Quote:
Originally posted by Statica
Like it or not, the USA has adopted the role of a leader or at least an active role in most parts in bringing the world to some semblance of order. Sure they have made some bad decisions, but look at the overall track record. You have to look at the situation from both points... and then decide whether it was justifiable, not just on the basis of what happened in the space of an hour. Yes the US doesnt need to do it but (a) it does have vested interests in various areas of the world that it needs to protect and (b) that is the role it has adopted thus far.
I'd rather have a USA in there than a Switzerland.
|
I don't mind our government being proactive NECESSARILY, but I think the govt. has lacked any long-term vision, and has sought only immediate resolutions to immediate problems, which has caused the long-term problems to grow worse, instead of better.
Sometimes, we are simply delaying the inevitable. We continually address the problems, but never the causes. We take sides in conflicts, which alienates one side, and thus further polarizes the warring individuals, and makes any true peace negotiations almost impossible.
Our strategy so far has been to try to "plug the leaks" in high-pressure situations, but this only keeps tensions high, and in some cases, like Israel, leads to decades of repression and terrorism by the different sides. "Peacekeeping" may in the end be a hundred times as bloody as the war we're trying to prevent.
If we do want to take an active part in world events, we must accept a few realities:
1) Going in, guns blazing, will stop immediate problems, but almost invariably creates more problems in the future.
2) In any conflict, people will die. By taking sides, we make ourselves a target. We must accept that by taking sides, we could see thousands, tens of thousands, or even more Americans dead before it's over.
3) Sometimes, we must allow a situation to become worse in the short-term to make long-term peace possible.
4) Just because there is a government under attack does not mean we should support it -- sometimes, people rebel against governments for a good reason.
5) War is sometimes unavoidable, and trying to hold it off may only make it worse in the end.
6) We need to look to a long-term solution to problems, not a "quick fix" which looks good on TV but solves no problems (and may well escalate the problems) in the long run.
I think, if the USA had a well thought out foreign policy, which kept the goal of a LONG-TERM and LASTING peace as the top priority, that we could do a lot of good. If we keep looking for a quick fix, we'd be better off staying neutral because at least we wouldn't make things worse.
Honestly, the Middle East situation, as a whole, has not benefitted from our presence there, in fact, overall, although we've helped in places, we've done more harm than good. We've been taking sides, sending money and troops there for over 50 years, and peace is as far away as ever. Far from stabilizing governments, we've DESTABILIZED them simply because opinions over whether or not their govt. should side with or against us polarizes citizens of nations -- our major Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have had continuous problems because of their ties with America.
America CAN be a strong promoter of peace, but we must alter our methodology. If you had a feud with your neighbor, and I came into your house, shot a few people in your family, then put a gun to your head and told you to be friends, would this help, or hurt? It might stop short-term problems, but it would escalate the hatred which fueled the problems in the first place.
If we truly want peace, we MUST understand that our methods aren't helping -- beating people into submission is not an effective tool of peace.
Now, I'm all for striking back at the terrorists who did this, and I think we must ALWAYS punish those who attack us. But trying to keep peace like we have been doing, by simply forcing people to maintain the illusion that they aren't mortal enemies, is only building further anger, and resentment. This doesn't mean we should give up on the GOAL (peace), but that we need to change the STRATEGY of how we will make the goal a reality.
I don't have any problems with the goals we have, I have problems with how, traditionally, we've pursused this goal. We've spend the past several decades trying to stop problems which we *caused* in the decades before that. We need to deal with the problems, but do so in a way that we PREVENT future problems.