moda0306 wrote:
For every libertarian or hippie unfairly accusing the U.S. of corruption, savagery or stupidity in foreign affairs there's two nationalists trying to defend everything she does, often viewing anyone who disagrees as somewhere between Anti-American (anti-war activists) to sub-human (muslim civilians). This isn't how ALL nationalists or defenders of the U.S. in foreign wars behave, though, and I don't want to get in a straw man game where we're simply pointing out the dumbest arguments of the other side and try to act like we just won an argument. I try to come at this without any preconceived notions that either side is giving the U.S. an honest shake, but I definitely don't think there's one homogenius group attacking the U.S.'s foreign policy with the same goal of undermining our success and stature in the world. Some come to the table with arguments of mistreatment of the thousands of civilians that die in war. Some point to the corruption and self-fulfilling nature of occupational wars. Some just don't like paying taxes and are "live and let live" libertarians. It is not one group of people changing their minds so much as it's diverse people with diverse opinions regarding sovereignty, occupational wars, foreign relations and aid, etc.
Moda:
I agree that individuals and groups of all kinds can be held up to criticism, but my post really had nothing to do with that. Nor did it say anything about homogeneity, conspiracy, or anyone's goals. My point is simply that the arguments listed did not qualify as thoughtful analysis. It seems you agree with me that at least some of them are pretty shallow. That's a start.
To broaden the discussion a bit....
The libertarian argument seems to be increasing in relevance of late because of the frequency of our military engagements, the disproportionate burden we bear relative to other world actors, and the ruinous impact that all of this has on our country's finances.
On the other hand, the "political" utterances (from any quarter) of those who seek to benefit momentarily from a natural distaste for sacrifice, struggle and conflict are less compelling because they run the risk of being insincere. I seriously doubt that anyone has a lock on "peace", nor that those who scream the loudest about it oppose all wars. You sometimes hear that we should not "escalate" conflicts when perhaps there are times when that is just the ticket, like in 1945. You hear that we should bring our boys home, when that is essentially what we did in Korea....just before the North Koreans attacked in June 1950. You hear that we should be spending money on rebuilding our cities rather than bombing others. Sounds good, but if it's so urgent how come 40 years and trillions of dollars of targeted government spending hasn't stopped the economic hemorrhaging in Detroit, St, Louis, Gary, Cleveland, etc?
This thread provides us with an opportunity (if we want it) to step back from fixed positions and examine the nature of all debates over war and peace. And to recognize that a fair amount of what people say is pure reflex, sometimes duplicitous reflex to boot. Some examples:
1) If the republic is in peril because of runaway government spending, what difference does it make if the overspending is for entitlements or the military?
2) If opposition to past wars was based on the alleged unilateral nature of American involvement, then those who said so before should be delighted that the present Libyan adventure is endorsed by NATO, the UN, the Arab League, and perhaps even Betty Crocker. If they're not, then we can conclude that anti-unilateralism is a red herring.
3) If non-interventionism is really that laudable, then shouldn't we be prepared to tell the Libyan, Egyptian, Bahraini, Tunisian, Jordanian, Saudi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Iranian, Tibetan, Burmese, and similar human rights activists that the US is too busy building a better life for its citizens to consider interfering in their countries' internal affairs?
We've all come to disdain financial chatter and market noise. I propose that much of what passes for foreign policy debate is no different: a mish-mash of subjective and incoherent jabber intended to sound good today but never to be revisited later to see if it stands the test of time.