America’s Place in the World (Still More Discussion)

In my last post entitled "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)" I set forth my exchange on this subject with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ, and then set forth a somewhat lengthy exposition on the subject by Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

I decided that I can most effectively juxtapose my views against Nekimken’s by interlineating my comments directly into his. I do so by showing Nekimken’s text in italics and my responses in bold type. Those who may want to re-read Nekimken’s views without distraction can do so by referring to my last post "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)."

I found myself agreeing the most of your reply to Eric Offner, Did you? It doesn't sound that way! even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize, he also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. 

I don't believe that this is a fair criticism. The immigration laws were clear, and these refugees were not eligible for entry under those laws. I don’t think Roosevelt had the power to ignore those laws. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. Again I disagree! There is no indication that Roosevelt had anti-Semitic views. To be sure Cordell Hull, The Secretary of State did, but to a large extent Roosevelt was unaware of this, until much later when Morgenthau brought it to his attention Roosevelt was shocked but did not feel there was much he could do about it without shaking up his Administration and he wasn't about to do that.

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. Not every Administration is equally guilty of this. Democrats are much more given to humanitarian considerations, than Republicans.  Clinton acted in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Carter was always concerned with Human Rights.

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can.

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, Somalia didn't fail! We didn't act! Overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

The listing below I think is the crux of your argument.

·As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. True! , But we can change that perception, if we follow a consistent policy that puts greater emphasis on human rights than national Rights. Can we do that politically, doubtful, but it is worth striving for.

·We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. Not so! Neither Bosnia nor Libya had that effect.

·We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. How reminiscent of the mood in 1939. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. Limited intervention does not have very high costs and non-American lives have just as great value as American ones. Neither Bosnia nor Libya had a major impact on our budget. Iraq is always the bugaboo but that was the wrong war with the wrong commitment.

Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades.

But you and those likeminded keep coming back to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are not relevant models and references to those are misleading and inapplicable.

·For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment. 

This will happen regardless of anything else. Technology, not policy drives this. 

·Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, The will always require human direction though from a remote location. or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyberterrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now.  I don't understand this. Self piloted drones are in use. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. But this is not relevant to policing atrocities.

Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. Now you are talking apples and oranges. Dealing with terrorists is something we are doing, and will continue to do. It has its challenges as you point out. But it has nothing to do with intervening when mass slaughter on the scale of the Nazis, or in Bosnia and/or Kosovo or in Rwanda, takes place, and as we saw in Bosnia and Libya, it does not require boots on the ground, or even huge expenditures. You are raising a great many irrelevancies and bugaboos.

·Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. Chemical weapons have not been the issue until now! It has been the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. Right then and there we should have told Bashar al-Assad, stop or there will be consequences, followed by drone attacks on airfields and on anti aircraft batteries until his capacity to use those weapons was suppressed. Anti tank weapons, to the secular forces would also have made sense.

·Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S.  Nobody has suggested an attack on the chemical weapons.  Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs.

·Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. Erdogan is absolutely right! His country is bearing the brunt of caring for Syrian refugees, while we are doing nothing to help them. He is in no position to unilaterally take on Bashar al-Assad. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.) This last is unworthy of you! As you well know I am not looking for spending more on armaments and the humanitarian actions I am urging, have nothing to do with defense contractors. They will do very well regardless.

The slaughter of innocent civilians, whether Jews in Germany or the Soviet Union, or Slavs, or Africans, cannot be permitted. Better that we can unite on it, but it cannot be tolerated unless you feel that the worlds polices toward the Jews in the Holocaust was right. Russia or for that matter China cannot be allowed to be the dogs in the manger, who continues the defense of the indefensible and the absolute obstacle of humanitarianism.

It seems to me your instincts are pacifist and even suggest isolationism, which after Iraq and Afghanistan has gripped the country, just as it did after the WWI.

Final comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but not distributed.