Skip to main content

Robert Kagan, a policy expert who is advising Sen. John McCain has written an essay on American military interventions and American expansionism throughout our republic's history. (The article is no longer available on the World Affairs website, unfortunately.) His prose is excellent and his examination very interesting. Yet, the essay somewhat oversimplifies American attitudes towards military intervention and expansion to extent American influence and power. Kagan identifies American movements for and against, and suggests that the pendulum of dominant policy and public opinion swings back and forth between them.

Kagan prefers the expansionism, which is often fueled by a spirit of American exceptionalism: that America is special among nations, with special rights and responsibilities, and perhaps a special destiny. Kagan notes that without such a exceptionalism-driven expansionist impulse America would not have become America as it is today. Kagan drives home the point that "in almost every generation the expansive, moralistic, hubristic American approach has rolled over its critics, sometimes into victory and success, sometimes into disappointment and calamity." He stresses that this impulse has been around since the founding of the nation.

[Alexander] Hamilton, even in the 1790s, looked forward to the day when America would be powerful enough to assist peoples in the "gloomy regions of despotism" to rise up against the "tyrants" that oppressed them. James Madison saw as the "great struggle of the Epoch" the battle between "Liberty and Despotism," and America’s role in that battle was inescapable.

The counter movement is a critique of interventionism as "expansive, ambitious, [and] idealistic American foreign policy," and the critique is "shaped by [a] concern about overweening ambition and the temptations of power." Kagan suggests that the source of anti-interventionism is

a deep and abiding suspicion of centralized power and its corrupting effects on the people who wield it. Such fears have been expressed by conservatives, liberals, socialists, realists, and idealists alike over the past two centuries.

But I think Kagan conflates non-interventionists with realists. He writes that "there was scarcely a moment in the Cold War when true realists were not appalled by the direction the United States was taking." Really? I suspect that plenty of realists--at least as I think of realists--even if they doubted idealistic notions of our ability to reshape the world in our image, where nonetheless in favor of everything from breaking the Berlin blockage to creating better US weapon systems, because they thought such moves were actually strategically smart.

I would have thought I was a realist in foreign policy, but not Kagan's kind, apparently. Not only do I not fit neatly into either of Kagan's two broad camps--interventionist and anti-interventionist--I don't completely fit into his sub-category of "realists" as non-interventionists.

So, I'll call myself a foreign policy pragmatist, and as such I am less uncomfortable among the anti-interventionists, I'll admit, because I think force should be used conditionally. Sometimes force of arms is needed, but almost certainly it's needed less often than it's called for by hawks. I think democracy can seldom be imposed by the barrel of the gun, and efforts to do so should be embarked upon with trepidation and consideration.

I think that using armed force to further the spread of democratic values and systems of governments is very risky. Our own transformation from a collection of royal colonies to a congress of states under one self-proclaimed government came about as an act of internal rebellion. The French helped vitally, but not based on grand ideologies about democracy. After all, France was then a monarchy. And certainly 1776 was not something the French put us up to! We seized our own destiny, as the peoples of the Ukraine did during the Orange Revolution of 2004-2005. I prefer a nation's or society's democracy to be brought about from within.

But that doesn't mean democracy can never be imposed by force on a people or should never be attempted. It's just that as a pragmatist when it comes to foreign policy, I respect rules as guidelines reflecting a perspective, and think ideology-based foreign policy should be tempered with contrary viewpoints. When it comes to foreign policy, terms like "any," "never," "always," "every," and "forever" tend to raise red flags for me.

I believe the invasion of Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, an unnecessary pre-emptive strike done without enough international support and without having first given the UN inspections team nearly long enough. I think that elective wars tend to be too expensive and tend to have unforeseen negative consequences. Tend to. Not always. Also, this does not change the fact that there are instances when a nation must defend itself, and there may be instances when our alliances of democracies, such as NATO, will find threats to modern liberal democracy that have to be thwarted militarily. In other words, yes, I tend to think of armed force as something to be used primarily defensively, but--strictly speaking--that doesn't mean it must never be used in any other way.

When the eager Bush Administration hawks began to recast the pro-invasion argument as one of missionary-like endeavor into Iraq for the sake of spreading democratic values (a pro-democracy domino effect, apparently, to be triggered by Iraq and to transform the whole reason), I thought of Athens' Sicilian expedition (415-413 BC) and its failure. It wasn't that objected to spreading democracy, but I thought trying to flip a nation and society located smack in the middle of the Muslim world--while we were needing to be thwarting al-Qaeda no less--was impractical, probably dangerously so.

Another problem I have with Kagan's essay is its failure to examine greatness. Kagan's assumption seems to be that only expansion can make a nation great, and that military power and global influence are the main integers in the equation of national greatness. The Constitution of the United States says nothing about ensuring greatness. It says much, however, about ensuring the promotion of the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. Is a nation great if it does have a global empire of military bases costing billions of dollars to maintain, but its people enjoy 6 weeks of vacation as standard, nationalized health care costing 180 Euros monthly, well-run mass transit, and lower crime, lower pollution, and less wealth disparity than the United States? Apparently not to Kagan. Yet, it's telling that Swedes, Germans, and Danes are not exactly flooding into the US. "Great" is relative, and can be defined in different ways.

The United States is truly, impressively, uniquely great by many definitions of the word as it is applied to nations, including the most common definitions: size of economy and ability to impose its will on other nations through means cultural, economic, and military. But exactly how or if this power benefits most Americans is not always clear in a era of economic turmoil, staggering debt both private and public, government-endorsed abuses of foreigners at home and abroad, unnecessary pre-emptive wars, curtailments of civil liberties, the disappearance of objective reportage and dissemination of information by a conglomerating and increasingly un-free press, the encroachment of religion into the work of the state and publicly-funded scientific endeavors, grotesque levels of energy inefficiency that are often subsidized by the state for both the individual and corporations, alarming parochialism and declining cultural literacy and aptitude in math and science among American students, decreases in the number of foreign skilled workers as they increasingly choose to benefit other nations with their presence, a profound health care crisis, increasing wealth disparity, and the continuing decline in real wages for the lower and middle classes. For the forseeable future, America's greatness rests primarily on how well it meets the above challenges.

Originally posted to IseFire on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:22 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  McCain's Iran thing (6+ / 0-)

    It might be pointed out that in writing, "for the forseeable future, America's greatness rests primarily on how well it meets the above challenges," it is clear that attacking or invading Iran is not a true test of American greatness. One might think otherwise, however, listening to John McCain talk about Iran.

  •  Excellent essay (5+ / 0-)

    and interesting ideas. Kagan is wrong, wrong, wrong on most everything, but he is informed and thoughtful.

  •  Superb essay. Thanks very much! nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Just part of the illusion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, millwood

    I used to think American intervention in Iraq was all about the neocon dominoes, but Dick Cheney is not a man for ideological piffle.  WMD is for the masses, the dominoes are fodder for the think-tanks, but the pragmatic reality is simply oil.  We are there to take their resources.  

    How else to view the threat against Iran?  Are we scared of them, scared of their nukes? Of course not, but they can interfere with shipping in the Straits of Hormuz.  Hear me now, believe me later, it is all about the oil.

    Certainly, understanding the neocon philosophy is vital to understanding the modern players, and the discussion is way overdue.  But remember, this is the Great Game, and there are many levels, and many illusions.  Underneath all, I believe the truth is simple, and very dark.

    •  suspect it's far more than oil (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dark UltraValia

      for one thing, the oil companies did NOT want the I raq invasion; for another, since early 1990s neocon policies and influence have handicapped US oil companies:  it was AIPAC that drove Clinton's executive order to deny Conoco the right to accept the contract to develop Iran's oil fields. Great Game indeed, but larger than oil -- or at least, not oil for the benefit of the US, as facts on the ground prove.  

      More likely the neocon philosophy dreams of redrawing the lines of the Middle East to extend Israeli influence & perceived security by weakening larger states, similar to the way Russia moved around populations in the 'stans but in the new Grand Game, people stay put, territory changes hands.

      According to Jacob Heilbrunn in "They Knew They Were Right," William Kristol was happy enough dabbling in domestic policy.  Bob Kagan thought he needed to jump into the foreign policy fray and influence Bob Dole on fp matters.  Kagan was the ideologue; Kristol was the mouthpiece, at the time.

      •  I don't think its oil at all. (0+ / 0-)

        Neocons essentially believe in Wilsonian democratic apostolicism but they think soft power is for pussy's.  Wolfowitz and the President, especially, see themselves as crusaders for justice and on the right side of history.  Cheney is a realsit in it for the oil, and Rummy wanted to prove his theory of 4th generational warfare, but the spark for all this was a search for an idealistic silver bullet to problems they rightly said we caused.  We invaded Iraq largely because they believed 9/11 was a result of our buddy buddiness with oil tyrants and that if we stopped that and removed the tyrants everything would be peachy.  Clearly they were wrong.

  •  "elective" vs. "aggressive" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    I think that elective wars tend to be too expensive and tend to have unforeseen negative consequences. Tend to. Not always.

    Could someone please explain the difference between an "elective war" and a war of aggression?

    Also, the diarist seems to believe that the U.S. has some sincere commitment to "exporting" democracy.  How is this reconciled with the democracies we've overthrown, and the dictatorships we've propped up?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site