US Foreign Policy

[Autolykos]

I'd like to start a discussion about current US foreign policy. It seems to me that there are more fundamental issues here than the "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, two issues here are preemptive war and what I would call "military humanitarianism". Both seem to be integral to US foreign policy today. So I'd like to pose the following question: For those who support preemptive war and/or military humanitarianism, what are your justifications for doing so?

I hope to get some good answers and spark some thoughtful debate on this subject. :)

- Rob

[ibm]

auto - fyi, i tried some debate on preemptive war not long ago. in the end i found myself gained nothing new.

[Nono]

Kindly define "military humanitarianism" (cause it do sound like a contradiction in terms).

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono Kindly define "military humanitarianism" (cause it do sound like a contradiction in terms).

I take it to mean any type of humanitarian mission that involves the use of the military. Another term for it could be "nation-building". Many of the recent "campaigns" conducted by the United States fall into this category, I think.

If you need me to be any clearer, please let me know. :)

- Rob

[Whodoe!]

I think war is always about economics and the humanitarian side is the fluff used to get people’s minds around the idea of the cost in resources (human and otherwise) needed to launch a war. I also think economics is about people and where/when people are economically challenged, they do things often described as barbaric by people who are less economically challenged.

Like Nazism, Islamic extremism is born of bad economics. The “have nots” (for my lack of a better term) have nothing to hope for and no one is coming to save them. They think the guy spewing the most hateful rhetoric is their savior but he is a faker bent on his own economic gains (economics here being cash, elected office, power, respect, land, buildings and so on) and will use these have nots as fodder for his cannon.

When do huge military powers have the obligation to intervene? I think it is when the have nots have things more lethal than rocks (or analogous to whatever defenses their neighbors can deploy) to throw at their neighbors. To be sure, the have nots do not go away because they have nothing to gain in their foreseeable future. The faker will continue to be funded by the enemies of the huge military powers (who themselves wish to be huge military powers) and so on until there is a tragic overflow and innocents are intentionally killed on a mass scale.

I pay my government to protect me from this overflow of barbarism. While it is always fashionable to vilify our government leaders, we must assume they are smart enough to know that their success is ultimately tied to ours.

So within the context of your question for debate, I think we are justified in using "humanitarian" military actions.

[Nono]

Quote by: Autolykos I take it to mean any type of humanitarian mission that involves the use of the military. Another term for it could be "nation-building". Many of the recent "campaigns" conducted by the United States fall into this category, I think.

Quote by: Condi We don't do nation-building.

And so they don't, though with Operation Iraqi Cakewalk not having turned out to be quite the cinch their wee ideology-addled minds had conceived it to be, they probably wish they could.

Remember the Asian tsunami and how it took a shitstorm of bad press to get the Bush administration to lift a finger? No, humanitarianism doesn't rhyme at all with US foreign policy these days.

[rmnunez]

Humanitarian intervention: This has been recently reviewed in international law. Some say humanitarian intervention is formally recognized by implication through UN Charter reference to "threats to international security" as a justification to use force. Concern for humanitarian conditions has been adduced before to justify many foreign interventions. Most recognize that usually the claim is tendentious and just a cover for other reasons. The trend has been to find justifiable humanitarian intervention when it is sought by more than just one country and only if the situation affects other countries too. The ex-post-facto legitimization of Yugoslavian intervention was seen by some as a ratification of the principle with the added condition some of those seeking intervention must be 'regional'. The idea is that there may even be an obligation to intervene for humanitarian reasons if several countries, including regionals, perceive of the need, but there must be a clear capacity to remedy the situation, hence the need for regional support and multiple endorsers. In the relevant references prior to Yugoslavian intervention, humanitarian intervention is discussed in terms of justifying it despite lack of impact on others (i.e. when exclusively of impact within the target's jurisdiction). This would mean there would be an obligation despite no threat to international security.

Pre-emptive war: This was discussed early on, "anticipatory self-defence" was another related term. This is a justification based on a perceived threat of subjective imminence. The earliest precedent was in British action against US supporters of Canadian secessionists north of New York. The presumed requisites are a perception of an intent coupled with the capability to imminently attack by the target.

Both of these are extensively discussed in the ASIL (American Society of International Law) site.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Whodoe! I think war is always about economics and the humanitarian side is the fluff used to get people’s minds around the idea of the cost in resources (human and otherwise) needed to launch a war. I also think economics is about people and where/when people are economically challenged, they do things often described as barbaric by people who are less economically challenged.

Whether the "humanitarian side" is fluff or not, a lot of "citizens" buy into it.

Quote by: Whodoe! Like Nazism, Islamic extremism is born of bad economics. The “have nots” (for my lack of a better term) have nothing to hope for and no one is coming to save them. They think the guy spewing the most hateful rhetoric is their savior but he is a faker bent on his own economic gains (economics here being cash, elected office, power, respect, land, buildings and so on) and will use these have nots as fodder for his cannon.

Do you know what Osama bin Laden's three grievances against the US are?

Quote by: Whodoe! When do huge military powers have the obligation to intervene? I think it is when the have nots have things more lethal than rocks (or analogous to whatever defenses their neighbors can deploy) to throw at their neighbors. To be sure, the have nots do not go away because they have nothing to gain in their foreseeable future. The faker will continue to be funded by the enemies of the huge military powers (who themselves wish to be huge military powers) and so on until there is a tragic overflow and innocents are intentionally killed on a mass scale.

Don't the huge military powers tragically kill innocents as well?

Quote by: Whodoe! I pay my government to protect me from this overflow of barbarism. While it is always fashionable to vilify our government leaders, we must assume they are smart enough to know that their success is ultimately tied to ours.

I would say that you do not pay so much as the government takes.

What is "success" here?

Quote by: Whodoe! So within the context of your question for debate, I think we are justified in using "humanitarian" military actions.

From what I gathered, you justify military humanitarianism as helping to maintain national security. Am I right?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono And so they don't, though with Operation Iraqi Cakewalk not having turned out to be quite the cinch their wee ideology-addled minds had conceived it to be, they probably wish they could.

I would say that the Iraq and Afghanistan "campaigns" are nation-building, whether Condi says so or not. Actions speak louder than words.

Quote by: Nono Remember the Asian tsunami and how it took a shitstorm of bad press to get the Bush administration to lift a finger? No, humanitarianism doesn't rhyme at all with US foreign policy these days.

Perhaps I used a bad choice of words in starting this thread. I am more interested in understanding the people who support the current foreign policy here in the US. It seems to me that most of those people do so out of a mixture of safety and humanitarian concerns. They feel that the US is on some kind of "mission" to save the rest of the world. Whether our politicians believe the same or whether they're more cynical than that doesn't really matter -- their public justifications have been bought into by a lot of people.

- Rob

[Nono]

Quote by: Auto I would say that the Iraq and Afghanistan "campaigns" are nation-building.

I'd say that Afghanistan needs it desperately. But I'd also say that building an Afghan nation would be something like unburning a burnt bridge, since the Afghans seem capable of viewing themselves as Afghans (instead of Pashtuns, Hazaras or whatever) only when there's a foreign presence to drive out.
Ouside of Kabul (i.e. practically the entire country) what "nation-building" has occurred? A paved road over to Kandahar? That's about it.

As for Iraq, what the Americans have done is bring the place to the very brink of civil war. Nice going.

I am more interested in understanding the people who support the current foreign policy here in the US. It seems to me that most of those people do so out of a mixture of safety and humanitarian concerns.

I fail to find many traces of humanitarianism in US foreign policy (though I do in plenty of individual US citizens). What I find is megalomania and simple-mindedness.

It's clear that Bush and his wizards managed to persuade most Americans that the Iraq thing would somehow bolster their safety, confidence in which was shattered by the media-and-government-hyped hysteria that marked the post-911 period. But obviously Iraq was designed to (1) line the pockets of Bush cronies and (2) keep gas abundant and cheap in the US, something which has come to be viewed as a national birthright.

Humanitarianism doesn't have a thing to do with it. People didn't support the Iraq was because they wanted to help those poor Iraqis being ground under Saddam's bootheel. They wanted to kick some Ayrab ass.

And so they have. And one day the chickens will come home to roost, and round and round we'll go.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono I'd say that Afghanistan needs it desperately. But I'd also say that building an Afghan nation would be something like unburning a burnt bridge, since the Afghans seem capable of viewing themselves as Afghans (instead of Pashtuns, Hazaras or whatever) only when there's a foreign presence to drive out. Ouside of Kabul (i.e. practically the entire country) what "nation-building" has occurred? A paved road over to Kandahar? That's about it.

Good point. Again, I'm not talking about what's actually going on as much as I'm talking about what the American people believe is going on.

Quote by: Nono As for Iraq, what the Americans have done is bring the place to the very brink of civil war. Nice going.

Well, in all actuality, the only reason Iraq even exists as a nation in the first place is because that's where the borders were drawn after World War I. Left entirely to its own devices, Iraq would probably cease to exist as a nation.

Quote by: Nono I fail to find many traces of humanitarianism in US foreign policy (though I do in plenty of individual US citizens). What I find is megalomania and simple-mindedness.

Again, I'm not talking about what those in government think, but about what those by and large outside of government think.

Quote by: Nono It's clear that Bush and his wizards managed to persuade most Americans that the Iraq thing would somehow bolster their safety, confidence in which was shattered by the media-and-government-hyped hysteria that marked the post-911 period. But obviously Iraq was designed to (1) line the pockets of Bush cronies and (2) keep gas abundant and cheap in the US, something which has come to be viewed as a national birthright.

Interestingly enough, Iraq has done nothing to accomplish goal # 2.

Quote by: Nono Humanitarianism doesn't have a thing to do with it. People didn't support the Iraq was because they wanted to help those poor Iraqis being ground under Saddam's bootheel. They wanted to kick some Ayrab ass.

Some people wanted to "kick some Ay-rab ass", yes. Others thought it was somehow the US's duty to help those who are under oppression in foreign lands. I know because I've talked to people who think that.

Quote by: Nono And so they have. And one day the chickens will come home to roost, and round and round we'll go.

I agree. The fundamental problem, I think, lies in the presumption that the US should be able to interfere with the affairs of other countries for whatever reason(s). A lot of people who support Iraq bring up the argument "Well, if your neighbor was beating his wife [or somesuch], would you do something about it?". I've countered that such an argument is a non sequitur regarding Iraq, because there's a qualitative difference between individual initiative and tax-funded military force. For some reason, though, a lot of people don't see it that way. They don't see that the government is in fact separate from the people, and always has been. Indeed, it can be no other way. Their mindset is embodied in their use of "we" when talking about the government and/or military, e.g. "We're doing the right thing over in Iraq". The truth is that the rulers are always separate from the ruled.

- Rob

[Nono]

Quote by: Auto Well, in all actuality, the only reason Iraq even exists as a nation in the first place is because that's where the borders were drawn after World War I. Left entirely to its own devices, Iraq would probably cease to exist as a nation.

Yes, a British imperial construct. But here's the funny thing: When the Americans invade (or when the Iranians looked, in the 80s, like they were going to run Saddam's dastardliness back on him) that's precisely when they begin to feel a sense of nationhood. Unity in adversity.

If I were king, I'd might be tempted to let both Iraq and Afghanistan break down into smaller units. Though that would bring its own problems for sure.

Nono: "Iraq was designed to ... keep gas abundant and cheap in the US, something which has come to be viewed as a national birthright."

Auto: "Iraq has done nothing to accomplish goal."

Much to the Bushistas' surprise, though there were plenty of people (right in the Pentagon and State Dept. for instance) who could have told them it wouldn't, but they were sneered at as defeatists.

[lsbskins1]

If what you want to know is the American public's position on foreign policy, I think you will find that they don't really have one beyond something very simple, like...

"Don't let anyone push us around. Do whatever you have to do to keep my standard of living up. Spend and kill wars are fine as long as you keep rule number 2 in mind."

[Whodoe!]

Whether the "humanitarian side" is fluff or not, a lot of "citizens" buy into it

Agreed and so it accomplishes its stated purpose of "waving the boody shirt" to provoke engagment.

Do you know what Osama bin Laden's three grievances against the US are?

Regardless of OBL's stated grievances (I cannot offer a good opinion on the level of US support for Israel; the increased presence of troops in the region towards that end, because I am apparently not smart enough to understand it), would you agree that he demands a society of his design, where he is in charge and he will pay any price to gain such a position? If so, that meets my stated economic motive.

Don't the huge military powers tragically kill innocents as well?

Absolutely, yes.

I would say that you do not pay so much as the government takes. What is "success" here?

I agree completely and my reference to their success is that they do not take so much blood as to kill their host.

From what I gathered, you justify military humanitarianism as helping to maintain national security. Am I right?

Yes!

[rmnunez]

Whodoe is right, US military humanitarianism (military intervention for humanitarian reasons) does help and improves US national security.

National security is an ambiguous concept, but we can identify is broad parameters. Taking into account the magnitude of US foreign trade, anything that interferes with it and access to foreign markets would be detrimental to US national security. Humanitarian crises interfere with US trade and access to markets.

[rmnunez]

Took me by surprise:

The White House and State Department hailed the freedom of 404 Moroccans whose liberation by Algerian-backed Polisario guerrillas was supervised by a US presidential envoy and conducted with American-chartered planes. "Their release is the product of quiet and intense diplomatic efforts among the United States, Morocco, and Algeria," deputy White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement issued at the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush. Bush dispatched Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to oversee the operation aimed at easing tensions in the Western Sahara, a barren and disputed patch of northwestern Africa. Perino also thanked the International Committee of the Red Cross for its role in the "humanitarian success" that brought the Moroccans home, some after 20 years of captivity. She said they flew back in aircraft chartered by the Pentagon. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Moroccans' release from the Polisario base in southwest Algeria offered "an opportunity to advance the cause of Maghreb unity and stability." He urged all parties to seize the event "as an occasion for Morocco and Algeria to re-engage with each other in order to improve their bilateral relations and create a regional climate conducive to resolving the dispute over the Western Sahara." The prisoner release was the highlight of a trip by Lugar that took him to Algeria and Morocco before a scheduled journey Friday to Libya where he could meet with reformed US pariah Moamer Khadafi, officials here said. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050818/1/3ucf6.html

I didn’t know the US was involved in this, I wonder wether it will earn them some dividends among the Muslims. For me the Moroccans are the bad guys in the Western Sahara situation, so I’d just as soon the Polisario kept them another 20 years, the Moroccans have been holding Western Saharauis for longer. I was aware of the raprochement with Khadafi, latest is to reintegrate his country now that he has renounced WMDs and agreed to compensate for Lockerbie.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono Yes, a British imperial construct. But here's the funny thing: When the Americans invade (or when the Iranians looked, in the 80s, like they were going to run Saddam's dastardliness back on him) that's precisely when they begin to feel a sense of nationhood. Unity in adversity.

The same thing happened with the ancient Greeks when they defeated Persia in ca. 480 B.C. Then they started fighting each other again. My point is, sometimes "unity" is borne of convenience only.

Quote by: Nono If I were king, I'd might be tempted to let both Iraq and Afghanistan break down into smaller units. Though that would bring its own problems for sure.

If I were king, I'd have nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other part of the world. Then I'd resign.

Quote by: Nono Nono: "Iraq was designed to ... keep gas abundant and cheap in the US, something which has come to be viewed as a national birthright." Auto: "Iraq has done nothing to accomplish goal." Much to the Bushistas' surprise, though there were plenty of people (right in the Pentagon and State Dept. for instance) who could have told them it wouldn't, but they were sneered at as defeatists.

Yes. I just remember reading some articles on Townhall.com, before and shortly after the war began, that claimed that the oil revenues would finance the costs of the war. How wrong they have been, so far. I wonder if they really knew what they were talking about.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If what you want to know is the American public's position on foreign policy, I think you will find that they don't really have one beyond something very simple, like... "Don't let anyone push us around.

"Push us around" can mean *many* different things.

Quote by: Isbskins1 Do whatever you have to do to keep my standard of living up. Spend and kill wars are fine as long as you keep rule number 2 in mind."

It is a shame that people feel that they owe their standard of living to the government.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: rmnunez Whodoe is right, US military humanitarianism (military intervention for humanitarian reasons) does help and improves US national security. National security is an ambiguous concept, but we can identify is broad parameters. Taking into account the magnitude of US foreign trade, anything that interferes with it and access to foreign markets would be detrimental to US national security. Humanitarian crises interfere with US trade and access to markets.

The problem here is that the US government interferes with foreign trade in the first place. Remove that interference, and that basis for national security will evaporate like the morning dew.

- Rob

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Autolykos I'd like to start a discussion about current US foreign policy. It seems to me that there are more fundamental issues here than the "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, two issues here are preemptive war and what I would call "military humanitarianism". Both seem to be integral to US foreign policy today. So I'd like to pose the following question: For those who support preemptive war and/or military humanitarianism, what are your justifications for doing so? I hope to get some good answers and spark some thoughtful debate on this subject. :) - Rob

I don't consider Iraq or Afganistan a preemptive war at all.
Afghanistan was run by terrorist, and Iraq had stepped up itself as a major problem in the world by financing the bombing of innocent people in Israel and trying to assasinate an ex-President.
I think both places were due to be dealt with.
Also, Americans are nice, we don't take anything when we go into a country, the only thing we ever take is the land needed at times to bury some of our hero soldiers who died in battle.