Civil Wars.
Lower your voice and strengthen your argument. - Lebanese proverb
Issue:
The United States, like many other powerful nation-states, repeatedly intervenes in the affairs of other countries through economic manipulation, trade pacts and military offenses. We usually do this under the pretext of bringing democracy, respect for human rights and economic vitality to the people of these foreign lands. We pose as their savior yet the damage we wreak is most often more destructive than any problems we perceive to have been the raison d'être of our intervention.
Deception:
Domestic and international communities constantly debate whether the U.S. and other mighty nation-states should intervene in the affairs of other countries and if so, how. Endless discussions ensue as to the legal and moral justifications for intervention. Virtually all of it is deception because intervention is neither a right nor a solution. Whether the intervention takes the form of bribery (through trade pacts, economic aid or conditional investment), propaganda or military action, our justifications for intervention are deceptive and usually counter-productive to the interests of the other country's citizens.
Reality:
The focus of this essay, partially reprinted from the essay "Syria", is on military intervention as it is the most destructive and least-productive form of intervention. We justify military intervention by our professed concern for the lack of democratic processes and the existence of human rights violations witnessed in these countries, and often in response to civil war within the borders of another nation. Yet these are rarely the true reasons for our intervention. Rather, we seek to control the resources of these territories, whether those resources be natural, manufactured, labor or interest on debt.
Countries regularly wage war not only on each other but on themselves and all of it is needless, unfortunate, ugly and generally mystifying because it is usually impossible to parse the reasons for, or the story of a conflict. The war we see is the war on the ground, the hand-to-hand, block-by-block, death-by-death battles that have been familiar events in human existence for all of recorded history. The war we do not see is composed of the larger battles waged in ways not readily evident, such as the struggles of other nations for regional and global power that often have little if anything to do with the besieged country aside from its geographic location and assets; the crime and exploitation committed by business to profit off the besieged country's resources; and the campaigns by both internal and external forces for commandeering political, religious or ethnic rule.
Civil War in the United States vs. U.S. Intervention in Civil Wars overseas:
Regardless of the reasons for a civil conflict, military intervention by other nations is still intervention, more accurately labeled invasion and a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Consider for a moment our own history in the United States: in the 1860's we fought a civil war that lasted four years, resulted in more than 600,000 military casualties (exceeding the combined U.S. death tally for all foreign wars subsequently engaged), resulted in more than 50,000 civilian deaths and laid waste to much of our nation's infrastructure, industry and agriculture, especially in the nation's South. No other nation intervened to stop the inhumane and catastrophic slaughter. We fought this war alone.
150 years later it would be difficult to find anyone who would agree that any other nation should have intervened to stop or alter the course of our civil war. Why? Because as horrific as it was, our civil war was our internal conflict that had to be settled from within. It was settled, at least on the battlefields of our forests, farmlands and cities, and a strong nation resulted at the cost of catastrophic death and destruction. It is a flawed and still-divided nation to be sure, and we perhaps would be better off today (in some respects) if the South and North had separated and been allowed to pursue their own destinies - because today we fight our own kind of civil war, battling the endless and divisive issues that can too often be defined primarily along the Mason-Dixon line and its political and cultural extensions across the continent, battle fronts which impede progress toward a better society. Still, it is our country and it was our own internal war. It was not for Britain or France or any other nation to intervene.
For the United States or any country to pretend that another nation's civil war is our business to control is only a pretext for our larger interests, those of political and economic power in the region. The United States does not care about military and civilian casualties or destruction of society except as a way to assuage our conscience or justify our own war-making. We pretend to cherish life and ostensibly cannot bear to witness the horrors committed against people, especially women and children. Yet our own actions in multiple wars waged by our government and corporations belie this concern, again and again and again. It is not the deaths that concern us, rather it is our nation's lack of power and influence. When our power and influence is used on our terms it is accepted as necessary, regardless of its horror or reason or cost. When our power and influence are disregarded we can no longer find any comfort in witnessing the death and destruction rained down upon others.
Are these foreign, internal conflicts somehow different, more serious and compelling than other conflicts, such as our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands or the atrocities committed by our allies China or Saudi Arabia against their own people? In many ways yes, in many others, no. This begs the questions: where do we draw the lines for acceptance of atrocities, whether committed by our own country or others, and is there ever a case for military intervention?
Resolution:
Not all conflicts require resolution. Even where they do, it is not required that all seven billion humans weigh in on the matter. The United States spends over $250 billion dollars each year to maintain a military presence spanning the globe and hundreds of billions more to wage the ongoing battles it engages, money desperately needed to address our own economic and social deficiencies. Yet we regularly fail to set the example we wish to see other countries follow. We engage in assassination, murder, torture, rendition, coup, theft and innumerable other violations of human rights using some of the most inhumane weapons available. Yet we express shock and outrage at these actions when committed by other governments, rebel forces or revolutionary movements and we expend money, resources and lives to confront the same violence to which we ourselves have long been addicted. In the process we are bankrupting our nation, financially and ethically.
It is not for us or Russia or China or any other nation to presume a right to intervene in a nation's domestic affairs. It is not our responsibility to wage war but it is our responsibility to wage diplomatic efforts to rectify the critical challenges that lead to war, civil or international. It is our responsibility to set an example for humane and democratic leadership that rises above the self-interests of our nation, the profits of our corporations and our larger global battles that exploit other countries as our pawns. To that end we should pursue, as a world leader, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to bring an end to the suffering, but in a context of international effort, not in unilateral intervention.
The U.S. must make proactive efforts to work with the international community on bolstering organizations and treaties that are charged with defusing civil and international conflicts diplomatically, preferably before they reach the point of war. This also means that we must abide by the same treaties to which we hold other nations and must join and respect the determinations of world bodies. On these counts the U.S. is often remiss - which weakens our position on matters of conflict within other nations.
Our President and Congress regularly opt to intervene overseas but do not tell us how they intend to see the process through to peace because they have no plan beyond pursuing our own self-interests. U.S. citizens need to demand more of our government when it wishes to wage war in our name, starting with honesty and transparency and the choice of diplomacy over war.
The United States, like many other powerful nation-states, repeatedly intervenes in the affairs of other countries through economic manipulation, trade pacts and military offenses. We usually do this under the pretext of bringing democracy, respect for human rights and economic vitality to the people of these foreign lands. We pose as their savior yet the damage we wreak is most often more destructive than any problems we perceive to have been the raison d'être of our intervention.
Deception:
Domestic and international communities constantly debate whether the U.S. and other mighty nation-states should intervene in the affairs of other countries and if so, how. Endless discussions ensue as to the legal and moral justifications for intervention. Virtually all of it is deception because intervention is neither a right nor a solution. Whether the intervention takes the form of bribery (through trade pacts, economic aid or conditional investment), propaganda or military action, our justifications for intervention are deceptive and usually counter-productive to the interests of the other country's citizens.
Reality:
The focus of this essay, partially reprinted from the essay "Syria", is on military intervention as it is the most destructive and least-productive form of intervention. We justify military intervention by our professed concern for the lack of democratic processes and the existence of human rights violations witnessed in these countries, and often in response to civil war within the borders of another nation. Yet these are rarely the true reasons for our intervention. Rather, we seek to control the resources of these territories, whether those resources be natural, manufactured, labor or interest on debt.
Countries regularly wage war not only on each other but on themselves and all of it is needless, unfortunate, ugly and generally mystifying because it is usually impossible to parse the reasons for, or the story of a conflict. The war we see is the war on the ground, the hand-to-hand, block-by-block, death-by-death battles that have been familiar events in human existence for all of recorded history. The war we do not see is composed of the larger battles waged in ways not readily evident, such as the struggles of other nations for regional and global power that often have little if anything to do with the besieged country aside from its geographic location and assets; the crime and exploitation committed by business to profit off the besieged country's resources; and the campaigns by both internal and external forces for commandeering political, religious or ethnic rule.
Civil War in the United States vs. U.S. Intervention in Civil Wars overseas:
Regardless of the reasons for a civil conflict, military intervention by other nations is still intervention, more accurately labeled invasion and a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Consider for a moment our own history in the United States: in the 1860's we fought a civil war that lasted four years, resulted in more than 600,000 military casualties (exceeding the combined U.S. death tally for all foreign wars subsequently engaged), resulted in more than 50,000 civilian deaths and laid waste to much of our nation's infrastructure, industry and agriculture, especially in the nation's South. No other nation intervened to stop the inhumane and catastrophic slaughter. We fought this war alone.
150 years later it would be difficult to find anyone who would agree that any other nation should have intervened to stop or alter the course of our civil war. Why? Because as horrific as it was, our civil war was our internal conflict that had to be settled from within. It was settled, at least on the battlefields of our forests, farmlands and cities, and a strong nation resulted at the cost of catastrophic death and destruction. It is a flawed and still-divided nation to be sure, and we perhaps would be better off today (in some respects) if the South and North had separated and been allowed to pursue their own destinies - because today we fight our own kind of civil war, battling the endless and divisive issues that can too often be defined primarily along the Mason-Dixon line and its political and cultural extensions across the continent, battle fronts which impede progress toward a better society. Still, it is our country and it was our own internal war. It was not for Britain or France or any other nation to intervene.
For the United States or any country to pretend that another nation's civil war is our business to control is only a pretext for our larger interests, those of political and economic power in the region. The United States does not care about military and civilian casualties or destruction of society except as a way to assuage our conscience or justify our own war-making. We pretend to cherish life and ostensibly cannot bear to witness the horrors committed against people, especially women and children. Yet our own actions in multiple wars waged by our government and corporations belie this concern, again and again and again. It is not the deaths that concern us, rather it is our nation's lack of power and influence. When our power and influence is used on our terms it is accepted as necessary, regardless of its horror or reason or cost. When our power and influence are disregarded we can no longer find any comfort in witnessing the death and destruction rained down upon others.
Are these foreign, internal conflicts somehow different, more serious and compelling than other conflicts, such as our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands or the atrocities committed by our allies China or Saudi Arabia against their own people? In many ways yes, in many others, no. This begs the questions: where do we draw the lines for acceptance of atrocities, whether committed by our own country or others, and is there ever a case for military intervention?
Resolution:
Not all conflicts require resolution. Even where they do, it is not required that all seven billion humans weigh in on the matter. The United States spends over $250 billion dollars each year to maintain a military presence spanning the globe and hundreds of billions more to wage the ongoing battles it engages, money desperately needed to address our own economic and social deficiencies. Yet we regularly fail to set the example we wish to see other countries follow. We engage in assassination, murder, torture, rendition, coup, theft and innumerable other violations of human rights using some of the most inhumane weapons available. Yet we express shock and outrage at these actions when committed by other governments, rebel forces or revolutionary movements and we expend money, resources and lives to confront the same violence to which we ourselves have long been addicted. In the process we are bankrupting our nation, financially and ethically.
It is not for us or Russia or China or any other nation to presume a right to intervene in a nation's domestic affairs. It is not our responsibility to wage war but it is our responsibility to wage diplomatic efforts to rectify the critical challenges that lead to war, civil or international. It is our responsibility to set an example for humane and democratic leadership that rises above the self-interests of our nation, the profits of our corporations and our larger global battles that exploit other countries as our pawns. To that end we should pursue, as a world leader, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to bring an end to the suffering, but in a context of international effort, not in unilateral intervention.
The U.S. must make proactive efforts to work with the international community on bolstering organizations and treaties that are charged with defusing civil and international conflicts diplomatically, preferably before they reach the point of war. This also means that we must abide by the same treaties to which we hold other nations and must join and respect the determinations of world bodies. On these counts the U.S. is often remiss - which weakens our position on matters of conflict within other nations.
Our President and Congress regularly opt to intervene overseas but do not tell us how they intend to see the process through to peace because they have no plan beyond pursuing our own self-interests. U.S. citizens need to demand more of our government when it wishes to wage war in our name, starting with honesty and transparency and the choice of diplomacy over war.