|AN EXAMINATION OF MORAL JUSTIFICATION AND NATIONAL INTEREST 8 Apr. 2017||| Print ||
AN EXAMINATION OF MORAL JUSTIFICATION
AND NATIONAL INTEREST
8 Apr. 2017
Dear Friends and Patriots,
The Tomahawk cruise missile strike launched by US destroyers against the al-Shayrat military air field in
When considering such actions by the
While the appearance is the government of
The main question of this specific incident is, “Where did the sarin come from?” Was it Syrian, which would lend credence to the “Kerry and Rice lied!” outcry? Was it released after being hit by a conventional munition, in which case it was on site already; possible originating from stocks that may have been mixed in with CIA facilitated shipments of arms and munitions from Benghazi Libya. If so, that lends credence to an entirely different assignment of blame. Then, there’s also the Russians. Was it their sarin? Or was it sarin at all? Was this a false flag operation only intended to sucker Trump into action? Again, what do we know?
Our nation was founded on principles that should be foremost in the minds of our leaders whenever committing to a foreign intervention. Our very first intervention in a foreign land was due to years of provocation by the so-called Barbary Pirates. For several years after our nation’s founding the government paid “tributes” to the four
Our nation’s next foreign military adventure wouldn’t come until 1846, during the term of James K. Polk. While there were many tangential factors that created conditions for conflict, it was Polk’s adoption of the idea of Manifest Destiny as national policy that was the principle cause. Suffice it to say Polk was itching for war so the
We’ve seen many wars since 1848. Some had clear justification. No one questions why WWII was fought, do they? But, other conflicts were fought despite far less claim to moral justification. Take the Spanish-American War. We now understand the key precipitating event, the sinking of the battleship
When it comes to moral justification it’s always wisest to pause and be certain. Further, any moral justification should be considered alongside national interest. It should not stand alone. No nation should risk human lives purely for the sake of a claimed moral justification. To do so risks comparisons. Sometimes those comparisons betray our moral hypocrisy.
The civil war in
America is known as “the land of the free,” but our freedom didn’t come on the cheap. We fought a war to gain it. Our forefathers risked their lives and fortunes to guarantee our current existence as the example of freedom to the rest of the world. Some might say the answer to the civil war in Syria needs to be determined by Syrians, not by outsiders.
Some may also say the history of the last century in the region is one that exemplifies exactly why we should stay out. Everything western powers have done in the Middle and Near East since the end of WWI has resulted in conflict, death, destruction, political instability, and misery for the native populations. No grand plan or strategy of the western powers has ever proved viable. And, yet, we are still involved there; still mucking around like geopolitical oafs. Two questions come to mind in this regard: why do we do it, and what are the alternatives?
If one examines the historic timeline it’s easy to conclude our involvement in the region, which is true for all western powers, was always about oil. It was never a desire for the well-being of the populace. Let’s be real about that. But, today we’ve proven the US is once again the preeminent nation when it comes to energy resources, so we don’t actually need Middle Eastern oil. With our former dependency resolved, what is our national interest now? It’s not the safety of Israel. We haven’t been in the region all these years for the sake of Israel. That nation didn’t exist before 1947, but we were active in the region since 1920. So, I ask again, what is our compelling national interest that’s so important we would engage in war in the region?
The alternatives are easy to figure. We should encourage Western Europe to adopt policies within their own nations to guarantee their own energy independence so they can’t claim justification in their own interference. We should largely withdraw from the region and let the native population determine their own fate. Perhaps it would be proper for us to deal with ISIS before withdrawing, but we need to leave. One thing we should understand is any outcome imposed on the nations of the region by us and our allies will only make things worse. We might participate as facilitators in peace processes, but not in anything that would lead to more conflict.
The notion that western nations can impose peace on the region is entirely false. Peace must be sought by those who are warring. If they don’t seek it, any imposed peace can only be temporary. Unless we want to stay in the region forever as peacekeepers, we need to learn the truth. An imposed peace might be used as pretext to push all the Syrian refugees out of their current host nations, but what exactly would we expect to happen next? My own thought is the situation would only be exacerbated. If Syrians could create their own acceptable resolution all kinds of problems could be avoided.
There’s a comparison I want to bring into the discussion; one that may not be very welcome, but it comes immediately to mind. It’s part of that national interest thing. Just ask yourself if the
I’m obviously talking about the situation in
We all understand the Mexican government has been waging a long-running war against the cartels. Sometimes it seems they have the upper hand, though most times they don’t. The cartels even run the federal prisons in northern
I could be wrong, but I think the whole notion of moral justification and national interest needs some major attention. We’re doing the same thing we always did during the Obama administration. We watched the left hand and ignored the right. In still doing so we continue to fool only ourselves. We have lost all perspective regarding proper justifications for our government’s actions.
If President Trump is serious about his rhetoric of “America First” he should ignore the internationalists in his inner circle and understand the most immediate threat to our nation is not in Syria, where we can’t even figure out who pulls what string, but to our south. It’s not the illegal aliens, either. They’re an economic and legal issue, but their importance when the consideration of moral justification and national interest is concerned pales when compared to the reality of Mexican drug cartels.
I understand the actions taken by Donald Trump are generally viewed in a positive light. He’s obviously willing to show some US muscle in foreign policy. But, perhaps he would do better to show that muscle in a different place; a place where our national interests aren’t quite so obscure.