Well yes. Although I am in favor – as your are with not joining any UN operation that is not clearly in out self interest.

Hobbs covers it nicely above. You and DTOM don’t agree – what a surprise.

Did you dissagree with the men I posted who felt WMD in Iraq was reason for military action? Why? What would you have done?

Which is really the question here. My answer would be that it is very grey area, depending on many factors. Military options would always be the last course. As I have said,l I don't think the US, given its world position, has really been that interventionist--certainly not when compared to any other world power throughout history. Which isn't to say we haven't done it at all...not by a long shot. But for every example given of supposed mistakes that were made, that becomes less clear when you go back and really look at what the situation was at the time, and all the various factors that were involved. But I think there is a failure to grasp the reality that intervention simply cannot be avoided...it is only a question of what method in any given situation. We, like any other nation, are always going to place our interests above those of others. Even if the US were purely altruistic in its foreign policy, it would still cause dissent, as some groups complained that others got more help than they did. It would also severely downgrade the welfare of US citizens, as the US struggled to essentially provide welfare to the world (when we can't even do that domestically). So, interventionism is simply a given. It is only a question of how much and what kind.

Has the US probably been too egotistic in some of its dealings? Certainly. Should we learn from those? Absolutely. Have we been the evil, imperialistic nation many seem to want to portray us as? I would disagree with that completely, while still admitting we have probably been less concerned with the ultimate effect our policies might have in the region than we should have been. I suspect, DTOM, that were you and I to sit down over a few brewski's (the best way to have such discussions!) you would find that we probably don't disagree that much.

Thought I would add the following, in relation to the various no-bid contracts offered in Iraq, and particularly the ones recently concerning the contracts to rebuild and maintain Iraq's oil fields which were brought up a few posts above.

Looks like Iraq now is opening up these oil fields for international bidding.

This will cause a delay of about a year in the process, as they don't expect to award the contract until next year. This is why I don't think these no-bid contracts are as bad as they get portrayed...they're simply the best way to expedite the rebuilding of Iraq--shortening the process by cutting out the bidding period, to allow companies to get right to work. Also note that these contracts are for the rebuilding and maintenance of the oil field equipment and infrastructure...they're not for control of the oil. It does look like the original 5 firms (3 of which are not even US based) were trying to negotiate to get paid in oil royalties instead of cash, but that would have more to do with their expectation that the price of oil will go up, thereby making their payment worth more if in oil than in cash. Iraq is well within their rights to refuse to do that (as they did), and open up the bidding -- which I think also shows that they're not beholden to US interests here.

It will be interesting to see who does end up with these contracts. One of the problems with opening such things up to bid (besides the delay it causes) is that it puts the onus on price, as opposed to quality. The Russian and Chinese companies that can now bid stand a very good chance of undercutting the Western companies, but they're also not nearly as good at these things. I might also wonder how much effort the US Military will spend protecting Chinese assets. If the Chinese or Russian firms to get the contract, it might also be worth watching to see what happens later on when these assets are 'nationalized', as always seems to happen. I think it is safe to say that neither would be pleased, and it would create new tension in the area. Which I think goes to show that there are a great many facets to these decisions, and simply giving them to American or British companies for purely economic reasons is almost never the sole factor involved.

I think you have created a false dichotomy Hobbes. People who believe in non-interventionism like CP, DTOM, and myself do so not only because of the disastrous examples of our past, but because we believe that more can be achieved through peace and diplomacy than through force. We are not advocating an altruistic foreign policy for such a thing would certainly be hazardous to our interests. We are advocating a policy that is based on voluntary cooperation - the only policy that can be morally justified. This can be achieved by showing other nations through leadership and persuasion that our methods and institutions are superior. A free nation does not prove its superiority through the barrel of a gun but by the virtues of its society. If our virtues are just and our progress is clear, others will follow.

I think you need to define 'non-internventionism' then, and also 'altruism' for the above. If one of the primary purposes of our foreign policy is not to advocate our own self-interest, then indeed the policy being advocated is altruistic, and to my mindl, unworkable. Mutual cooperation is pretty much always what we seek to achieve...the question becomes what happens when that doesn't occur. If our government didn't then 'intervene' to protect our interests, then by definition they're just letting our interests go by the wayside. I find it difficult to advocate a policy that lets that happen. I also think 'intervenention' and 'invade militarily' are being confused here. ANY method used to try to protect our interests in 'intervening'. Your policy of mutual cooperation, for example, is exactly what we did in Iran with the Shah, one of the things we are now criticized for, and would also describe our relationship with Iraq during their war with Iran. Even our invasion of Iraq was just an extension of our mutual cooperation with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to liberate Kuwait, with the terms of the end of that initial conflict never being met by Saddam. We 'intervened' in Aghanistan to help them defend themselves from the Soviet Union, and in doing so helped end the Cold War -- was that a bad thing? I don't think so. So, I suspect what we may be discussing is the difference between policy in theory, where things are much simpler, and policy in practice, where ugly realities occur. I would agree completely with the philosophy you describe, and am merely pointing out the difficulty of actually applying such a policy in practice while still defending US interests--which is the primary purpose of any government.

This is questionable. There are many instances where it would be in our interest to invade, occupy, or control other nations that are of vital national interest. This could be due to the strategic position or due to the abundance of natural resources. However, we do not invade because the consequences of the interventionism outweigh the benefits. A non-interventionist (which to me, means that we do not get involved in the politics or administration of other nations but rather depend on diplomacy) would believe that it is always in the national interest to maintain peaceful diplomatic and economic relations and that intervention by way of military force is not in the national interest for a number of reasons (waste of taxpayer resources, growth of the state & military, blowback). If the US is negotiating with X country to secure some vital interest, then the only moral and just way to attain our ends is through voluntary cooperation. If we cannot reach an agreement, it means that we either did not value the interest high enough or we are simply unable to comply with X country's terms. This inability to reach an agreement does not then give us free reign to use force against country X. Such an ideology is the antithesis of a free society.



I did not narrow the definition of interventionism to just military force, you did. The use of intelligence and special forces to intervene in other nation's affairs falls well within the realm of interventionism. Our history in Iran is the perfect example. We imposed our views on the Iranians, it was not an example of mutual cooperation. Our relationship with Iraq in both situation you provided is also a poor defense of your point. The doctrine of non-interventionism applies to all countries, not just ones we like.



Then I suppose it all comes down to how do you define both the 'interests' and 'principles' of the American republic. I would argue that it is not in the interest of the US to conduct nation building operations or to occupy rival nations. That such actions would have terrible consequences that would do nothing to aid our national security. I am not convinced that our invasion of Iraq has made us any safer. The best way for the United States to be a free nation is to act like one.

What happens when diplomacy fails, or has no means of achieving success? What about situations where not 'interfering' in politics is deemed more disadvantageous to the US than 'interfering'? What about when 'mutual cooperation' with one country works directly against the interests of a third country? What about when the party we are trying to achieve 'mutual cooperation' with deems this as 'I can demand whatever I want, since they have no other leverage'?

I think we are just arguing in circles here. My only point is that global relations are an inherently very complex issue, where the 'right thing' to do is often hard to know, especially looking forward 30 or 40 years. I have already stated that I think there are times when our foreign policy was too heavy handed. What exactly then is the issue we are debating here? How would your philosophy apply to our involvement in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded? Should we not have intervened, which would have meant the Cold War continued and grew, thereby just leading to larger and larger situations that would have required more and more 'intervention'? What about economic intervention, which is usually one of the primary tools of the diplomatic approach--and which I would argue has as a goal inflicting such hardship on the country being sanctioned that eventually the people are forced to rish their lives and revolt, and short of that causes the same sort of international ill will you seem to be arguing we should avoid? Without 'intervening' what leverage do you have in conducting any diplomacy? Please work with us...No?...OK, thanks anyway? What do we do with governments that we know, or are at least reasonably sure, will use force to meet their needs. Do we wait until that happens, and then use military force, or intervene and attempt to thwart the situation before then, thereby avoiding military conflict? These are the types of situations faced in the real world, and where I think a truly non-interventionist policy breaks down.

Contrasting the Spanish and Anglo-American treatments of Indians, the French scholar described the unique ability of Americans to "exterminate" the Indians and deprive them of their rights "with singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world." As he watched US soldiers "drive" Indians westward and leaders like Jackson provide a metaphysics to explain their actions, Tocqueville caught a glimpse of a peculiar horror. "It is impossible," he remarked in barbed language, "to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity." —Ronald Takaki, The New York Review of Books


As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in? —Alexis de Tocqueville

You're a bit of a mystery to me, Hobbes. Sometimes I glimpse the realist in you about to expose Eurocentric principles supporting free trade and human rights as the shams they are when you talk about the right of states to protect their interests. But then you hedge at the last moment in search of a silver lining that may appear just for us.

We've been as active as European states in colonizing, although we've gone about it differently. The U.S., unlike the Dutch, French and English, didn't bother re-civilizing peoples outside its territories through education and religious instruction. Americans were more pragmatic. Greed has been the singular guiding force directing our on-again, off-again economic expansions violating national sovereignty instead of a combination of greed and faith in the superiority of our culture. I wonder if it's because we know firsthand what a waste cultivating our minds turned out to be for the British. We didn't have to make friends with Panamanians to arm nationalists against Columbia and eventually build what American businessmen wanted since 1825, for example.

By the time WWII was wrapping up death and fatigue made warmaking seem less legitimate. Western states stopped recognizing conquest. Nuclear weapons went a long way to delegitimize conventional war. Conquest for European states also didn't pay like it once did.

The consequences of small events and chance circumstances can determine solutions that, once they prevail, lead one to a particular path. —Douglass North

Once U.S. companies started buying rights to services from European companies and/or began building physical things they couldn't pick up and move in the event of political unrest like seaports, mines and railroads on foreign soil, political support followed and the federal government supplied the security. Often our military presence wasn't as entrenched as that of European states, but sometimes it was. It's no coincidence our neoconservative intelligentsia oscillate between appearing bewildered that Iraqis don't buy propaganda concerning our good intentions and restating the propaganda for U.S. consumption.

States can't defend their vital interests without some degree of colonization. Iran and us are doing it in Iraq. Turkey is doing it in Cyprus. Israel is doing it in the West Bank. China is doing it in Africa. Brazil is doing it to its own indigenous peoples. If your vital interest lies outside your area of political control you will use economic coercion and brute force against recognized, if not legitimate, governments, or you will lend economic assistance and military power to a recognized, if not legitimate, government in order to defend it. You are absolutely correct. If rights were paramount nobody would need a military. Nothing more needs to be said. Everything else is window dressing for the troublesome members of the mob with a conscience. Pointing out differences in the trajectory of our economic expansion and military intervention from other global powers is beneath anyone who understands defending vital interests requires intervention without regard for morality, human rights and sovereignty.

Just to spare anyone a WTF moment—no, I don't believe this is how we should conduct our foreign policy. But while we're being blunt I thought I should point out that human nature doesn't give the state the luxury of continuing a moral policy while it pursues self-interests.

First off, Lesly, I would like to commend you on a wonderfully constructed, well-thought out, and eloquent post!



My work here is finished, then.

Actually, I think you have me figured out pretty well.



I do indeed consider myself a realist (hence my moniker!). I have pointed out in multiple foreign policy threads that I believe pragmatism drives all foreign policy, out of necessity. You explain why I feel this way more eloquently that I ever did.



How then do you rectify this with the views expressed here by leduruvdapac, DTOM, and conservpay (and I suspect you as well)? I think you provide the answer to that as well.



The answer, I believe, is to incorporate morality, human rights, and sovereignty of others into our own self-interests. This is what I believe these others are advocating, and I agree. I also agree with you, Lesly, that we have in the past neglected these other factors in favor of our own economic interests (as have just about every other nation, most particularly every Western nation). I think the only point of contention is how frequently we have done that, or perhaps whether economics should be a factor at all. I would strongly disagree with anyone who advocates that our own economic self-interest should not be a factor at all in our foreign policy, but I'm not sure anyone here is taking that stance. I would further argue that considering the other 'moral' factors is also the best practice economically, as those advocating the 'moral' policy have described in it being in our long-term best interest. So, essentially, we need a multi-faceted foreign policy considering all these factores. Where I have been playing devil's advocate (hence creating the 'mystery'? ) is in pointing out that I think we have been doing that all along, it is just a question of degree of the factors. Multi-factored decision making is an inherently complex process, where the 'ideal' solution is seldom arrived at. This is the case even in theoretical heuristic methods, where arriving at the 'perfect' solution to a given set of parameters is never arrived at, and models instead simply seek to arrive at a 'satisfactory' solution. New models can then be run as the situation changes, essentially arriving at more and more 'satisfactory' solutions each time (but never arriving at the ideal). This is the case even in theory, without all the issues of applying it in the real world, where no data is fully known, and the impact of any decision looking forward long-term.is almost impossible to predict. Hindsight is always a much better viewpoint on these things, but is never the perspective from which decisions have to be made.

It would seem, then, that what we are discussing is lending more weight to these 'moral' factors in the future. This is in fact how multi-faceted decision making works...you continue to refine the solution to arrive at a better result, adn I agree with that. However, I disagree that we can do so at the exclusion of our own economic and other self-interests. Doing so would defy the very purpose of even being a nation...countries exist solely to defend their own self-interest. Further, I think there are going to be times where 'intervention' is indeed the best solution. In doing so, I do not believe we should do so with 'no consideration of morality, human rights, and sovereignty', but rather need to extensively consider those factors in our decision. In fact, I believe that they need to be paramount factors. The Afghanistan example I cited above I think is a good example of this. I don't believe our 'intervening' there against the Soviet Union was a mistake at all... I think it was absolutely the right thing to do, and very well executed. However, once that 'military' goal was achieved, and the Soviet Union was forced to withdraw, I think we completely dropped the ball on continuing with the 'moral' act of helping to rebuild Afghanistan economically. This is what led, ultimately, to Al Queda's attack on the WTC. Helping to rebuild Afghanistan may well have had a profound influence on the entire region as well. Note that the flaw here was not in 'intervening', it was in not 'intervening' enough.