Re: If might always made right, we'd all be in trouble
Posted by Neeraja on 12-17-2007 in Does might make right? -- America's global roleThis also introduces the questions of if there even exists such thing as "universal morals" or a "universal right or wrong." I agree, America has never been consistent, from policies to intercessions. However, is it possible to be 100% unvarying in a world where there is no common consensus on what is right or wrong? Granted, America does come off as imposing their own standards to other nations; however, do they have a choice when no one true set of values even exists? This inner debate of whether or not America should intervene for instance arises every single time a new conflict arises. There are going to be cohorts and adversaries with whatever decision any country-not only America-makes. Each situation regardless of how similar they seem have their own intricacies that make them unique from one another-hence, can pragmatically the same approach be taken by America each and every single time? No two clashes are the same; hence, how can America be expected to approach these situations identically each time?
In response to: If might always made right, we'd all be in trouble
While many assert America's responsibility as one of the world's last remaining superpowers to monitor nations that pose a military threat and play "peacekeeper" on the international front, the consequences to national sovereignty and U.S. moral standing are slowly but surely surfacing. When terms such as 'good and evil' or 'right and wrong' are employed in justifying intervention, people around the world are offended and our ability to secure the help of allies now and in the future is imposed upon. The inconsistency in our choices of mitigation may allow the international community to view the U.S. as imposing its own moral code and interests on defenseless countries around the world.
"Ever since the Munich agreement and Pearl Harbor, with only a brief interruption during the decade after the Tet offensive, there has been a consensus that if Americans did not draw their defense perimeter far forward and confront foreign troubles in their early stages, those troubles would come to them at home. But because the United States is now the only superpower and WMDs have become more accessible, American intervention in troubled areas is not so much a way to fend off such threats as it is what stirs them up."
--Richard K. Betts, "The New Threat of Mass Destruction", Foreign Affairs
...(credibility & consistency are part of the great responsibility that comes with great power too)