectual honesty in question. Superhero mentality my ass.
I almost forgot. For DL, Hillary voted to go to war. Has Chelsea enlisted? Obama wants to invade Pakestan. Is he preparing his kids for military service? And I've seen several stories over the years of soldiers with extremely expensive prosthetics and other medical equipment and care, with a few of them even rejoining their units, but you, as is so typical, focus on the one story of one hospital whose standards were not maintained and act as if it is common. And when has anyone's votes been stolen. Listen pal, I'm from the Chicago area where dead people have been known to vote Democrat. No one from this admin is treating soldiers like scum.
PL. What's so complex about an ideology that results in heads being hacked off? You want to spend time psycho-analyzing them, I'd prefer they just be stopped, immediately, from ever harming another individual. Here's all the complexity you need in this world: Someone tries to kill you, you stop them, in any way necessary. If they continue to try, you kill them. This is how it is, this is all you need to know. Here's something else you can try: Listen to someone who knows, like Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, Ergun Kaner, and others like them and they'll explain just how "complex" it all is. Clash of civilizations? Open your freakin' eyes.
Oh, and we invaded to help us, the Iraqis and the region from a guy that was thought to be a major threat long before George got to sit in the big chair. Get THAT through your head. And this, too: WMDs were A reason, not THE reason.
As to Geoff's thread, you once again have shown a lack of understanding regarding what the right believes, in this case, about military power and it's use, impact, influence and place in the world.
Unlike too many in this country, we have not fallen back to sleep six years after 9/11. It's not that we have an "inordinate" fear of Islamists, but that we now recognize who and what they are, as well as their capabilities. Nor do we "worship" our own goodness and power, but are aware of it's existence in a more tangible and practial way than apparently do you. Though Ann Coulter likes to go over the top in her tone, she is accurate in the sense that the threat is real from the Islamists.
Now here's what you don't quite get about the right in this matter. We understand the distinction between those Muslims with whom we can work and those who want to dominate the world for the sake of their false god. We also understand that there is a portion of the entire Muslim world that leans the wrong way, even if they don't partake of the discipline. (There's your complexity, Park) Those who want to dominate are easy to determine. They're the ones shooting at us. They DO NOT negotiate. They kill their own if their own aren't devout enough. They sacrifice their own just to kill more of us and their other enemies.
It is the opinion of most on the right, that we are indeed the only superpower (no matter what Geoff thinks) and it's fortunate for the world that it is us and not China or the USSR. I don't see how that can be argued. Those were really the only choices and I can't conceive that anyone doesn't feel just great that it's OUR country that's the only one left.
There is also the misconception that because we've used our military in this instance, that it's the only tool we'd EVER use or that it's the only tool we're using now. It's a good line to rally the left, but it's not the case. It's simply that the threat is recognized and it's required.
Post a Comment