Ethical question: Can compelling "national interest" justify U.S. presence in Iraq?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
I don’t think you can have a worthwhile military presence without a creditble willingness to actually use it, so I’d say the kind of military pressure we’re talking has to involve at least the real threat of a war.
[/QUOTE]

You’re referring to coercive diplomacy. Except you flex your muscles if there’s a reason. So, is the US’s reason to flex its muscles justified? It’s your call after that.

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
The most common reason I hear cited that they had to “tussle” was because of the oil embargo, which was devastating to Japan’s economy and war machine. Hence my original point: that the US has been both used and been abused by the “national interest” justification for military action.
[/QUOTE]

Never heard of that. Hm. I should hit the history books harder.

…at least, I don’t THINK I ever heard of it.

22

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Because its true…no matter how distasteful it can be sometimes? Nation states look at things differently than individuals. I stand by my statement…the fact that oil is critical to not only the US economy but our very way of life (and perhaps our existance, certainly as a super power) ‘justifies’ our presence in the ME. Note: I didn’t claim it justified our invasion of Iraq.

And its ‘cold’ because such decisions by a nation state generally ARE cold and calculating…because a nation state must take into account its own survival first (and thus must sometimes sacrifice its own citizens to the greater good), and the welfare of its people over those of other nations. Just reality really. I didn’t make the world as it is…I just have to live here.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

All you’re saying is that nation-states do act in their perceived national interest at the expense of other countries’ national interests. Which dodges the question of this thread: Is it ethical for them to do so?

Or are you saying it is meaningless to try to apply ethical standards to states at all? If so, you need to explicate that argument more clearly.

23

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Well, in that day and time, Japan had to eventually tussle with America.
[/QUOTE]

Why did they have to?

24

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Good question. IMHO it would be political and economic awareness (including the use of pressure in both those categories), as well as a military presence (Navy presence including AC Carriers, perhaps forward deployed and stored heavy equipment, maybe even US ground troop basing if possible).
[/quote]

You realize, of course, that the kind of “presence” you describe is exactly what we had in the ME before 9/11, and it is only slightly less infuriating to the Muslim world than actual invasion, which is why the 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Right and wrong sort of fly out the window in the face of several hundred million citizens who may be in the cold and dark come winter if things go completely tits up in the ME.
[/quote]

:dubious: No. That situation does not cause right and wrong to “fly out the window,” it merely adds another set of factors to the moral calculus. We still have to weigh the interests of those citizens against the interests of those whose lives are directly affected by our military actions.

25

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Is it your opinion that nations either don’t have vital national interests, or that they have no justification in preserving them?
[/QUOTE]

No . . . merely that “national interest” does not justify a state’s actions to any greater (or lesser) degree than personal interest justifies an individual’s actions.

26

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why did they have to?
[/QUOTE]

Well, at that point, the US had trhe Pillippines and a few other holdings in the deep Pacific as well as the resources on them. Japan, obviously as an island naiton, needed such things eventually.

Besides, Japan agreed with America previously that they’d stay out of Manchuria. They like Manchuria. They want Manchuria. Manchuria has nice things, that Japan wanted. Eventually, they’d pounce on it and have to tussle with the Americans.

27

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
All you’re saying is that nation-states do act in their perceived national interest at the expense of other countries’ national interests. Which dodges the question of this thread: Is it ethical for them to do so?
[/QUOTE]

I sort of answered this in my first post when I talked about how ‘morales’ are realitive to the perspective of the entity (person, clan, tribe, state) viewing them. To a nation state the ‘ethical’ thing for them to do is primarily to serve their own citizens first. This will, to a greater or lesser degree impact other nations…whether good or ill. Whether its good or ill though, the ‘ethical’ thing for a nation state to do remains primarily focused on its own people first.

For that matter, sometimes the most ‘ethical’ thing for a state to do involves sacrificing some of its own citizens…for the greater good (in theory) of the nation as a whole.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Or are you saying it is meaningless to try to apply ethical standards to states at all? If so, you need to explicate that argument more clearly.
[/QUOTE]

Its meaningless to apply the same standards for an individual to those of a group, be it a clan, a tribe, a city or a nation. I would think this is obvious…its one of the sacrifices we must make to HAVE a civilization after all.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
You realize, of course, that the kind of “presence” you describe is exactly what we had in the ME before 9/11, and it is only slightly less infuriating to the Muslim world than actual invasion, which is why the 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.
[/QUOTE]

Why yes, BG, I DO realize that this is the kind of presence we had in the ME prior to 9/11. Whats your point exactly? Are you saying that nation states need to be able to read the future when attempting to pursue what they feel are their vital national intersts? Should Clinton have forseen 9/11 and pulled out US troops and US assets, even though it was felt to be vital to the US that we have those there? Having pulled them out, perhaps we’d have avoided 9/11 (then again, perhaps not)…but can you forsee what other things may have occured had the US done so…things that would have a direct impact on the US and our interests (not to mention other nations)? Seriously…where are you going with this?

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No. That situation does not cause right and wrong to “fly out the window,” it merely adds another set of factors to the moral calculus. We still have to weigh the interests of those citizens against the interests of those whose lives are directly affected by our military actions.
[/QUOTE]

:stuck_out_tongue: I disagree. ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are relative positions based on the perception of the individual or group determining it. To me whats ‘right’ could be ‘wrong’ to you…and vice versa. When expanding to incompass entire nations the determination of whats ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is even more complex…as sometimes those in power do things that the general population may find ‘wrong’, but do them for the greater good (I’m thinking of Roosevelt’s intervention with Lend Lease and the secret war of the US Navy against the Germans prior to the US actually entering the WWII).

While I think that taking into account other nations is important in the calculation of foreign policy, the MAIN calculation has to be whats best for the majority of our citizens. Otherwise what is the point of having a government at all?

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No . . . merely that “national interest” does not justify a state’s actions to any greater (or lesser) degree than personal interest justifies an individual’s actions.
[/QUOTE]

Completely disagree with you here. But I think my post is long enough at this point and I’m unlikely to sway you while I’m half drunk so…

Hope your day goes well BG. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

28

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Well, at that point, the US had trhe Pillippines and a few other holdings in the deep Pacific as well as the resources on them. Japan, obviously as an island naiton, needed such things eventually.

Besides, Japan agreed with America previously that they’d stay out of Manchuria. They like Manchuria. They want Manchuria. Manchuria has nice things, that Japan wanted. Eventually, they’d pounce on it and have to tussle with the Americans.
[/QUOTE]

Note that postwar Japan controls no territory outside its Home Islands, has few domestic natural resources, and has no military power to speak of; but it still gets all it needs, because it is has a highly industrialized economy, a proficient workforce, and a high level of mass education. Perhaps the leaders of the time misread what their “national interest” really was. In any case, they might have decided they wanted peace more than they wanted Manchuria or the Philippines, and it would have been no disaster for their country. They didn’t have to choose war.