Foreign Affairs Quandaries
by Tibor R. Machan
Since early in its history America has been a world power and even aside from the ambitions of some of its leaders and citizens, it has been called upon increasingly by many leaders of other nations to come and fight in their behalf. World War I would not have turned out as it did without the USA's role in it and many in Europe wouldn't have it any other way; even more so with World War II. Korea was a bit less clear cut but even there most civilized nations supported America's entry, whatever one might think of it in terms of proper foreign policy. Vietnam, too, was full of difficulties and arguably America might have stayed out of that quagmire but many nations acted in ways that could pretty much be taken as supporting the kind of policy American followed there - consider that a great many European and other nations had no armies to fight the Soviets and their allies had they gotten it into their heads to attack anyone anywhere.
After the Vietnam war it seemed like America would learn to resist the temptation - and other's urgings - to enter into anything but defensive military conflicts but that didn't last long. Panama was attacked merely because we didn't approve of its leader's drug policies. Grenada was threatening to build a runway that Cuba might have used, yet certainly no credible threat existed against the citizens of the USA from that tiny place.
These excursions seemed to restore America's reputation as a kind of world police. I used to see, back in the early 90s, bumper stickers which read: "The US Marines: The 911 of the World." And even more - the military was being deployed to fight the war on drugs, to help with the aftermath of hurricane Andrew and, then, of course to clean up the mess in the Balkans after the collapse of Yugoslavia. So the idea that we should stick to defending ourselves with our own military forces pretty much went out the window. There were many who asked for even more and complained that the US military only helps Caucasians, no one in Africa. And it was widely said that all that humanitarianism was actually phony, along with foreign aid, because what was really going on was the government supporting various business interests abroad.
After 9/11, which was frontal attack upon the USA, a great many who hailed the various rescue missions the US military conducted suddenly didn't want anything done. Why? Well, my hunch is that the one thing many people do not want is for America to do anything in its own interest.
Humanitarian wars, OK; striking at out and out enemies, hey that's mean. When Kuwait was attacked by Iraq this attitude meant ambiguity, again, since Kuwait's oil did serve American interests but, of course, Kuwait was in need of help, too. So, America's critics were in a lurch. But with UN support the problems were overcome - after all, if America is doing the UN's bidding, then it cannot be acting in its own interest, can it? (Except there were those who insist that America controls the UN. So, there is just no way for the US to win.)
The most recent war against Iraq was undertaken by George W. Bush and he was hated by nearly all academics, pundits, and related America-bashers, so the fact that millions of oppressed Iraqis may benefit from a victory there simply didn't suffice to make this one of the humanitarian wars.
What was wrong with it? Few people could give the right answer by now, since they have accepted America as the world humanitarian cop, namely, that unless the country is attacked, its military has no business going into action. So, the reasons given for why the current Bush War is wrong were generally incoherent, considering that it had objectives not much different from others for which the USA get accolades.
Even as we speak the critics are having to square some circles since now there is a widespread call for the US military to go into Liberia and fix things there. No, no one in Africa has attacked us but what can you do once you have volunteered to be the world cop, even if whatever you do will bring the critics down on your case.
Lt. Colonel Charles Dunlop wrote an interesting piece for the military journal, Parameters, a while back, about a military coup in the USA in 2004 or so, if I recall right. He imagined that this coup would be explained by its leaders as follows: "Well, they kept asking the military to solve every problem in the country and abroad, so we finally thought, hey, we might as well take over the government and do it right all around, just as they seem to think we can."
Not a welcome prospect but certainly one possible result of America's current domestic and global military policies.
Discuss this Article (53 messages)
|
