tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235303708202109019.post4767452902388415180..comments2023-12-13T12:36:55.729-08:00Comments on Phronesis / {fro-nay-sis}: THE U.S. IS PAYING A HEAVY PRICE FOR ITS GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, PART IPHRONESIShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07591076303642667442noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235303708202109019.post-10781230332936599962013-10-11T18:18:37.685-07:002013-10-11T18:18:37.685-07:00Overtime I have become more convinced that 'no...Overtime I have become more convinced that 'non-interventionism' or a reduced interventionism would be a tremendous help.<br />The tools of our nations policy have been used as weapons of oppression, rather than for defense or for humanitarian goals (in the large picture).<br />Economic sanctions and embargoes have impoverished all sorts of nations and the terms of trade have promoted US and Western corporations at the expense of other foreign markets, economies, and local commerce. These policies also help nationalistic fervor behind despotic governments which can then point the finger abroad and rationalize their own extreme measures and security state.<br />Foreign Aid keeps other states dependent on our agriculture, goods, services, our military power, our intelligence and security trainers/technology. It has kept the rest of the world undeveloped and ripe for all sorts of desperate acts that relate to poverty, like human trafficking, organized crime, terrorism, piracy etc...it has protected dictators as well.<br />Military interventions (overt or covert actions for regime changes) have also served these same goals cited above. Although it tends to increase violence and as 'collateral damage' occurs, more resentment and bitterness are spread throughout the world. Examples of issues here would be Drone strikes/targeted assassinations, rendition programs, and other forms of human rights abuses to detainees; all of these in the name of security while achieving the opposite. This is how our nation maintains the next generation of enemies that will keep our citizens in danger at home and abroad and continue to be politically useful as a 'boogieman', whenever desired.<br />Our foreign policy becomes politicized, not only by our 2 party system, but also by select few powerful interests that tend to have large investments and holdings abroad. Our various institutions seem to cater to such powerful interests in various dimensions, but this would apply to our foreign policy and military actions as well.<br />It is also unfortunate to consider that these 'problems' and wars have become very profitable for agencies and the firms that provide technology, weapons, and expertise to them. It has become a reason to avoid any resolution to the problems because federal dollars will keep flowing to these actors.<br />The only way (I think) on reducing this sort of abuse of institutions is to keep them fairly weak and limited, so they can not be seen as ripe for corporations and other entrenched interests to take advantage of. And I believe this is what our original founding fathers had in mind by structuring our government to be one very limited and balanced against itself to keep it from turning despotic and arbitrary.<br />It is essential to keep all of this in mind when contemplating interventions in the name of humanitarian goals, because agencies and interest groups have tremendous interests involved and incentives to fabricate the nature of wars and disasters abroad to highlight their own importance and roles.<br />It is also worth questioning whether we can ever see a world without any sort of struggle or inequality. It just may be that this is inherent in our world and that what little we can achieve and contribute may be in the form of ideas, education, skills, and enhanced questioning of our authorities, institutions, and of ourselves...<br />Can we ever force away terror and other evils of the world? I don't think so. But even if we learn a little from 'counter-insurgency' theory, which the military has applied (incorrectly I think) in Vietnam and all the other modern wars of occupation, even that doctrine preaches an understanding of the 'hearts and minds' and the importance of public opinion.<br />The best way to win in the court of global public opinion, is for our nation to use less force and follow its own constitutional principles.<br />Between a choice of extremist violent agenda and of honest work/business and negotiations, we might find less force, terror, and poverty in the world.<br />-Assad<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com