I was asked an interesting question in yesterdays diary about the role of the US military around the world coupled with some whining why I didn't answer it then and there. Sometimes you have to think about a question and sometimes you actually have a life to lead which occupies 99% of your time. So with my spare 1% I'll answer this question, plus the answer needs an historical perspective and that takes time.
Mz Feminista (1+ / 0-)
From what you wrote above, your foreign policy stance puts you on the far left wing, what I consider a Leftist (as in contrast to a Rightist).
It seems to me that you have no roll for US power.
I am curious: What role does US power have in your view of things? If not Afghanistan, when was the last justified use of American power?
E pluribus unum.
by Plubius on Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:47:05 AM EDT
I don't know why I am bothering as I know my reply will only annoy the commentator, however I found the question interesting enough to write a diary.
It's a long diary so bring plenty of coffee.
Preamble:
Few nations in history have 'enjoyed' our present military, economic, and cultural dominance and even then it is difficult to draw an historical parallel.
Two spring to mind
Roman Empire:
This was a regional empire, but was within its sphere of influence it was the cultural centre of the world and its relevance is still felt today. The catholic church can be regarded as a legacy of its cultural might in addition to the language that we speak. The roads it carved out in Europe are still used to this day, [I remember us driving down the via Appia Antica and for once having nothing to say] the network of trade and empire is clear for all to see.
British Empire:
The first truly global empire its effects are still felt all too clearly as Britain was responsible for drawing up many of the political and national boundaries that have caused so much grief since its fall.
American Empire:
[how many will stop and scream here?]
Now I know many Americans get upset when I refer to the American Empire, that is however what it is and as with all empires it will one day fall. How much influence we will have on the future will depend on our actions in the present.
Economic influence.
Global in nature lead as in Rome by our industries and corporations operating well beyond our national boundaries. Most of the Roman Empire was created by negotiation with the menace of military action if denied. [Note: violence was often used by the Romans as a preamble to set the stage for 'diplomacy' .] The wealth generated being returned back to the United States. Trade conditions have been imposed world-wide so as to benefit our oligarchs. As with previous empires an elite benefits the most. All roads lead to Rome Washington when trade terms are considered.
Cultural influence.
Some may mock our Music, TV, Film and Fast Food; however they will be remembered as our cultural impact on the world. Our values are established in our films and TV and you can watch them anywhere in the world [and it's how the world views us]. Its been a very effective means of spreading propaganda and presenting our view of ourselves and generally how 'moral' we are. Ever get annoyed by a happy ending with a strong moral overlay? As for food, try finding a major city not selling our cholesterol boosting garbage. As for music, that at least I can feel positive about, with some exceptions of course.
Military/Political Influence.
Our style of democracy will no doubt be analysed by future historians. As many I believe that it is intellectually the best type of government we have come up with so far, however as with most theories the practical part leaves something to be desired. Then again democracy can only come about from internal desire and revolution [peaceful or otherwise]. You can export the idea but you cannot impose the reality. Although we have overturned regimes we didn't like without actually invading; often with some pretty horrifying results.
As the last remaining superpower, after pretty much bankrupting financially and politically the nearest challenger in an arms race [and nearly bankrupting ourselves in the process] we come to the subject of the diary.
How did we get to this situation?
Historically I would say the US only reached super power status at the end of WWII after the years building up the military during the war and the development of atomic weapons. The USSR became a superpower at the same time, two ideologies had collided, both were pushed somewhat reluctantly at first into founding new empires. I say reluctantly because even though allies during the war both were paranoid [understandably so] of what might happen once Germany and Japan were defeated. Before WWII military power was more evenly spread. Europe now after centuries of bitter rivalry and two world was exhausted both morally and economically, the horrors of the wars and the holocaust were burned deep. Russia had been subjected to horrors beyond description both by Hitler and then Stalin. The US had suffered massive casualties abroad but had not been subjected to the mass killing of civilians, its something the US cannot completely understand as a nation, although many immigrants since the war can relate their experiences. Russia was paranoid from invasion and slaughter, the US was paranoid after being drawn into two major wars. Europe was trying to get over the horrors it had been subjected to, within this landscape two superpowers emerged and a global tit for tat began. The basis of this tit for tat was always national security concerns real or otherwise.
It was not our founding fathers intent
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. ...The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. George Washington – Farewell Address, September 17, 1797
We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle whereon our own government is founded, that every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will. Thomas Jefferson – To Thomas Pinckney, December 30, 1792
Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has extended her dominion over them all, Africa, Asia, an America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit.
Alexander Hamilton on Colonialism, The Federalist Papers 1787
Some may argue it was forced upon us, some may argue it is our role in the world. Some will even argue the world has changed this is simply not true merely who is running the show has changed, it just happens to be us at the moment. All I can say is that our founding fathers knew the effect of Empire and didn't like what they saw. Our history is a revolt against Empire and a struggle for our own freedoms. I'm afraid the PNAC viewpoint of the world is a hark back to a darker time, when Empires justified themselves by moral superiority.
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike."
~Oscar Wilde
What have we done with all this power?
We had basically two strategies originally, Bush changed this principle and I will get around to that one later.
War with international co-operation even if we had to bully to get what we wanted.
Covert operations designed to install regimes that would be 'beneficial' to our position in the world. This is another diary entirely and is only relevant in that we are engaged in clearing up the mess we are partly responsible for in the first place. It is actually irrelevant with respect to the use of military power.
Postdam
Potsdam also confirmed British and American suspicians about Stalin's intentions. The Soviet Union had been an expedient ally in the war to stop Nazi Germany, but there was little time to bask in victory. Stalin had already reneged on his promise, given at the February 1945 Yalta Conference, to allow free democratic elections in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. More importantly, the British and Americans feared that the massive Red Army, which occupied all of Eastern Europe, was poised to extend its influence over Western Europe.
http://www.u-s-history.com/...
The Truman Doctrine
Follows on from Churchill's concerns over the USSR.
"the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
This justified the Korean war:
The soviets were given trusteeship over the North and the US the South after WWII. With cold war politics under full steam it effectively meant the they were effectively occupied by the USSR and the US. In 1950 the North invaded the South using Soviet equipment. A long bloody war ensued, I believe we had little option in this case. The result of the ceasefire agreement is an appalling situation in the North a booming South with 60,000 US troops ensuring that it stays that way. A justifiable war perhaps, certainly one that was forced upon us with the situation at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Eisenhower
Put the domino theory into words.
You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things.
First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs.
Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.
Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling \cf2 domino\cf0 " principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.
Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on.
Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses.
But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.
Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand.
It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go -- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.
So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/...
Its not a moral argument but an influence argument which led to this unholy mess.
The Vietnam War
France's Empire in Indochina was collapsing they were being driven out after a number of years of bloody conflict. The Domino theory was used by both Eisenhower and J F Kennedy to justify our intervention in Vietnam, I do not intend to go into this fiasco in any detail as its been run over so many times. It was an abject failure and a misguided adventure right from the start. It shaped our foreign policy for decades to come, we went back to covert operations with pretty much awful results, as I said I am not going into that in this diary.
Now forward to:
The Gulf War: Or, the Iraq war part I
Once again you could argue that this was a just war, a sovereign [in all senses of the word] nation was invaded by an aggressor [whom we had happened to support for years]. Then again it was economic reasons that led to the invasion, our right of access to middle eastern oil was paramount. At least we knew when to stop, also occupying Iraq would never have been supported by our allies in this war. Except the war didn't end there we kept the no fly zones and embargoes up until we were ready to invade again.
The Balkans
More of an intervention to stop a war than anything else even though there was an extensive bombing campaign. The objective was to stop a genocide taking place, it was crazy that it got this far and the governments in Europe must carry a lot of blame. I was successful in this respect and the region is recovering.
Then again genocides in Rwanda and Sudan have generated little will to intervene on our part, there is a certain lack of consistency here.
Fast forward to Afghanistan.
The Afghan Wars.
These really started with the invasion by the USSR in support of their puppet government in Kabul. We supported the Mujahideen and the foreign fighters [Bin laden being one] both financially and materially. After the USSR withdrew in defeat [and near economic collapse leading to its collapse as an empire] the communist governemnet fell to the Taliban.
Now as a justification for invading Afghanistan and the occupying the country we used 9-11 as an excuse to vent our rage. Bin Laden and the hijackers were nearly all from Saudi Arabia. How much the Taliban were knowledgeable of the attacks is debatable, the Taliban actually had little respect for the foreign fighters. The Taliban were to busy oppressing their own populace and fighting the remnants of the northern alliance to be too involved in a plot to attack the US. The negotiations with the Taliban for Bin Laden's head were hardly negotiations more of an ultimatum, we were determined to have our revenge. The objective of going into Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden not to occupy otherwise it would never have got NATO backing it was not backed by the UN. We failed in that mission. now we have an occupation that has no time-line nor any clear objective apart from winning the war on terror whatever that really entails.
Some military intervention was justified, however occupation and the installation of a government favourable to us is highly questionable.
Iraq War part II
Pre-emptive resumption of the war based on a stack of lies followed by an illegal occupation. The result of our previous failed policies in the region again for another day.
Conclusion
To answer the commentator:
your foreign policy stance puts you on the far left wing,
I know as so far as you use the sliding scale left/right in the US.
Is our use of our military might justifiable?
Based on past results: No.
What roll should we play?
Show the way to a better society by example not by sending in the tanks. We do have a right to defend ourselves.
Unless: You say we are an Empire and purely justify it as being in our self interest. I would call that being truthful.
The last time force was justifiable?
Hard to say, there are ways of justifying every intervention if you use self interest wrapped up in morality.
The only one I am 100% certain with is WWII, then again it was only after we were directly attacked by another nation's government. We were not a superpower at the start of WWII it caused us to be one.
Korea is hard not to justify then again the results are mixed. The South is stable thus justifying the war, the North is a wasteland and still a problem for the South. Again how do we get out of this situation 50 years on? Only by the North changing from within, all we can do is welcome them when they decide to do so.
Maybe in 100 years once we are out of this post WWII world completely will the results of our interventions become clear and we might know if they were justified in the long term or not.
The problem has always been is consistency, and until we get that right our interventions appear to be for self interest only hence hard to justify to anyone else but ourselves.
America well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) Address, July 4, 1821
Finally on the use of force as an instrument of change:
The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Second Speech on Conciliation with America, the Thirteen Resolutions, March 22, 1775
Now I better finish dinner, and post this diary tomorrow.