From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: War and National Interests (was Re: U.S. Role in the world)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:09:05 GMT
	<1992Apr14.130806.10490@cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr14.192402.19416@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<skenny.703348891@femto.engr.mun.ca>
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <skenny.703348891@femto.engr.mun.ca> skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny) writes:

>irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (B-rent) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr14.130806.10490@cl.cam.ac.uk>, iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson) writes:
>>> In <1992Apr13.231910.6945@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>>> mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes

>>> >I reject any idea that the US and the Soviet Union were moral
>>> >equivalents during the Cold War, and that the US was interested
>>> >in nothing but geopolitical advantage.
>>> 
>>> If you think the US goes around invading countries, supporting
>>> dictators, and perpetrating acts of barbarism simply for the
>>> good of humanity then you really have been conditioned by your
>>> politicians and media.
>>>
>>To think they do it just to do it is equally naive-brainwashed.

>Intervention by the gov't of <name place> into the affairs of another
>country is driven by the foreign policy which always takes into account
>what is best for itself. Whether democracy is promoted is another
>question, the intervening country is primarily looking out for it's own
>self-interest.

The thing to remember is that, in democracies in general and the U.S.
in particular, foreign policy decisions are made by politicians who
want to get reelected.  Since American public opinion is a complex mix
of idealism and pragmatism, the resulting foreign policy is also a mix
-- a hybrid of defending freedom and democracy and expanding U.S.
power, influence, and economic might.

Any war seems to require both an idealistic and a pragmatic
justification before the politicians are willing to support it.  This
is in their political interest, since it provides a wider base of
support from the electorate.  This also tends to result in very
confused and often conflicting rationales for military action.

Why did we go to war in the Gulf?  Idealistic -- to liberate Kuwait,
to establish a new world order.  Pragmatic -- to protect our oil
supply, to prevent Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons.

For those who argue that American foreign policy decisions are made on
a purely pragmatic basis, explain why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia
during the arab oil embargo?  From a military standpoint it wouldn't
have been that difficult -- I'm sure Israel would have been willing to
supply us with a staging area.  From a political standpoint, though,
it would have been difficult (though probably not impossible) to
prevent the action from appearing completely self-serving.

For those who argue that United States' (or for that matter any other
nation's) foreign policy decisions are always made on a purely
idealistic basis... I have this bridge I'm selling.  :-)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				Robotics Applications Development
					Boeing Aerospace Operations
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Kennedy Space Center
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa