America's national interests

Remove all ads!

Yes, you must have been, because in the process you misplaced your reading skills (this condition might be induced by watching too much sports). Try Chandos, instead of "Chandros."

 

Actually, I inserted the "r" intentionally. It is meant to incorporate your sub-name "the red" into your primary name "Chandos". That way I can recognize both your sur-name and your designated appellation in many fewer letters allowing me to more quickly return to my sports and malt liquor. If you believe that, let's talk about some real-estate.

 

Ah, yes. I'm glad that you mentioned that a ball game is on. It might be baseball, hopefully. Since I have been having trouble falling asleep the last few nights, there is nothing like baseball for a good cure. All I need to do is turn on a baseball game, and I'll be asleep in no time. Isn't it like the World Series, or some such nonsense? ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.

Back on topic, I was mistaken about the thread, since I had thought it was supposed to be a debate about what each of us thought the national interest should be. And as it appears I was wrong, I will just leave this thread to the "might is right" gang of cynics and their "dreams of empire building." As Napoleon said: "God is on the side of the big battalions."

 

I apologize to everyone for bogging down a good thread into mud-slinging. If/when I ever get an avatar with a sub-title, I may call myself "Thread Killer". Back on topic, I think that everyone can agree, at least in one form or another, that internal/external security has to be part of the National Interest. I think we would likely disagree as to how security is defined, but we should try. What does it mean and what measures are appropriate to obtain security.

Just recently there has been a general outcry against the Patriot Act. Are we giving up too much of our hard fought Liberty in exchange for security? Does US security over ride the rights of other sovreign nations? I'll probably have more to say later, just trying to get this topic recusitated.

 

Just a quick comment to refocus the thread: we're trying to discern America's interests, not its lusts. Maybe, as Laches wrote, America really is trying to gain and/or maintain dominance in every relevant arena. But is that an interest, or a lust? An example: a man might have a legitimate interest in being married to one woman, but a self-destructive lust for every woman within reach (save the Schwarzenegger jokes for the other thread). Or a man might have a legitimate appetite for culinary delicacies, but wanton gluttony is hardly in that man's true interest. Is American dominance a legitimate American interest - indeed, is dominance the legitimate interest of ANY nation - or is it a lust for power that, for historical and ideological reasons, America is the nation most able to indulge?

 

Thanks GM for brimgimg us back to task And I have to agree most heartily that the slating of lusts, be the of dominance or of accumulation, are neither the true interests of the country, nor in the interests of that country.

This said, I also cannot find a single thing Chandos has stated that I find any reason to disagree with.

I am appalled that some of you see the rising of prosperity in other countries as a threat to yourself. That is nothing short of disgraceful, though I perfectly understand why you may think this, it is afterall, the way "America" sustains itself, and I do not fault for it. In times of hostility I could see this as the case, but who really does America think it's at war with?

Let me state my case, and I'm sure you will all agree.

The interests of the country (regardless of the pursuits of those who attempt to lead it) are in short, the interests of the collective members of that country, because if the country fails to address these, then it has failed in its sole purpose. A body of people who share a geographical area, and have agreed to share a political one.

What good is trying to attain dominance or even longevity if the people in that country suffer because of it? What good that the name lives on while the people do not? The country may have sustained itself, but it would do so regardless, perhaps even bettering itself, and as cost for this needless tampering the people lose out. The interests of the country is only that its people are benefitted by its actions, and the people's therefore is, as has allready been laid out, the furthering of moral and intellectual abilty, the perfection of self of every member in that country, with the government existing only to serve those people, not to control them. Thus the people prosper, and share that prosperity with all who come in contact with them.

And yes, to try to attain hollow benefits at the detriment of others, or the decimation of elsewhere, is not in any of our best interests, because it harms us even more than it does them, as would be seen by a country in which its people's interests were served.

So we have perhaps defined what the interests of the people are, but as many of you have pointed out, this is not what they believe their interests to be, this is a problem of language more than any other, but it is true that the majority of the people pursue that which does them the most harm (like the self-destructive lust of the man as GM pointed out). As long as this continues, then the populous will continue blinding itself, and stabbing itself in the chest, while those who have achieved what they previously pursued turn their attentions to what else they may attain.

Perhaps what America as a whole (not just it's regime leaders), should be pursuing is the downfall of the bodies corporate and legislate, for only then I feel will they be able to see they have not been serving their interests at all.

Or maybe they'll just ignore their own slow deaths and slumber in front of the ball game.
This too, in fact serves their best interests, for a country cannot sustain itself in this fashion for long, eventually falling in the only way able to shock such members to take responcibility.

Hacken Slash, with the internal security of each member comes the external security of the whole, and such can only be spoken of in terms of self-defense (as a whole, and in a widely diverging path of possibilities), not attack. It is in the mind, and I do not think that we have rights per se. In my mind, America is its own greatest enemy, and should adress the problems within its own regime before turning its attention to those of others, as can be seen by this patriot act.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted what this act is, could someone explain its outlines to me please?

 

A lot of what Manus wrote proceeds from this false premises:

I missed that part. Take the economy - America may wish to remain a dominant force but in what way does that necessitate seing the rise of prosperity elsewhere as a threat? It isn't a zero sum game.

I think some may be knocking down strawmen - such as empire building, might makes right, fear of the prosperity of others etc.

 

Your contribution deserves a longer reply, Manus, but just as a quick aside, you wrote:

"The interests of the country...are in short, the interests of the collective members of that country."

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that. Maybe you could say that the interests of the country SHOULD be the interests of its members, but not necessarily that they ARE. Take another corporate body for an example - say, Microsoft. Is Microsoft's major interest that its programmers be well-fed? Or that its stockholders get fat dividends? Or that its customers be happy? Speaking purely theoretically, couldn't Microsoft starve its programmers, be stingy with its dividends, and have unhappy customers, and yet "succeed" in its very "Microsoftness"? In the long run, sure, Microsoft has to keep its programmers, owners, and customers happy. But isn't that happiness merely an incidental means to keep them onboard the Microsoft train?

Or another example: when a family joins together, a new family interest is formed which supercedes the interest of its individual members. What happens if the husband decides he'd rather dump his wife and kids for a fling with his secretary? Or more viciously: what if two teenagers mate and conceive an unwanted kid? Surely the interest of the fetus is survival, but that diverges sharply from the interest of the would-be parents to stay wild and free.

I'm not sure how one would prove that the collective interest is synonomous with the interests of each of the collective's individuals. Or more specifically, as posted earlier, that the collective interest equals the sum of each individual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Maybe an even MORE fundamental question is in order: Can there be any corporate interest that is more than the sum of its combined individual interests? Is a marriage only two people with a formal sex contract, or is it qualitatively different? Is a nation just a bunch of people who happen to live in an enclosed territory, or is it something more?

 

If we remove the people from the country there are no human interests left to consider.

Even the so-called interests of the country as a whole are in fact only the pursuits of those who have the immediate power to weild over their fellow citizens.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your original question. I has surmised at first that you meant "What are the goals of the leading factions of America, what is it that is pursued by those who are able to drive forward or convince the others to follow?"

After the way the discussion was leading, I realised I may have been wrong, and that you meant "What is it that is the most beneficial for the American nation to do?" And in this, the best way for the citizens to benefit (even those currently in power) is for that power structure to dissipate. Those who are defeated, while suffering short-term losses, will still benefit greatly over-all, while every-one else should begin to prosper further immediately.

Now I realise I may have been right in my first assumption, that is, the goal of those in charge. Well, as far as that goes I'm stumped.

If my argument was on track however, how can these goals benefit a country and not its people?

I think we have come across a language barrier here. I see a difference arising between interests (that which is to their greater good) and interests (that which is pursued, sic, what they are interested in). I spoke concerning the former, but I think you questioned concerning the latter.

Thus you are assuredly correct. A nation's interests (using the second definition) may very well benefit none of the people, and be signifigantly contrasted to their own interests (of any sort), so long as it is able to be directed that way by some individuals, regardless of any other considerations.

So I assume the correct question to answer is "What is it that America is directed towards by those who direct it?" Yes?

Well, this has been answered allready. Pride and fear causes the political and financial aims of the country to be to try and dominate whatever it can and to the enrichment of the lives of those in power (as they see it anyway, the enrichment that is). I will not believe for an instant that the national interest ever coincides or intersects any lofty aims of freedom-of any country, America or otherwise, or that these ideals are even held in any sort of esteem by those in (dominant) power. To me, any positive change is enacted more out of fear of losing that power than any solid desire to make things better. (@GM-I think this is what you meant by your example, right?)

There may be some who are perhaps trying to do the right thing, but they must be at least some-what misguided I feel, or they would not be so involved in such a corrupt means, whatever the ends- for very little positive change for the good of others is initiated in this manner, only the illusioned pursuit of benefit, and the inevitable detriment, of the self, regardless of the final result (everyone will learn at least something from their actions). And, nevertheless, the input of such people is next to negligible I feel, as is shown by the over-all "national interest" that we are displayed.

I don't even think those weilding such dominance care what is going on, as long as they are kept happy. It is very rare nowadays for anyone to be led by anyone else with a sincere interest in the well-being of others, especially so in the US where such people would be so at odds with the majority of the general populace, let alone the minority of wealthy elite who like things just the way they are.


Now, despite all this, I still believe that these "national interests" are still in the best interests of everyone individually because I take a progressive view of things. How does one know the danger of fire until one is burnt? Even to be warned of it, someone must have been burnt somewhere. This is not to say that things could not be changed for the better, only that if they are not, some amount of benefit can still be gleaned. This can however, be gained in a far more expedient, and far less painful manner- but some do so insist on learning things the hard way.

 

America has a couple of national interests, some of which are healthy, in a well understood interest to ensure regional stability and to prevent free trade flow to be disrupted by regional disputes. In the US thinking that means western style democracy (or pro-US despocy) are the best ways to achieve regional stability.
I for my part have my strong doubts that US-style democracy is a universal healer, much more as the US are not willing to allow others the full consequences of self-determination: That is to vote islamist or socialist if they want to. As long as US interests do not accept the consequences of the democracy US policy promotes so much - the US will act in contradiction to the proclaimed American ideals. This is a key weakness of US policy of the last 50 years.

A crucial necessity to achieve the goals of national interest is cooperation with other countries. The importance of that becomes most obvious by looking at the aspect of US basing. Without cooperation US troops wouldn't even be allowed to set foot on ground in countries such as Singapore, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Hungary, South Korea or Phillipines.
Crime- and terror prevention and fighting require close cooperation of security services all over the world. The issue at hand is that the current administration has spoiled lots of the goodwill that made this cooperation possible. No problem for the likes of Bush Jr., Cheney or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz - they want to be feared not loved.
But this superpower can't do it alone, underlined by the problems to maintain the necessary troop levels in Iraq ... and the desperate begging for foreign troop and monetary commitments. The results of a "Who's not with us is against us" polemic aren't really in america's interest either.

The article: "Danger welcomes Americans abroad" I linked in another thread shows clearly the drawbacks of this approach. A world in which US assets and citizens aren't safe because they are despised, hated and eventually targeted as a result of of their gvt's foreign policy is most probably not in America's national interest as well.
The current escalation of the already glooming problems in this field by invading Iraq with no real connection to the actual war on terror didn't help counter this set of problems, to the contrary.

The US are an important country and their military strength has been a stabilising element (like in the cold war) as well as an destabilising element (like in countries who dared to go "red" or "ayatollah" in the cold war and had a good chance to become victim of US policy). And their power also in the future will be an important element for the international security environment.
The very problem in the attempt to achieve overall military and economic dominance is that it is an agressive set of goals. It practically necessiates an enemy, or several enemies. It invites for polarisation where cooperation might be possible - but would be ruled out by an idology of dominance.
And ideological blinkers are a dangerous thing when used on a giant like the US. The world is a safer place whe he has a wide field of view, allowing him to see walls or abysses early rather than finding them by running into them.

A world where US citizens can travel without fear IMO will never be the result of a world where all those who might target them have been killed. As Israel's regular "success" in killing of leading terrorists shows, they are replaced by others and the carnage goes on for another round. And that is not the fault of another and therefor to-be-attacked country but a selfmade problem. It might take a while to understand that - and an eternity in Washington where the elite around Bush prays "force works, if you only use enough of it".

[ October 27, 2003, 12:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]