Who's Responsible for This?
- Jemison Thorsby
- Contact me:
JemisonThorsby "at" gmail.com
My site has moved to Wordpress: www.atrueprogressive.wordpress.com
Subscribe To This Blog
Posts
Comments
Currently Reading
No Incumbents, Please
Posts
Comments
4 comments:
Does it mean that the U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany post-1945 was also wrong?
Perhaps not for the first few years... but I'd argue we wore out our welcome there a few decades back, too.
The analogy between post-war Germany/Japan and Iraq 2003 has always seemed a bit oversimplified to me. We are not fighting the same kind of war, nor facing the same kind of ideological adversary.
Post-war Germany and Japan were certainly different from the modern day Iraq. Personally, I think that the idea of turning it into a western style democracy was bound to end in disaster.
However, this video in effect argues that any US military intervention is morally reprehensible. If you listen to it again you may notice that the “Chinese in Texas” analogy can be applied not just to the US army in Iraq but to the WWII as well. It may be noticed that back then (that is before 12/7/1941) isolationists were the dominant voice in the US politics.
Ron Paul appears to believe that if the US starts minding its own business then people like Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad and Ben Laden would leave it alone. I disagree.
I don't believe the video argues that any intervention is "morally reprehensible." It simply underscores the fact most Americans don't stop to think how their actions appear to others.
We went into Afghanistan because the former Taliban regime knowingly harbored the authors of the 9/11 attacks. So a post-regime occupation there does somewhat resemble the post-WWII model (we were attacked, we militarily defeated our enemies, then remolded them into more benign entities). The difference is that Germany at least had a background in Western institutions, and a brief experience with liberal democracy (Weimar Republic). Keeping US forces there to prevent a Nazi resurgence long enough for more moderate elements to take firm root was a reasonable proposition (though I argue we have no need to be there now...). In Japan, once the Emperor said 'nuff's enough, their culture was unlikely to produce a die-hard guerilla struggle. Once forced open to the West a century earlier, Japan had shown incredible adaptability to successful foreign ideas. Again, the occupation (particularly MacArthur's shaping of their new constitution) had a reasonable chance of producing a more benign Japan.
Note that this experience/background does NOT exist in either Afghanistan or Iraq. And in the latter case, we pre-emptively invaded, breaking with long-established Western though about Just War theory. It is easy to understand how average Iraqis, regardless of politics or religion, might resent the fact that not only did we "go there," but we're STILL THERE eight years later.
Finally, Ron Paul is not naive enough to believe minding our business means everyone becomes a peacemonger. He does believe that our activist foreign policy, most of it militarized, does more harm than good, and creates more enemies than solved problems. His view is we should carefully reserve our power for those situations vital to our national survival... rather than trying to have it all and do it all. That approach has simply exhausted and bankrupted us. It's all about priorities, and our nation seems unable to set those anymore--economically, militarily, or diplomatically.
Thanks for commenting!
Post a Comment