Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
kate_dc
Published Letters: 44
I don't know if I count as "in the foreign policy community", but I have worked for the State Department and elsewhere. I also protested this war before it began and see no contradiction in these positions, nor do many of my colleagues. Some were marching with me, some were not.
There is exactly one ideology that I'm aware of that being part of the U.S. foreign policy community (and the government in general) pretty much requires: to have as your primary goal protecting the interests of the people of the United States. End of story. Interests can be pretty broadly defined, and there can be a lot of co-existing goals that forward that position. For example, I tend to think that protecting human rights in other countries (and, to the extent possible from my position, our own) protects the interest of the people of the United States. Ending poverty protects our interests. An ideology of preventative war and torture does not.
But at the end of the day that is my goal, and that means that in the grand hierarchy of goals there is none that it is subservient to. I think it's good that Glenn considers equally the rest of the world in his equation. As a human being, that's absolutely necessary and I would do the same - I am a citizen of this world. But I can see how many in the foreign policy community think that they simply cannot consider those goals as equal, and that in fact to do so would be a dereliction of duty.
In response to good points by pantanal and caiubi, this one in particular from caiubi:
"The protection of national security is a simple matter: it concerns the obligation of the state (the government, really) to protect the physical safety of its citizens from destructive attacks...The protection of national "interests," on the other hand, is a fraud and a deception."
I think you would find, as a practical matter, that this distinction is mostly semantics. Many national interests ultimately lead back to national security...I gave the example of the promotion of international human rights as being in our national interest. I think this is in large part because it leads back to our national security - individuals in coutries whose rights are largely protected, and see us (the U.S., but just as easily the U.N., the West, whomever) as potentially a force that has helped protect them, are less likely to be considered an enemy. Others would claim this amorphous "interest" is a theoretical goal only and bears no reflection on our national security. In my view, it all does - particularly when our national security is as dependent as it is on the progress of this amorphous "war on terror", which is basically a worldwide counterinsurgency effort.
In short, my primary goal in the foreign policy community, of which I am questionably a member, is to protect U.S. interests, that is, national security. Other people broadly define other interests as an essential part of national security, and there's the rub. But the community, I think, would unquestionably agree that U.S. needs (security, interests, etc., however they might be defined) are primary, and doesn't that make us an empire by Glenn et al's definition?
First, thanks to Bobsammi for the clarification below. And thanks to Glenn, since I'd like to add that this discussion is so necessary - even if sometimes I'm not a fan of the tone.
Here's the highlighted piece of the discussion from Glenn that is most relevant, meaningful to me:
"the right to intervene -- when is it justifiable to slaughter innocent people in order to advance our 'interests'? Is it justifiable to invade and/or bomb other countries even when they are not threatening our national security?"
I think here, perhaps, Glenn is verging into a bit of 24-style ultimatums that the right seems to like so much. (Would you refuse to torture a terrorist is millions could be saved blah...) I also think you will find a categorical reluctance on the part of the foreign policy community to answer that question. They are, first and foremost, utilitarians - as said before, their (our?) single overriding goal is to protect the national security of the people of the United States. Sometimes the word national interests is used; again, I think that distinction is mostly semantics, although admittedly it is the distinction that has great potential for abuse. For example, let's imagine for a moment that it is an unquestionably noble "interest" we are forwarding, with some influence on our direct national security - i.e., maybe it threatens us, maybe it doesn't. Who gets to make that final call? Do we trust that decision? And what lengths would we be willing to go to? These are difficult questions that resist black and white answers, and so do the people who have to deal with the repercussions.
I don't for a second entertain the notion that U.S. "interests" (which has somehow adopted this malignant meaning) are necessarily good any more than I think they are necessarily bad. Like all countries, we operate with mixed motives, and in that environment (i.e. the real world) motives start to lose their relevance. Our power over the last fifty-plus years has increased the consequences of these decisions, but the framework remains the same.
I think the answer to the discussion is clearly in the form of a strengthened world government. For all of its flaws, only the U.N. is in the position to even begin to be a fair arbiter of decisions that aren't by necessity motivated by parochial interests. And it's too much to ask for one country, with as much military power as Glenn points out that we have - to ever act in contrary to those interests. I wouldn't ever trust that country to do so even if they did agree to, any more than as a global citizen I trust the U.S.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
