U.S. Involvement in Syria
When we think about the U.S. government's involvement in Syria and all the hubbub and chatter surrounding it, let’s try to distinguish some of the ideas that get thrown around:
Enforcer:
The idea that the U.S. government takes on itself the role of “enforcer” has to be disturbing - and I think lots of Americans now feel this way (but, of course, I don’t know for sure). It’s one thing when the claim is made that our national security is threatened, but that’s different than the role of enforcer. No one appointed the U.S. government to this role. It appointed itself. It justifies this appointment by claiming that its actions are taken for the good of all of us. Ask yourself if this is true. What do you come up with? Do you agree with the idea that if someone doesn’t “punish” whoever gassed innocent civilians, then all sorts of countries and terrorist groups will start gassing whomever they please, one of the claims being made? At least think about this.
National Security:
One way to think about what a threat to "our national security" means it to think whetherthe Syrian government can somehow threaten your personal security. If you’re not sure what that means think 9/11-type attacks, etc. But Obama has already laughed off the idea that Syria can in any way threaten the U.S. “homeland” as the government now calls our beloved country. So it’s safe to put national security out of the picture. Yes?
National Interest:
This gets confused with National Security. Frankly, you’d do yourself a big favor by questioning exactly what this this phrase "national interest" means. The term is used too loosely. I’m never all that certain what’s being talked about when it’s used. Occasionally it’s connected with the military; sometimes it implies that our access to oil is threatened; or generally that international commerce might be in jeopardy, e.g., if the Suez Canal were blown up and ships couldn’t use it, therefore supplies of imported goods would be stopped or slowed down. (Heavens, how can we survive without all that Chinese junk flowing into our country24/7?). But you may want to think about this. The U.S. government winds up getting mixed up in all sorts of situations where its involvement somehow is justified by our “national interest.”
One way to think about this is to ask, rather than “national” interest, “Who’s interest.” Try to identify who benefits from the U.S. government getting mixed up in places like Syria. There’s even a phrase for it: “Cui bono?” It means something like “for the good of whom,” or, more simply, “Who benefits?”
Yes, I know it takes work to think about these matters. And I suspect most people simply don’t have the will to pursue thinking in this way. But without such effort you can kiss reason good-bye, and settle for a world dominated by people’s raw emotion and, worse, drive for raw power.
I guess what I'm doing here is appealing to all of us to spend more time thinking. Not such a bad idea, is it?
Enforcer:
The idea that the U.S. government takes on itself the role of “enforcer” has to be disturbing - and I think lots of Americans now feel this way (but, of course, I don’t know for sure). It’s one thing when the claim is made that our national security is threatened, but that’s different than the role of enforcer. No one appointed the U.S. government to this role. It appointed itself. It justifies this appointment by claiming that its actions are taken for the good of all of us. Ask yourself if this is true. What do you come up with? Do you agree with the idea that if someone doesn’t “punish” whoever gassed innocent civilians, then all sorts of countries and terrorist groups will start gassing whomever they please, one of the claims being made? At least think about this.
National Security:
One way to think about what a threat to "our national security" means it to think whetherthe Syrian government can somehow threaten your personal security. If you’re not sure what that means think 9/11-type attacks, etc. But Obama has already laughed off the idea that Syria can in any way threaten the U.S. “homeland” as the government now calls our beloved country. So it’s safe to put national security out of the picture. Yes?
National Interest:
This gets confused with National Security. Frankly, you’d do yourself a big favor by questioning exactly what this this phrase "national interest" means. The term is used too loosely. I’m never all that certain what’s being talked about when it’s used. Occasionally it’s connected with the military; sometimes it implies that our access to oil is threatened; or generally that international commerce might be in jeopardy, e.g., if the Suez Canal were blown up and ships couldn’t use it, therefore supplies of imported goods would be stopped or slowed down. (Heavens, how can we survive without all that Chinese junk flowing into our country24/7?). But you may want to think about this. The U.S. government winds up getting mixed up in all sorts of situations where its involvement somehow is justified by our “national interest.”
One way to think about this is to ask, rather than “national” interest, “Who’s interest.” Try to identify who benefits from the U.S. government getting mixed up in places like Syria. There’s even a phrase for it: “Cui bono?” It means something like “for the good of whom,” or, more simply, “Who benefits?”
Yes, I know it takes work to think about these matters. And I suspect most people simply don’t have the will to pursue thinking in this way. But without such effort you can kiss reason good-bye, and settle for a world dominated by people’s raw emotion and, worse, drive for raw power.
I guess what I'm doing here is appealing to all of us to spend more time thinking. Not such a bad idea, is it?
Comments