Intervention: The Government’s Decision or the American People’s?

During Friday’s class discussion regarding Syria, I began to really think about the United States’ reasons for intervening in a failed state. Many times, we (the U.S.) claim that we are intervening in a country due to humanitarian reasons. But, how often is this actually the case? In class, we discussed the imperialization of Africa by several European countries in the 1800s. While we can now all agree that the motives of the Europeans to imperialize Africa was strictly for their own benefit, (specifically to accumulate resources) I am sure that many Europeans at the time believed that they were helping the African people. I can’t help but ask if much has changed since this time? Can we really argue that in today’s world, we are not first and foremost concerned with our nation’s own well being and economic advances- and if that is the case, is that necessarily a bad thing?  This is of course in stark contradiction with the claim that the U.S. constantly makes that we are solely intervening in order to help those who are suffering. It is also important to ask if it is the job of the government to decide whether or not we should intervene in failing states or should the American people be well enough informed about foreign affairs to make these decisions themselves? I would argue, that it is the American government’s responsibility to equip American citizens with the necessary information to make them aware of their intentions for intervening in a “failing” state. However, it is also the job of the American citizens to stay informed with foreign affairs in order to adequately give their opinion on what actions are best for the nation.

            Will brought up a really interesting point in class on Friday during our discussion on Syria. When the U.S. government intervenes in a “failing” state, many times we claim that the main reason for U.S. involvement is for humanitarian efforts; and we do this in order to gain support from the public. While I think humanitarian efforts are often a very good reason for the United States’ involvement, and I agree that it is one that the American population most largely sympathizes with, if that is the reason we must give to the public to justify our involvement, and get the public on board with intervention, then I see this as a huge problem in our society. From the beginning, American citizens should be told the truth as to why the government feels the need to involve itself in failing states (regardless of whether or not the government predicts the decision will spark public approval of the decision). Secondly, if American citizens are informed of the government’s true intentions in intervening, they will be able to decide for themselves if they believe that the United States should intervene or not. 

If the American people were told that we were going to intervene in a failed state for humanitarian purposes, however, the government had alternate intentions, (for example: balancing power, threat of nuclear weapons, etc.) than the American people must be kept informed of why it is in America’s interest to intervene in a country. If the US government started lying to the American people by saying that we are getting involved in another country’s affairs for different reasons than what the American people are told, than this will create an even larger divide between American people and the government and heighten the sense of mistrust between citizens and their elected representatives. Such divides, (between the American government and U.S. citizens) many people would argue, are quite evident in this country. Thus, to eliminate further divides and mistrust between the government and American citizens, the government must be truthful in its reasons for intervening in a failed state. However, with this truthfulness and honesty comes a duty from the American people to keep themselves well informed about foreign affairs and policies. How can we expect the government to be truthful with us if we as citizens choose to be ill informed about what is going on in the world? Thus, it becomes the responsibility of individuals to educate themselves to become informed citizens.

            Lastly, it is incredibly important for American citizens to be truthfully told why the US government wants to intervene in failed states in order to determine for themselves if intervention is the right thing to do. One of the biggest criticisms of the Iraq War was that Bush pushed his “powerful rhetoric” onto the American people and convinced them that war was the right thing to do. However, there was also a lot of “imperfect information” surrounding Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction (or lack thereof) program. I believe that if there had been more sound, concrete information provided to the American people, (and I am not saying that this is the US government’s fault) than maybe there would have been more objection to the war because they would have been able to come to their own conclusions regarding whether war should be waged or not.

Leaders Meet in Paris

Article:

On October 2, 2015 the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany met in Paris to discuss terms in order to bring peace to Ukraine. This is a perfect example of how and why the world is being more peaceful and less wars are occurring. It is also a great example of the bargaining theory happening in modern times. The meeting was mostly about withdrawing troops from both sides. Today countries with differing government policies can meet peacefully to discuss deals, which shows how the bargaining theory works and why the world is becoming more peaceful.

If Russia were to invade Ukraine, there would almost certainly be a world war. For all countries that would participate in the war, it means they must use men and supplies which becomes very costly. Therefore, what we are seeing in Paris is countries working out deals so that large wars do not have to occur. Each country in this case came to the agreement that they will begin to retreat troops from Ukraine. This means that even though Russia may be giving up some of their troops located in Ukraine they are also gaining because both France and Germany are doing the same. For France and Germany, both countries would much rather end this in a peaceful manor and are therefore willing to give up man power in Ukraine in order to maintain peace. All of these countries also have nuclear weapons, which is a huge incentive for countries to try to resolve issues rather than going to war. Nuclear weapons can completely wipe out countries and therefore deals, even if it means giving something up, are more favorable than warfare.

Transportation and technology have improved immensely in the last 20 years. Using the new technology allows leaders of countries to meet like we see in Paris and discus issues. One of the major causes of war is lack of or incorrect information and therefore if leaders of countries have easy access to each other, information can improve and therefore more deals can be made. In Paris, the president of France stated that he was “optimistic about the peace process”. Countries do not want to go to war, but rather get the most out of a circumstance. Ukraine, France, and Germany want Russia to completely leave Ukraine so that Ukraine rebel forces can be controlled and the flow of guns to them stopped. With this is mind they are willing to make a deal with Russia and as Russia should, according to the bargaining theory try to get the most that they can.

The fact that the leaders of these countries are meeting at all shows great progress in the push for peace internationally. With how easy it is to get from place to place even traveling great distances or using video chat, there is no reason why countries should not try to resolve issues in a more peaceful way and I think this meeting is Paris is a great example for how international disputes in the future should be handled.

Softer than It Looks: Military's Participation in Soft Power through Recruitment Practices

Softer than It Looks:

The U.S. Military's Participation in Soft Power through Recruitment Practices

The word “military” brings to mind an image that is the epitome of hard power: guns, tanks, bombs, fighter planes, infantry, and so on and so forth.  However, I believe that this is only half of the picture in states where there is no conscription.  In these states (and for the rest of this paper, I will be talking about the U.S. military because it is the most familiar to me), the military functions not only to fight the state’s enemies, but also to draw individuals into its ranks.  The first function is only possible through hard power, while the second is not possible through hard power. Therefore, contrary to the stance in class that military is not a factor in soft power, I argue that, thanks to its recruitment practices, the military is a major utilizer of soft power.

We talked in class about how soft power is getting others to want what you want them to want as opposed to forcing them to do what you want them to do.  This translates directly into the job description of a military recruiter, which is to realize the military’s goal of filling the ranks by getting young people to want to voluntarily join up.  Military recruitment involves not only individual recruiters, but also a department that systematically employs soft power though the development of full-blown advertisement campaigns which are tailored to attract the youth of America. 

For example, across the center of the Army’s website runs the following banner: “Join the Team that Makes a Difference.”  This plays into many youths’ desire to belong and their ambitions to change the world.  When you click on the banner, you’re taken to a page that says: “Our team is made up of doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and combat troops.”  This tells potential recruits that they can still be whatever they want to be.  This sends the reassuring message that you don’t have to give anything up when you join the military; this implication is likely to positively affect the target audience because it accommodates most young people’s reluctance to sacrifice anything that they have or want to have.  Furthermore, personal stories on the website call to attention all the things you will gain by joining the “team:” getting to work with cool gadgets and being part of a family-type team that has your back through everything.  By presenting all the things that the audience wants to see and hear, the military is using soft power tactics, striving to persuade potential recruits that they want to join.

I experienced being on the receiving end of those soft power strategies, and can attest to the talent with which the military gradually convinces you that what you want and what it wants from you is the same, and that is to join up.  It was evident to me that the recruitment efforts are not simply portrayals of fact when recruiters changed their narrative to make the military as attractive as possible to different audiences; at a military academy camp, weapons were talked up to the men who were interested in them while humanitarian action was emphasized to those not impressed by violence. This change of tone told me that the goal of military recruitment is not to present the entire reality and let the youths decide, but rather to manipulate their decision by changing the descriptions of reality to fit their desires. 

What is this manipulation of desire and decision if not the practice of soft power?  The significance of all this is that recruitment practices which successfully put people under the influence of soft power are dangerous; they put those people at risk of waking up one day and realizing that they were sold an image that does not necessarily reflect reality.  This contributes not only to the decline of the satisfaction and well-being of those individual soldiers, but also by extension to the decline of morale across the whole military system.  In this way, using soft power recruitment to strengthen the military may eventually have the opposite effect. 

World Peace is not desireable

The theory that world peace should be the ultimate goal of society is fraught with disillusionment and it is in fact civil unrest that is the greatest protector of human welfare. Competition between democratic political parties is the best hope the world has for a minimizing violence and protecting human rights:

“What do you call the slaughter of thousands of civilians in the streets of Syria by a despotic regime — is that “world peace”?

What do you call it when soldiers go home by home, systematically raping and killing women and children in the villages of Sudan — is that “world peace”?

Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Mauritanians who, in the twenty-first century, are forced into slavery by their own countrymen — is that “world peace”?

To the peaceniks, it is, as long as no one intervenes to stop these injustices from happening.”

Let’s break down the concept of peace level by level. First, on a global stage.

war arises due to a conflict of interests between two parties. So to alleviate this problem, world peace could only fundamentally be established by creating a single entity that encompasses the whole world. Since there is only one state, there would be no conflict and thus no war. While this power would be created with the goal of peace, there is obviously a danger to human rights, as this force would be so omnipotent and it would not have to answer to anyone. It is dangerous because “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If there is no opposition to power, and no war, terrible atrocities like those listed above, would occur similarly to the work of the Nazi’s, Stalin and other dictators. But, this could occur on a global scale instead of within the state. And even as this was going on, it would still be “peace” if the victims could not fight back. Clearly, “as Teddy Roosevelt once declared, wars are ‘as a rule to be avoided [but] they are far better than certain kinds of peace.’” So, clearly we can rule out world peace, but what about interstate peace?

Perhaps our only hope is democracy. It has many flaws, but its greatest strength is that it holds its leaders accountable for their actions, and balances power, so that no single person can dominate. It has other benefits too, “Indeed, one of the great phenomena of international relations is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.” Democracies show the most promise for a more peaceful world. But despite this lack of war between states, unrest within a state is important too.

Assuming then, that all states are democratic, it’s imperative that there be competition within the state. If each democratic state was made up of a single party, then those outside that party would not have a say. It is important that there be competing powers within the state in order to assure the rights of the people and ensure that the majority is in power. If there is no conflict or opposition inside a state, it could give rise to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson spoke to this when he said, “(Revolution) prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical… It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."  Civil turmoil, while it may be extremely costly and violent prevents a tyrannical power from abusing its power with no opposition. However, it’s possible that

While conflicts are extremely upsetting, they are essential as well. While I do not believe that world peace is either attainable or desirable, I think that limiting casualties while protecting rights is. The best way to accomplish this, is to foster intrastate competition in democratic states.

Was Invading Iraq a Rational Decision?

One of the most significant turning points of the 21st century was September 11, 2001. On this tragic day, thousands of lives were lost, the United States’ feeling of security took a significant dip, and terrorism made people confused. We had never seen evil like this, and quite frankly, we did not know how to respond. As a leader of a nation that prides itself on democracy, courage, and resilience, President Bush decided that war was the solution. He did not want to, in a sense, let evil “win”. He wanted the U.S. to hold a strong identity as a resilient nation that never backs down. While it was unlikely that Iraq did have nuclear weapons, the United States still wasn’t sure, and as a result they went through with it. The U.S.’s decision to intervene was not rational because it acted out of emotion and values rather than fully considering the situation. Acting based on low possibility rather than probability is not a well-thought out solution, and it is a solution that can have very negative effects. The U.S.’s decision had these negative effects.

Why would there not be an opposition to going to war? Why did everyone support it? Ah, there’s the catch: Not everyone supported it, but no one was willing to show their opposition because they didn’t want to seem like they supported terrorism. They obviously didn’t support terrorism, but because 9/11 was such a terrifying rarity, everyone was fearful of being viewed in the wrong way. Because of the level of tragedy, the support for the nation was at an all-time high. Every action that acted on the basis of morality was deemed justified. Peter Singer, an ethicist, said that Bush is “America’s most prominent moralist. No other president in living memory has spoken so often about good and evil, right and wrong” (Fixing the Meaning of 9/11). After such a horrific event, everyone needed a moral figure to speak to them. Bush gave the public what they needed, and as a result the public, at least externally, supported his notions.

Bush was the leader of a nation that prides itself on its patriotism and democracy. We care deeply about our values but sometimes take that a step too far. Before we do something that has potentially significant impacts, we should really think critically about it. The mystery of whether Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons or not was frustrating for the U.S.; because we didn’t know for sure, we went off of the “possibility” vs. “probability” comparison. For us to go to war because of a “possibility” reflects a lack of judgment, thinking, and rationality on our part. Relating to constructivism, the United States responded to a gesture made by Iraq, but it was a gesture that was foggy and unclear. As a result, we did not have legitimate reason to go to war. If we knew what Iraq’s intent was, and if Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons, then we would have justification for war. However, Iraq did not pose a clear threat and as a result the U.S.’s decision to intervene cannot be considered rational. The Bush administration had a passionate, strong, encouraging reaction to the attacks, but they took their patriotism, passion, and pride a bit too far.

While the United States considered the negatives the war presented, they didn’t consider them fully. Even if they deemed the negatives to be great, they wouldn’t care because “a price could hardly be placed on defending the democracy for which thousands had died on September 11, 2001. Thus was the American public primed for the costs that an aggressive campaign of democracy promotion might entail” (Fixing the Meaning of 9/11). Think about it, though: after such a degrading attack on the U.S., any citizen would feel patriotism and pride for their country. Any cost was viewed to be worth it. Now, this does not mean that the U.S.’s decision to go to war was rational; it means that the public’s reaction made sense. An initial reaction should not be the reason for a long-term mission. Before going to war, leaders have to put things in perspective while not letting their emotions and values get the best of them.

Can our Culture Justify the Response to the 9/11 Attacks and Iraq War?

Can our Culture Justify the Response to the 9/11 Attacks and the Iraq War?

In my Cross Cultural Psychology class, we have been talking a lot about variances across cultures. The idea is that people from different cultures can view ideas, objects and concepts vastly different from those belonging to other cultures. Although this concept seems fairly obvious considering there are many things in American culture that we don’t see, for example, in East Asian cultures and vice versa, I never really understood how much variance there was across cultures. Parenting styles, abilities to assess oneself, work ethics, and alternate views on societies as a whole are just some examples of ways that the American culture influences our ideas, beliefs and views. The way American cultures influences these ideas, beliefs and views are vastly different from the way East Asian cultures, for example, shape their own ideas. Many of these differences across cultures can be explained by categorizing these societies into two groups: the individualist society, which is associated with American culture, and the collectivist society, which is associated with East Asian culture. In individualist societies, typically, the emphasis is on the self. The idea is that we do things because it will benefit us, as the individual, focusing less on the larger picture of society. In contrast, in collectivist societies, the emphasis is on the group. The idea, is that our actions affect an entire group and thus when making decisions, its important to think about the consequences of our actions as affecting the entire group/culture/society, not the individual.

At this point, you’re probably thinking, what does this have to do with national security, war or liberal imperialism? Well, I bring up the concept of cultural differences because I wanted draw a possible comparison between our culture and the way we respond to attacks. More specifically, looking at the United States’ response to the 9/11 attacks. First, I would like to propose this idea: The United States’ response to the 9/11 attacks was an individualistic response. When the Twin Towers were hit, we, as a nation, took these attacks as a personal attack on us, as individuals; it was as if the attack was directed at each of us individually. Therefore, our immediate response on such a personal attack was to defend ourselves. This is the same case in day-to-day life. If we feel threatened or attacked by someone, or that someone could potentially be harmful, I will speak for myself and say that my natural instinct is to do whatever I can to protect myself. I think that the United States had the same reaction to the 9/11 attacks, however their response was on a much larger scale (than any attack one can compare to an attack on a single individual.) So my question now is can we justify our reaction to the 9/11 attack by blaming our individualistic culture?

I would like to insert here that I recognize that there are many other factors that go into the reasons why we went into Iraq. However, I am focusing on the 9/11 attacks because it sparked this sense of fear and anxiety throughout the country. The United States had been involved in numerous wars over the 20^th century. However, we had never seen an attack like this on our own soil.

I would argue that, hypothetically speaking, if a country that was considered to be a collectivistic society had been attacked on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks, the response would have been very different. The emphasis in collectivistic societies is that one’s actions affect their society as a whole. Thus, I believe that this strong emphasis on community would have resulted in a different reaction (from the United States’ reaction to the 9/11 attacks) from this collectivist society under attack. Instead of viewing the attack as being a personal one, I believe that the attack would be viewed as one that affects the whole community, and in order to respond, there would need to be some kind of coming together of the society. War would not be waged until all pros and cons were weighed, and it was agreed that a war was the best possible option for society.

I understand that there are a lot of hypotheticals in this paper and with hypothetical situations there is often a lot of room for interpretation, debate, and inaccuracy. However, I wanted to bring up the question: if culture is so influential in society (and from much research demonstrated by my cross cultural psychology class, culture is vital) with regards to popular culture, beliefs and ideals, could it also be responsible for our decision making in times of war? If so, is this a fault of us as citizens of such a society, or is it inevitable, and something that we must accept and take as is?

Where I See Democratic Peace Theory Falls Short

The fatal flaw I see in the implementation of Democratic Peace Theory in US foreign policy is the final point that Jennifer Jackson brings up in her article. Her idea that democracy cannot be imposed, exported, engineered, enforced, or drafted by one country for another is central to many current affairs in world politics, specifically how the US views foreign counterparts. In our country’s eyes anything that is not democracy, or close to it, is looked at as a problem that needs to be solved for the good of the citizens not living under a democratic system. This sentiment has been used as the backing behind US involvement in foreign countries starting with the Woodrow Wilson administration. So if we desire peace, how can we cultivate and promote democracy without encroaching on another country’s system? 

When conflict or war occurs in other states the United States and often other countries want to intervene on the basis of humanitarian rights. The challenge lies within the cultural differences. In the present day most progressive countries tend to agree that women and people of all ethnicities should have a stake in their country’s affairs. A hundred years ago that did not hold true in the United States, and remains the case for many countries and cultures around the world that hold different beliefs about who (women or not) and what (religion or not) will play a role in the affairs of their country.

The key point to be seen here is that all countries, religions, and cultures evolve. Protestants and Catholics in Europe had a century and more of long and bloody battles before they came to the consensus that allowing one another to believe their separate ideas would be much easier than constant conflict. But we do not vividly (if at all) remember this battle,  nor did this battle take place in an era with technologically advanced weapons and an interconnected global economy. So when we see groups such as the Sunni and Shiite, who have little desire to work together, it is important to remember that its not that they are barbaric or must be changed, but that they are at a different point in their history. States that are still working on becoming a monolithic body cannot begin a transformation to democracy before healing their schisms.

For the past three decades or so the United States has focused its attention on the Middle East. Unlike past international worries, such as the spread of communism in Asia, and the cold war with the Soviets, the Middle East presents many more actors that oppose both democracy and each other. With our wars in Vietnam and Korea there were far fewer actors to divide the countries. In the case of Korea this made it possible to plant the seed of democracy in the South in the name of being against the North. Indeed the United States had vested interests in resources and security in the Middle East, but what we find most troubling is the minority rule that occurs.

Realists, Liberals, and Constructivists can break down the cause of strife that cultural evolution causes, such as that in the Middle East, into simple terms. Realists would attribute this to the constant shifts in power transitions and rivalries within a state. Liberals would say that the splintered groups within a state create dysfunctional domestic politics, while a Constructivist might blame the creation/existence of so many forms of “other” that a state cannot unite.  Yet, all are centered on the existence of differing identities, cultures, and ideas promoting the idea that everyone’s voice should carry equal weight. Coming from the United States, this is in my mind ironic because the US is thought of as such a diverse country. But I believe that we have learned how to unite under ‘being American’ and see people’s differences as adding to our society and culture. That way we have been able to peacefully unify under democracy. However, we cannot expect others to instantly be at the same point that we are at. This is where Democratic Peace Theory falls short.