Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A Theory of the Interventionist Class Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_theory_of_the_interventionist_class#25304 Post contents: Mr. Berg, You said, “Now, if my personal interest comes under attack, a quick calculation based on just war theory may get me to once again grab some firearms, and strap on a cartridge belt or two, and head into the fray, but this will not likely result in my crossing so much as a county line to defend my interests, much less an ocean. It seems to me that those imperialists of Mr. Gavin’s stripe deal with things in the abstract, which is a sad heritage from the Endarkenment, and may well lead to the destruction of his own personal interests if they are at all congruent with mine.” Did you really just accuse me of dealing with things in the abstract and then in the same paragraph appeal to just war theory? That is too funny. The only just war theory is that which advances American national interest. Mr. Berg, you also asked me to define national interest, something that cannot be done without sending this discussion spiraling into a million tangent discussions. However, since this thread was originally about the conduct of foreign policy, I would argue that for the purposes of this discussion, national interest is synonymous with strategic interest. We must protect our access to vital resources abroad, namely, oil. Yes, I admit it. If it were not for oil, I would advise us to treat the Middle East as we do Africa—ignore it entirely. Unfortunately, we are a country very much dependant upon oil and the price of oil is globally determined, so it is very much within our national interest to perpetuate regional stability in the Gulf States and prevent the rise of a regional hegemony that might gain monopolistic control of the Gulf oil reserves. Does it make me an imperialist to recognize that defending national interest requires the defense of our borders, and yes, it does sometimes require action abroad? Again, I have not advocated which wars we must fight nor do I agree with the neocon driven foreign policy to democratize the Middle East. But I am not naïve enough to believe that we can sit safely in our little localized bubbles and let the world take care of itself. American national security requires large military forces capable and willing to advance our interests abroad with violence and the threat of violence. You isolationists need to understand that the world has been transformed significantly since the time our forefathers advised us to avoid entanglements with foreign affairs. Great oceans are no longer enough to keep us safe in an age of missiles, terrorists, airplanes and submarines. Nor can we rely on the British Empire to do the dirty work of Western Civilization. Does all this mean we must adhere to the interventionist policy of the neocons? No, the September 11th hijackers did not attack our homeland because they lacked democracy, but they did attack us because they did not fear us. Why? Because the restraint and apathy displayed by the United States in past contingencies with Islamic enemies has greatly reduced the credibility of the American military threat. Sent at: 2008 07 24