Re: If might always made right, we'd all be in trouble
Posted by maxmccauley on 12-17-2007 in Does might make right? -- America's global roleIsolation vs. Intervention has been an ongoing debate in America since the founding (isolation starting with Washington's Farewell Address and continuing until T. Roosevelt and especially Wilson's administration) and will likely continue to be a hot topic in the 21st century. It is difficult to take a definite stance on either side and the issue probably needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis as America's position as the world's first global superpower has given us a responsibility unlike any before in human history. Despite the reservations many Americans have about becoming the world's police--and the resentment that may be felt by countries in which we do intervene--I feel the United States is obligated to become involved in world affairs, especially those that could potentially affect long term national security.
Currently the focus is, as it should be, on the Middle East. The difficulty in this region results from the long standing hatred held between people of Jewish and Islamic faiths. In my opinion, participating in the creation of Israel after World War II committed America to helping improve international relations in the region. We must now aid in the founding of a Palestinian state, forcing Israel to concede some of its demands (i.e. relinquishing part of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital city). It is unrealistic to hope for total peace in the Middle East, but maybe it is possible for a settlement that could lead to vast reduction in military hostility and divide the Holy Land fairly between the regions (possibly similarly to the way Cyprus is divided between a Greek and Turkish side as a result of a conflict between the two ethnicities.)
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)