Originally posted by Infanteer
[qb]Even power politics are directed through a moral lens, or why else would Americans trying to establish peace, order, and good government (or is it life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...or both?) in places it sends its military forces to? Although sometimes misguided, there exists within the very foundations of the West a desire to bring the freedoms upon which our strength is founded on to those who were not blessed to be born into them.
If states are only concerned with security, and Western security is grounded within that principle, is there anything wrong with it?
[/qb]
Not lucky enough to be born into our system? People have been in other parts of the world for thousands of years and have been happy with their systems, at least enough to not revolt over it. You seem to be implying that all things are linear and that all people‘s of the world will embrace our way of thinking and of living because in some way it is superior? What is right for us may not be right for others, and it should NEVER be our job to choose for them.
I find the following which I posted earlier consistent with your quote from Ignatieff and as well as your question of why shouldn‘t they serve their own interests. I am not saying that moral concerns don‘t add support for our actions particularly amongst our own populations, but that they are secondary to our own financial and strategic concerns - as they should be. Believing that the US went after Iraq for freedom is about as ridiculous as believing that they did it ONLY for the oil, or better yet, the magic bullet theory.
Originally posted by kaspacanada:
[QB]
The fight in Iraq wasn‘t just over freedom and Tyranny. They went in to find WMD, and they didn‘t find them. Then they emphasized the "freedom" issue to try to smokescreen the real fact that they broke the standards of international law - and people are falling for it. I am inclined to agree that the people of Iraq will likely be better off without Saddam in power, and that in the long run, they will be able to choose their fate.
On the other hand it makes me angry that America, and many other nations, have supported dictators of all shapes, sizes and intensities for many years as their interests suit them. (and I am not saying that we haven‘t and don‘t do this as well - even at the present time we do what serves our interests) It is completely niave to believe that this was done in Iraq for freedom. It is done because it suits the governments interests at the present time.
The government wanted to ensure that they didn‘t have WMD, they felt Saddam a threat to their interests be it oil or otherwise. They may have looked at the benefit of a boost for the economy through arms manufacturing, reconstruction contracts, to bring the Iraqi people back into the world market so they can buy stuff from us, or whatever interests may be there that we are not aware of at the present time.
It was a choice that Bush made on the information he was privy to, and for what he felt was in America‘s best interest. I can respect that decision and give him credit for sticking through it despite the constant uphill struggle he is facing at home, in Iraq, and around the world now. Tough decisions are never easy to make. America has a very unenviable position as the worlds sole superpower (albeit for the moment) and they are often d*mned if they do, and d*mned if they don‘t. So why shouldn‘t they look after their own interests first? They saw risk and opportunity and have the ability to follow through to exploit it. They are the ‘big guy‘ on the block, and there is very little anyone can do about it at least in conventional terms.
For lack of a better alternative, the economic theories of scholars such as Adam Smith will have to suffice until someone more brilliant and convincing comes up with an acceptable solution to the problems that liberal-economic theory does have. Nothing is perfect. But why don‘t you try it then? Or do you think, as does Francis Fukuyama, that we have reached the ‘end of history‘?
Even your prized Adam Smith warns about the dangers of unregulated capitalism particularly at the international level. So did Marx, and so do many others. But when did I say that the theory was crap? Just because I don‘t like what free trade and trends of globalization are doing at the moment, doesn‘t mean that trends can‘t change as and if political will changes or that I don‘t see potential in it. It certainly doesn‘t mean that I think the theories are crap.
I do not profess to have the answers to the problems that it does have, though as you might have more faith in me than I do.
Comon infanteer, in your infinite wisdom please tell us all where the ‘invisible hand‘ for the people of Africa is right now? Would it be fair to imply that it is someplace doing something that it probably shouldn‘t be doing.
You have well illustrated my point that realistic strategic imperatives will supress or moderate genuine concerns for ‘humanity‘. Our own ‘moral‘ boastings serve only to reinforce our own notions of the universality of our own system and do little to help the rest of the world unless it suits us. Thanks for the quote from Ignatieff, as he wrote it so eloquently, and in a truly diplomatic style that is much more appealing than my own blunt statements about the world. As he put it, it is not that we don‘t want to help and that we don‘t want to try to better their lives, just that we simply can‘t or that it is not prudent to do so.
So why do we do it? Why does the US do it? Because there is something in it for those involved in both the conflict, and in the reconstruction. (and can make us feel better about ourselves and helps us ignore where and under what conditions most of our own stuff is made under, and makes us ‘look‘ good to our allies and other nations) Conflict either in civil war or interstate war, can be seen as the redistribution of either/both political and economic power in their respective jurisdictions. Peace is imposed by those content with the status quo when it suits them just as war is one of the tools that can help maintain the status quo. Convince first your own people, and then the world, of its legitimacy and it will be maintained. You are correct that there is a desire to help, but I would argue that they are secondary considerations, and serve primarily as a ‘legitimacy‘ function at both the international and national levels.
