http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
After WWII, the US was the only industrial power that wasn't decimated by the conflict, so it made sense for us to exert global leadership in rebuilding the world (in our image) and establishing the UN to enforce justice and resolve conflicts peacefully. But maybe that privileged victor status went to our heads, and 60 years later we and some allies now act in defiance of the UN, and routinely engage in wars of choice, not "just wars" of last resort. Although we are a big, omnipresent target, the 50 states of America have not really been threatened militarily since Pearl Harbor, apart from four suicide airliners. Why do we still feel the duty/destiny/entitlement to "make the world a better place" through projection of military and economic might, especially when most of our efforts have caused more harm than good for the majority of those affected? Hindsight is 20/20, but some signs at the time indicated that unchecked communist domination and their nuclear destruction of Western society was not really likely. Yet we designed and executed an aggressive Cold War foreign policy assuming that all the world's reds were unified and committed to our demise. It wasn't just about peace-loving Americans reluctantly forced to contain dangerous commies, it was about us actively defeating our rivals to achieve global superiority ourselves. But of course we couldn't go overboard, or the Soviets would launch their nukes, so we conducted limited or proxy wars. Then came the Vietnam wake-up call, but unfortunately America's post-Vietnam leaders were the very people who didn't suffer from the war, didn't understand the war, and instead re-wrote its narrative in order to continue a flawed US interventionist strategy endorsed by the military-industrial complex. So that led us to the Iranian Revolution, Israel-Palestine impasse, Latin American civil wars, Afghanistan (2X), and Iraq (3X). We weren't 100% to blame for those situations, but we didn't really play a helpful role either.
What is worrisome is that "constant war" now seems to be the price we pay for trying to free the world. If it's not the Soviets, it's the Latin drug cartels, the Eastern European gangsters, African warlords, the few remaining commies, or "Islamo-fascists." We are rehashing the exact same insincere rhetoric, and forcing our "professional volunteer military" to work overtime (to the point of exhaustion and suicide for some) because we can't allow a bunch of turban-heads to undermine our global standing. We have more soldiers and bases overseas than protecting our shores. But our Middle East failures have demonstrated that even we cannot always bend others to our will, we don't have all the solutions worked out, and the world is really complex and maybe impervious to sudden external improvement, even with our huge resources. And we've paid an even bigger price, since beyond our military casualties and expenditures, we've made the price of crude quadruple, poisoned international diplomacy for years, and our massive debt has compromised progress on most other national priorities. Those factors have only served to strengthen our rivals too. Plus our military actions have created new enemies and dispersed formerly more concentrated, conspicuous threats. The Times Square and underpants bombers probably would be living normal, lawful lives now if we made different war decisions.
I know that we can't just bury our heads in the sand and ignore global problems/injustices, but there are less expensive and destructive ways to approach them. If we really want to make the world a better place, half of war is rooted in poverty, economic injustice, and lack of law/education. We can easily invest in development projects that alleviate those global problems and reduce the likelihood of conflict, which will also create economic opportunities for Americans and score us diplomatic/humanitarian points. And for the hardcore violent people out there who are bent on hurting us and others out of twisted hateful ideology, surveillance, defensive measures, and surgical anti-terror missions may be more effective than occupying entire nations. Cheap, easy cyber-monitoring of communications and money wires have prevented more terrorism than our entire war in Iraq, and no one had to die. Lastly, if we improve our own ethics and conduct, and eliminate some of our offensive, unjust practices, that will go far to advance our supposed goals of global peace and freedom.
Bottom line, we have to learn to let go. Humanity and the world have gotten on just fine without America for 99.99999% of history. There's no natural law dictating that humans must shape the world in our image, that a benevolent superpower must maintain order in the world, and that the power must be us. We are barely in control of our own checkbooks; how can we expect to control the world and its 6B diverse inhabitants? US exceptionalism is a hard ideology to wean off; we all were indoctrinated in grade school and every election cycle. We feel noble and proud to be the vanguards of global freedom, white knights standing up for everything that's good. While others cower and capitulate, we confront the dark forces of the world. Mass media really exploits this, and I'll admit that I wanted to join the military as a kid, and more recently was a little moved by Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech at the time. We beat King George, the Apaches, the slave masters, the fascists, and the Soviets. We made the world safe for democracy and capitalism, and we can do anything we set our minds to. Yes we have done some good along the way, but did we have the right to drastically alter the lives of so many, and was it worth the steep price some had to pay for our ambitions?
Even our educated, perceptive, 21st Century President Obama is not immune. In his famous, jubilant election victory speech in Chicago, he asked Americans to help him "put our hands on the arc of history, and bend it once more towards the hopes of a better day." What hubris, even if we really have all the best intentions. It is true that the US has the power to write, or end, history any time we want. But will it be for the good of the few people in power, or the greater good? Sometimes the best thing we can do is nothing, and our world will never be free of evil and violence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying to be good global citizens, and we do have the serious responsibility to use our vast power and wealth for good. So let's think very hard about the ways to do that properly and successfully, instead of rushing to assert ourselves in every single conflict that threatens our prestige, and masking it with some noble crusade rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment