From: kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: US interventionism
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:14:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1idbp1INN9sf
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article 10666, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>It is statements like this that almost make me stand up and call
>for a new world order (heaven forbid).  Are national boundaries
>so absolute, and are human values so different that we as a
>nation are forever prohibited from taking action to help the
>people of another nation?  I am not suggesting that our attempts
>to do this are always done right or that they don't often mess
>things up more than they help.  But to treat our existence as a
>nation as if we were living in a vacuum is, to say the least,
>non-human.
>The existence of other human beings in the world -- bound up 
>as it is with the existence of other nations -- is inextricable
>from our own human existence, and the interconnections include
>not only economic and military but also moral considerations as
>well.

>However, I agree, most of our interventions in recent years and
>decades would probably better have been omitted.  Yet how can
>you look at the conditions in Somalia and just pontificate away
>about the relative value of human life?  Because we botched the
>job in Iraq and propped up the Kuwaiti royal family, must we now
>just leave the people of Somalia to their own fate?

Well, Gerry, the truth of the matter is that I fear we are on a
sinking ship; I don't think we CAN do a hell of a lot for large
portions of the human race.  This is arguable, of course, and I
don't think we're going to settle it here, so please allow me the
luxury of my opinion.

I wonder if some of us might be saved by turning our energies
toward developing a workable society in those parts of the planet
where there is a realistic hope of succeeding, and letting the
inhabitants of the less fortunate areas go their own sad way.

Your feelings are understandable and your desires commendable,
but you are obviously able to distinguish between the situation
in Somalia and the other, more foolish situations we have been
involved in -at terrible cost- since we attained global pre-
eminence at the end of WWII.

I do not believe, based on my observations of our government's
actions in my lifetime, that our "leaders" share your ability to
differentiate and to make rational decisions.  They institute
policies in place of dealing with case-by-case realities because,
in my humble opinion, they aren't equipped to do otherwise, and I
have a similar opinion of the vast majority of their
constituents.  We, the people, are so poorly educated and unaware
of the implications of our simplest decisions (turning the key in
the ignition of the family car, to use an obvious example) that I
sometimes question the wisdom of the democratic state.

Given the penchant for governments to act on the basis of
policies and the apparent inevitability of their continuing to do
so, I prefer a policy that draws a thick, heavy line between our
perceived interests and those of people who I feel are doomed to
fail no matter what we do to help them.  I agree that we do not
live in a vaccuum, but neither do I think that the fates of all
members of humankind are as inextricably interwoven as you
assert.  The truth is somewhere in between, and I think that what
we as a nation must decide is on which side we will allow
ourselves to err.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa