Originally Posted by
osan
I serves to point out that the notion of intervening, in the usual contemporary sense, is no longer clear. What would have in an age past unequivocally qualified as "intervention", might today clearly be seen as a defensive measure. Our technologies, coupled with our apparent determination to cleave to world-views that appear not to serve well in the context of said technologies, have complicated human relations immeasurably. What was once black and white is now washed-out grey.
My normative ideals tell me to mind my own business. My practice of those ideals say the same. What has changed in time is the definition of "my business". Two hundred years ago, there was comparatively little one nation could foist upon another beyond things such as invading with troops. Today, the technological capabilities of men allow them to develop means for foisting devastation upon their neighbors without stepping a single boot across borders. Computer attacks, long range missiles, bioweapons, and so on down that list.
Consider Iran or North Korea. If we accept that they are developing nuclear capabilities for the sake of, say, hurting America (just to be self-centered), then from the purely practical standpoint, traditional "non-interventionism" becomes by degrees with time more and more untenable if one's goal is not to be, say, blown to nuclear smithereens.
For me, among the true practical problems today is telling when a positive action against a global neighbor is rightly defensive, vis-à-vis "intervention". The nature of the problem seems not so much one's ability to tell whether a threat is real, but whether those entrusted to make such determinations can be trusted for both capacity, as well as integrity. Consider our lovely little Gulf War, Part Deux. "Oh my GOD... weapons of mass destruction..." Well, that didn't turn out to be true. Is CIA inept? Doubtful, but that's irrelevant because it's either that or they were selling a very lousy bill of goods, which means they cannot be trusted. Then the question of how extensive the rot, arises.
Personally, I am not in any way inclined to lend credence to the notion that these apparent failures are the result of mistakes, accidents, ineptitude, etc. The methods of waging war are well known and that which we see today fits the patterns perfectly. Modern warfare is become more about keeping people off their mental balance more than it is about bombs and bullets.
As for Trump, how much of an "interventionist" he is, vis-à-vis a proper CIC acting to defend the interests of America, remains to be seen. The fact that he is being attacked with such apparent fury indicates to me one of two things: he is either a true pariah in Theire view, or everything we are witnessing is political theater. I cannot dismiss the latter, but I certainly cannot assume it, either. However, if we assume the latter is not the real case, then perhaps we can at least content ourselves a bit at the possibility that the current American president is actually on "our" side.
Connect With Us