| | I overstepped somewhat in accusing John, and others who share his perspective, of seeking to command "obedience" from people through military adventuring. Although aggressive military adventuring requires the obedience of its citizen-subjects--through such devices as taxation, official intimidation of dissenters, the imposition of regulations by the national security state, the heightened risk of terrorist blowback, the burden of more debt, and the poison of more inflation--I don't want to suggest that John, and others who share his ideas, want to use force to order about or kill anyone who disagrees with them.
Clearly, in most areas of social life, those on this site who defend "aggressive military adventuring" both advocate and rely on peaceful and voluntary exchange which comprises the fabric of civilization. Certainly, no one here proposes imprisoning or shooting ideological opponents, or obliterating foreign populations only because they embrace irrational and dangerous cultural values, or pulling a gun and ordering the pizza delivery boy to his knees because his truck has a Clinton or Paul sticker on the bumper. But this is the impression I may have created with my broad-brush and hasty remark in post 79. If I did give this impression, I apologize.
My point is much narrower. An aggressive military adventure is one prosecuted for purposes outside of narrowly defined "defense". Of course, why the narrow definition, as opposed to a broader one, ought to restrict foreign policy is a big issue best left for another day. But even so, there is no question that the National Security State advocated by many here requires coerced obedience for its funding and execution. Moreover, the States that get targeted by our government are those states that refuse to cooperate with the policy demands and long-range plans for their region imposed by American enforcers abroad. So, for example, Pakistan and India, which refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, are armed with nukes and receive plenty of American aid. No sanctions are imposed on these nations; no speeches are made to the U.N. about their military activities, or about their harboring terrorists. In contrast, Iraq and Iran each have had the potential to become a regional power in the oil-rich Middle East. So as potential threats to our government's "running things" in the Middle East, those states are targeted as "terrorist sponsors", or as contemporary reincarnations of Nazi Germany, or as lethal military threats to the United States. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, home to the 911 hijackers, and other states that comply with American "guidance" are made US protectorates. Impoverished Afghanistan has no oil, but it lies in a crucial geographical position necessary to the building of a transcontinental oil pipeline. Prior to the invasion, a consortium of oil companies had planned the pipeline and had engaged in prolonged negotiations with Afghan authorities for a right-of-way across Afghanistan. The negotiations failed, but immediately following the invasion (as I am sure I read somewhere) construction of the pipeline got underway. (This is crony capitalism, not free enterprise.)
In this sense, aggressive military force is used to extract obedience from people, including Americans, foreign populations, and the states that rule them. Those who argue for Pax Americana wind up defending this practice.
|
|
