This is a vital question to discuss US foreign policy, world order, and ultimately, regime change. In my view, people all over the world cherish ambivalent feeling to American intervention. A mere glance at world affairs, it seems that the United States is always at odds with the global civil society. This is not true. A careful review on US foreign policy will show this fact to you. During the Iraq War, numerous self-called “grassroots” groups condemned US attack on Saddam Hussein. However, strangely enough, these groups and activists requested US intervention in Liberia. Moreover, they petitioned the United States to pressure Burma to stop human rights violation. Usually, they blame American intervention for arrogance, belligerence, and megalomania. What happened with them?
The key to this problem lies in the nature of the USA itself. America is a republic, and an empire as well. As a republic, America is a land of civil liberty, and abstains from dirty power politics in the Old World. On the other hand, as an empire, America imposes stability and a liberal world order throughout the globe. No one doubts that the American Empire today is the successor to the British Empire under Queen Victoria. The United States assumes a mission to prevail liberal values and stable world order with coercive power. Global citizens have mixed feelings to this mission.
So, what’s your viewpoint? Is American intervention right, or wrong? I look forward to your answer.
10 comments:
As an American, I'll be interested to read any posted comments.
OK - as far as the political pedagogy of empire and republic, at this point in history, it's not necessary to operate on those distinctions. Why? As far as empire, we are all built out. Unless we make Saudi Arabia 'New Texas' we ain't going after any more land. So we govern as a republic that was once territorial. I have probably mucked up this whoe discussion. But what do I know. I blog, therefore I am. Great Blog - Great Post!
Always on Watch,
Thank you. I will comment to your blog.
Great post? Thank you. I will reply to your comments to other posts in this blog.
It was, and continues to be convenient for some to accuse the US of imperialism stemming from American intervention in the Pacific Rim and in some Latin American countries, but Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was quite explicit. The United States would intervene in the affairs of other nations when the domestic policies of those nations conflicted with the interests of the United States. Primarily designed to keep European’s out of the Western Hemisphere, there were occasions when the United States sent in the Marines to restore order in nations controlled by Caudillos. American involvement in the Philippine Islands came as a result of the Spanish-American War, but even in the early 1900’s, the US was wary of Japan’s interests in the Pacific, and as it turned out, with good reason.
Is the US imperialistic today? Not in my opinion. The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Bush policy of preemption was the result of attacks perpetrated against the United States by so-called Islamic terrorists; the question really is whether to fight them at home, or abroad. I think the US made the right decisions, but even in doing so you will notice that there is no interest in conquering the people of either country, or subjugating them to foreign domination. Both nations have held democratic elections and selected their own leaders and form of government and the US will withdraw their troops when both nations are able to provide for their own security against radical Jihadists.
I believe that those who continue to accuse the US of imperialism are the sort of individuals who would not even protect their loved ones from danger. Lacking courage themselves, they argue in favor of Americans ignoring what happened on 9-11 (and many earlier incidents of terror directed at the US). They also accuse the US of being the problem vis-à-vis Middle Eastern fundamentalism. I would argue that America is not the problem in the Middle East; it is the solution; but radicals, by definition, are intellectually incapable of reasoning. They understand one thing: well aimed fire. Our traditions are well rooted in the concept: Don’t Tread On Me. That is not imperialism, it is self-defense.
Excellent! Certainly, the US has no interest in conquering any countries. And is it just self-defense?
Regarding this question, I would like to talk about benevolent imperialism and exploitative imperialism. While exploitative imperialism simply conquers other nations, benevolent imperialism maintains a stable and liberal world order.
Benevolent imperialism is my primary focus at the graduate school. Also, I come across comments on this good imperialism by policymakers and academics. Therefore, I vote yes for American intervention, not simply for self-defense, but for maintaining the global order. Allies need to share the burden.
It is quite strange that "anti-interventionists" requested US involvement in Liberia and Burma just after the Iraq War.
Shah, all peoples, save certain segments that have personal interest in an American presence (for instance, the Saudi Royal Family in welcoming American bases), oppose intervention. This is what causes terrorism against US interests. Is there any other explanation?
For those that say that Islamic extremeism causes terror, they must look to recent history; Lebanon provides a case-in-point. Hizbullah did not exist prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Neither still were all of the suicide bombers Muslim -- the majority were secularists! Hamas came about in response to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories at the beginning of the first intifada. Fatah (a secular group) would not exist, obviously, if Israel did not exist. There is always cause and effect. Interventionism is that cause.
Iraq has created instability, not stability, as seen in the sectarian strife, the insurgency, the ongoing American military campaigns, etc. None of these show signs of stopping. If America can't stop the insurgency, how can the Iraqi security forces? This was a collosal mistake in intervention and nation-building, and has proven to foster hatred of the US among many groups and peoples involved, and has caused terror in many coalition cities.
Finally, it would be better to take into account Iraqis' opinions as opposed to Amnesty International's when looking to peoples' attitudes towards intevention.
Middle East Politiks
While many people oppose American intervention, they welcome it in some cases. This is why I take up Liberia and Burma.
Regarding Lebanon and Iraq, do you have any alternatives? Lebanon was a fragmented country, and Syria could pose serious threat to Israel through this country. Iraq had been under ruthless dictatorship. There were no Iraqi leaders to topple Saddam Hussein, without US intervention.
I would like to emphasize that key countries like Japan and Germany are successful case of regime change. That is why I have written on Japan in the next post.
Shah, the point of American interventionism as policy post-9/11 is to stop terrorism, is it not? WWII was a territorial war, Iraq was invading a sovreign nation that was not engaged in anti-US terroirsm. Why was there not an insurgency in Germany, while there is one in Iraq?
Germans after World War II faced another much more formidable threat, which was the Soviet Union. Iraqis do not have such a huge external threat.
Reagarding counter terrorism operations, toppling Saddam is the first step toward Middle East democratization. If America appears weak in their eyes, they will be more rampant throughout the world.
Post a Comment