America’s recent decision to support the Libyan rebellion against Muamar Qaddafi is not the beginning of a new conflict. It is the latest of a long series of skirmishes in a very different war: the war over American foreign policy.
When a nation is threatened directly, the choice is easy: go to war or be destroyed. But the Western world has not had to fight for its existence since 1945, and the question of how to employ our now-superior military force has become much more complicated. When is it proper for America to take military action, either directly against another nation or group, or indirectly through allying with other nations and backing them? Typically, the debate boils down to two basic positions: the pragmatists and the moralists. And both of those positions are flawed.
Foreign policy pragmatists argue that military action is appropriate only when America’s national interests are threatened. A nebulous phrase such as “national interest” can be defined as almost anything, and it has taken many forms over the past seventy years. It can mean actions taken in the nation’s defense, such as the initial attack on the Taliban during the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It can mean actions taken to stabilize a region, such as the war in Iraq. It can mean actions taken for a mixture of economic and foreign policy reasons, such as our support for dictators like King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia or President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen: brutal despots who are nominal allies in the United States’ “War on Terror” and happen to rule oil-rich countries. This is the group which, until recently, included Muamar Qaddafi.
Moralists argue that America must act to stop atrocities around the globe and to use our great wealth to alleviate suffering--because, they believe, it is the right thing to do. It is the moralists who are in favor of the extensive rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the moralists who demanded action in Darfur, Rwanda, and Bosnia. It is worth noting that foreign policy moralists typically do not want the United States to take unilateral action to stop world suffering: they would rather see efforts coordinated through the United Nations or NATO in order to avoid the perception of America prospering from her military actions. Typically, the foreign policy moralists mount a much more emotional argument than the pragmatist: genocide is bad, therefore we must act to stop genocide. The Moralist slogan is, “We have to do something!” This position is less concerned with the end result than with addressing the current crisis.
The Pragmatists want what’s best for America. The Moralists want to do the right thing. Ironically, both sides are fundamentally correct--it is the dichotomy which is false. The morally correct action is always what is best for America, and for humanity as a whole. The true questions are the ones at the foundation of both camps, yet are rarely addressed explicity: What, exactly, are America’s national interests? And what are the actions which will truly uphold humanity and the conditions necessary for human happiness?
Let us address pragmatism first. What are America’s national interests? At the most basic level, it is in America’s fundamental national interest to be safe from attack--both now and in the future. A foreign policy which guarantees peace today at the price of war ten years from now is not in America’s best interest. Neither is a policy which sacrifices safety for short-term economic gains: such gains are useless when one’s safety is in jeopardy. In order to accomplish this, America must attack and destroy nations and entities that pose a direct military threat, seek to ally with friendly parties when such an alliance makes both parties stronger, and leave everyone else alone.
When America is attacked, it is vital to her safety that she respond with overwhelming force, both to eliminate the source of that attack and to deter future attacks from other sources. America’s reaction to the attacks of September 11th is an excellent, albeit imperfect, example of this. The World Trade Center attack was planned specifically to kill Americans: a clear act of aggression. America responded within a few weeks: going after Al Qaeda’s haven in Afghanistan, endeavoring to destroy both the people who planned this attack and the people who provided material support. In the nearly ten years since the beginning of our so-called “War on Terror”, America has lost her way in this, but that’s a subject for several posts all by itself. At the beginning, however, the goal of the Afghanistan war was to destroy our enemies in order to ensure safety. This is both in our national interest and moral. Those who initiate force against others, or knowingly aide those who do so, are violating others’ right to life and liberty; they are declaring that they do not believe these rights exist. To claim such rights for themselves while denying them to others is an unallowable hypocrisy. Destroying such threats to human life and happiness is both morally justified and within America’s national interest.
It is just as vital to American safety that we choose trustworthy allies. Allies of convenience are inconvenient down the road: a trustworthy ally is one which shares fundamental values not only in the realm of foreign policy, but domestic policy as well. America’s proper foreign policy goal is self-defense, not conquest: an American ally should not seek to conquer its neighbors either. Domestically, America is a nation of individual rights and law: an ally of America must also embrace human rights and freedoms.
Ever sincethe assassination of an Austrian archduke led to World War I, it has been clear why allies with imperial ambitions are a poor choice: such an alliance has the potential to make enemies out of neutral nations. When an ally declares unprovoked war against a neighbor, a country must either declare neutrality, earning a reputation as an untrustworthy and undependable ally, or support that ally, earning a reputation as a warmonger. The best and only way to avoid this situation is to avoid allying oneself with the kind of immoral country that goes to war for a cause other than self-defense.
The reasons against having a dictator for an ally are the same reasons against having an imperialist for one: all dictators are, fundamentally, imperialists. An imperialist forces his will upon other nations through violence. A dictator does the same thing--but to his own people. If a dictator believes that the subjugation of individuals within his borders is in its best interest, why would he feel any differently about the subjugation of individuals outside of them? Additionally, a dictator rules because he has made himself more powerful than anyone else within his country. Such an individual will always seek to be the most powerful--and will try to tear down any country more powerful than his while simultaneously milking them for all they’re worth. Case in point: Saudi Arabia. A pragmatist might argue that Saudi oil makes a Saudi alliance well within American national interest, but this is a deeply flawed perspective: America enjoys Saudi crude, and in exchange Saudi Arabia receives American funds which are funneled into terrorist hands. This type of foreign policy is directly against our national interests: it is not a good idea despite morality, but a bad idea because of it. The same things which make a dictator immoral make him the kind of ally that can and will jeopardize American safety in the long-term. Choosing the right allies is key, and we have been doing a miserable job of it for years.
This pales, however, in comparison to America’s failure to recognize when to leave foreign nations alone. These are the type of actions typically endorsed by the Moralist school of foreign policy. When a nation does not poses a direct military threat to America, but is clearly evil, many people’s immediate emotional reaction is to want to stop it, by any means necessary. Unfortunately, such actions are more than simply “not in our national interest”. Such actions are actively against it--and the end results are never “the right thing”.
Next week, I'll explore the Moralist perspective and why well-meaning interference in conflicts such as the Libyan rebellion actively undermines both United States security and global well-being.
No comments:
Post a Comment