In this post, I am going to pose something akin to what legal theorists call a hypothetical. I ask you to accept, hypothetically, a set of facts, so that we may discuss a question of policy without at the same time debating the facts of the case. I am aware that from certain epistemological perspectives, this distinction is impossible to make, and we can discuss that as we go forward.
Assume, contrary to reality, that America America America
In this radically counterfactual case, what should the foreign and military policy of such an America
It is no great effort in the real world to criticize every aspect of America America is an imperial hegemon whose military budget virtually equals that of the rest of the world and whose actions over the past sixty years have again and again supported dictators and tyrants and undermined or actively deposed and defeated progressive forces on every continent except Antarctica . Let us stipulate that, as they say in the trial courts.
But what should the policies of an ideal America America America America
The second response is: American should withdraw all of its troops from foreign soil, should reduce its military budget to the minimum necessary to defend itself [from Canada and Mexico
Each of these alternatives has troubling consequences that it is difficult to disentangle from the policy. A militarily dominant America America
The alternative is to adopt a non-interventionist policy with a military only large enough to deal with genuine threats to the security of America America America
So, what should the foreign and military stance of an ideal America
An additional consideration. We will need an effective naval force to keep the sea lanes open. Current events, and their trends, in the seas off China and off Somalia underscore the importance of naval power. At the same time, submarines are probably the capital ship of the navy for this purpose.
ReplyDeleteLarry McCullough
It seems to me that any such analysis requires a concept, perhaps a priori, of the ideal relation between an ideal Nation and an ideal World, of which the analysis would be an instantiation.
ReplyDeleteDon,that is just the question I was posing: What should our foreign policy be in an imperfect world?
ReplyDeleteBob--I was just noting that the maxim of a nation to promote international values could entail the dissolution of nationhood, etc.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting question.
ReplyDeleteI think an 'ideal' America on the lines you sketch should have (and probably would have) a somewhat smaller military-industrial complex than the present one; however, I don't think I'd favor going *all* the way to the isolationist (to use an admittedly loaded word) side of the spectrum.
Some ability to project U.S. military power abroad would remain desirable, for reasons the post suggests (e.g. humanitarian interventions -- not that any intervention is ever purely that, but some are largely that) and also, as the first comment said, to help ensure the sea lanes etc. are open.
But the vision of an America intervening abroad to advance the cause of "democracy and socialism rather than autocracy and capitalism" (to quote the post) is troubling and not altogether, in my view, coherent, for lack of a better word. I don't see the point of sending U.S. Marines or covert ops people to Venezuela, for ex., to support a self-proclaimed socialist like Hugo Chavez vs. his opponents. If the Venezuelans want to keep someone like him in office, ok. If not, not. I don't think a socialist U.S. (whatever exactly that would mean) should go around the world throwing its military weight behind leftist politicians or movements. A commitment to democracy implies a commitment to self-determination, which probably counsels for military non-intervention as a default position, to be departed from only in certain compelling cases.
A socialist U.S. should not undertake to do penance, so to speak, for helping to overthrow Allende or Mossadegh by actively overthrowing right-wing dictators (of whom there are a dwindling number anyway). That would be foolhardy and, I think, in the long run productive of international disorder and chaos. A socialist U.S. should probably support the same basic norms of sovereignty and nonintervention to which the current capitalist U.S. is officially -- if not always in practice (and esp. not in the past)-- committed.
Well, that's my somewhat off-the-cuff, late-night response to a question which could probably trigger a book, not just a blog comment.
P.s. Certainly the U.S.-led overthrow of the undoubted tyrant Saddam Hussein had less than happy consequences, to put it mildly. Now when a tyrant is actually killing people en masse as opposed to merely oppressing them (e.g. in Syria right now) one has a different situation. Not that I favor mil. intervention there, but the moral and political considerations are different.
ReplyDeleteLFC, your comment perfectly mirrors my own ambivalence. Perhaps the wisest course would be to slowly, steadily, reduce America's military establishment and its military footprint in the world, and see, as things unfold, what appears to be the right balance. Certainly we could go a long way in that direction before I would begin to have serious doubts.
ReplyDeleteLet me try this: The very concept of 'nation' is undergoing an historical transformation. Hitherto, generally, following its ancestor, the concept of a 'polis', a 'nation' has been conceived as a unity of a given multiplicity. But, with the rise of globalization, it is no longer a discrete organism among other organisms, but an organ among other organs, thus subordinate to the good of the organism. Accordingly, the concept of 'foreign policy' must be derived not from that of 'national interest', but from that of 'global good'. In concrete terms, this would mean the de jure subjection of the U. S., and of every other nation, to U. N. jurisdiction, which, of course, has little chance of happening any time soon. Next best, therefore, is a foreign policy that is a de facto implementation of U. N. interests.
ReplyDeleteAgree.
ReplyDeleteSorry, my "agree" was meant to be to R.P. Wolff's comment above.
ReplyDeleteRe: Don Schneier's comment -
ReplyDeleteDoes it necessarily follow from the substance of 'foreign policy' being identified with 'global good' that any nation, much less any specific nation, should be subject to an international body? I'm not saying I think it shouldn't, merely asking.
Beyond that, would it follow that the body in question should be the U.N.? I think there are reasons to believe that the U.N.'s structure necessitates that it will fail to represent anything but the interests of the security council members, as opposed to the interests of the membership as a whole.
LWSCHURTZ--I was just trying to make the formal point that a commitment to universalist values entails a reformulation of the concept of 'nation', from unity of some localized multiplicity, to subdivision of the global whole. The concepts of 'foreign' and, hence, of 'foreign policy', would undergo similar reformulations, for any 'nation'. Since, the current de facto closest approximation to a universal polity is the U. N., yes, a current concrete foreign policy committed to global values would be derived from U. N. principles.
ReplyDelete