Why America Fights Posted by Michael Cohen

Matt Yglesias and Alex Massie have some curious posts up today about the justification that America uses for fighting wars. First Alex:

One of the odder elements of American thinking is the widespread belief that the United States never fights wars for itself, only on behalf of others. Iraq is a war fought "on behalf of" muslims and so, we are now told, is Afghanistan. Bosnia and Kosovo were wars "for" the "muslims" and the Kosovars and nothing to do with the need to find something for NATO to do or thrill an American president denied his place in history by the absence of any great conflict.

Matt takes this argument a step further:

The greatest example of that has to be America’s bizarre self-congratulatory narrative about World War II. It’s a narrative that’s all the more bizarre for the fact that the truth would still reflect well on us. But somehow the fact that the Soviet Union did more, objectively, to beat Hitler gets excised. As does the fact that it was Canada, Australia, and New Zealand rather than the United States that really did somewhat selflessly jump to throw in with the Allies at the earliest possible date. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that the United States single-handedly, and in a completely disinterested manner

First of all, perhaps the fact that the Soviet Union's decisive role in defeating Hitler has often been minimized has something to do with that whole Cold War thing, but it's really a bit overstated to argue that somehow this fact gets "excised." And for what it's worth, I've always thought that much of the national self-congratulation about America's role in the European theater has as much to do with freeing Western Europe from fascism (and possibly communism) then it does in defeating Hitler. (And I would also add the Allied air campaign and the Lend Lease program were not for nothing).

As for the role of Canada, Australia and NZ in World War II, it had as much to do with their membership in the British Commonwealth rather than some broad commitment to freedom. And to Alex's point about Kosovo, yes I'm sure that having something for NATO to do or giving a bored President a victorious war may have entered into consideration - but so too did protecting innocent civilians! Both Alex and Matt are making strawman-esque arguments; I'm not sure a lot of folks are seriously arguing that the United States sole reason for going to war is out of some sort of noblesse oblige.

But here's the part I find really odd about this whole line of argument; there's is no question that America fights wars that it believes to be in its self-interest. And there is no question that the United States has fought wars oriented around territorial expansion, just ask the Native Americans, Mexico and Spain.  There is nothing remarkable about that fact; that's the reason why the vast, vast majority of countries fight wars.

But the fact that America more than occasionally fights wars that provide great benefits to other countries, that uphold the cause of freedom and "make the world safe for democracy" (World War I), that free oppressed people from tyranny (Kosovo, WWII) and that support the international system (Korea and the Gulf War) is actually pretty unusual - and makes it quite different from other empires. There are not many countries who fight wars where self-interest and selflessness overlaps. There are few countries that fight wars not for territorial maximization but for less tangible global goals; but those are far from unusual occurrences in American history.

Now as Alex Massie suggests, "one of the prices of imperial protection, after all, is that the dominant power must sometimes sacrifice something himself." Absolutely true.

But that doesn't make the general US attitude toward the use of force both unusual and occasionally laudable. Even the most virulent critics of the Iraq War (a club that I include myself in) would have to admit that it says something positive about the uses of US imperial power that we have spent 6 years in Iraq not stealing its oil, but instead trying to seed democracy. I mean there aren't many countries that justify a vast expansion of national blood or treasure for the amorphous cause of freedom. (Perhaps of course this also speaks to American naivete and stubbornness so as in all the cases being discussed here, it's a mixed bag.) And while of course the notion of supporting "freedom" can have self-interested motivations better that than the normal imperial alternative.

Now Matt and Alex are correct that the exceptionalist view of the American military and America's role in the world may have informed the decision to go to war in Iraq - although I think that argument is vastly overstated. And Alex is certainly correct that conservatives like Pete Wehner who view any self-reflection about America's role in the world to be akin to "denigrating" the U.S.A or believe that we went to war in Iraq and and the Gulf in 1990 to "protect" Muslims are full of s**t.  As for the notion that somehow America is deserving of international gratitude for its selfless use of force, well that sounds like horses**t to me as well.

But at the same time, the ways in which America chooses to exercise its imperial dominance is unusual and occasionally laudable.

America has plenty of sins to answer for -- but just because some on the right are incapable of acknowledging that America is not perfect (and just because we've had a rather piss poor foreign policy over the past 8 years) doesn't mean we should be afraid to admit that America is occasionally pretty good.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

from General Smedley Butler, USMC (1939):
Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money. ---->

[Don Bacon]

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.

Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[Dan Kervick]

But the fact that America more than occasionally fights wars that provide great benefits to other countries, that uphold the cause of freedom and "make the world safe for democracy" (World War I), that free oppressed people from tyranny (Kosovo, WWII) and that support the international system (Korea and the Gulf War) is actually pretty unusual - and makes it quite different from other empires.

I quite doubt this. Just offhand: the Achaemenids, the Romans, the Ottomans, the British, and the French in all had dominant ruling and popular ideologies that legitimized expansion of the realm by coupling expansion with moral and civilizing purpose. And in all of these cases there is a similar mix of truth and falsity in the self-portrayal. Imperial expansion does frequently extend material progress, establish order, and bring scientific, legal, philosophical or artistic advancement. It also brings abuse, exploitation, subjugation and oppression, and exterminates many lives. It sometimes does these things at the same time,

The fact that people in the United States, like people everywhere tend to see mainly the good in themselves, and highlight their noblest aspirations is not new or unique.

Osman saw himself and his host reposing near each other. From the bosom of Edebali rose the full moon (emblem of Mal Hatoon), and inclining towards the bosom of Osman it sank upon it, and was lost to sight. After that a goodly tree sprang forth, which grew in beauty and in strength, ever greater and greater. Still did the embracing verdure of its boughs and branches cast an ampler and an ampler shade, until they canopied the extreme horizon of the three parts of the world. Under the tree stood four mountains, which he knew to be Caucasus, Atlas, Taurus, and Haemus. These mountains were the four columns that seemed to support the dome of the foliage of the sacred tree with which the earth was now centered. From the roots of the tree gushed forth four rivers, the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Danube, and the Nile. Tall ships and barks innumerable were on the waters. The fields were heavy with harvest. The mountain sides were clothed with forests. Thence in exulting and fertilizing abundance sprang fountains and rivulets that gurgled through thickets of the cypress and the rose. In the valleys glittered stately cities, with domes and cupolas, with pyramids and obelisks, with minarets and towers. The Crescent shone on their summits: from their galleries sounded the Muezzin’s call to prayer. That sound was mingled with the sweet voices of a thousand nightingales, and with the prattling of countless parrots of every hue. Every kind of singing bird was there. The winged multitude warbled and flitted around beneath the fresh living roof of the interlacing branches of the all-overarching tree; and every leaf of that tree was in shape like unto a scimitar. Suddenly there arose a mighty wind, and turned the points of the sword-leaves towards the various cities of the world, but especially towards Constantinople. That city, placed at the junction of two seas and two continents, seemed like a diamond set between two sapphires and two emeralds, to form the most precious stone in a ring of universal empire. Osman thought that he was in the act of placing that visional ring on his finger, when he awoke.

[Peace]

The problem with America believing that it alone was responsible for ending the First and Second World Wars is that the British and French suffered millions of dead and wound in the First World War while over 20 million Soviet citizens died in the Second World War. It is very unlikely that the American public would have supported either the First and Second World Wars if the American army suffered the same amount of casaulties as the French,British, and Russians. Both civilian and military policymakers need to realize is that the American people are very unwarlike and that no American politician has the political capital to engage in unilateral wars like Iraq and Vietnam.

[kb]

"make the world safe for democracy" (World War I)"

Or when the germans were sinking american ships and offering mexico US states as the prize for declaring war?

"that free oppressed people from tyranny (Kosovo, WWII)"

In WW2 the US did nothing until attacked by Japan and then germany declared war on them.

"support the international system (Korea and the Gulf War) "

Dozens of countries took part in both those wars on the side of the UN.

") is actually pretty unusual "

No it just makes you an ignorant clown with no real historical knowledge. Did you even look up history before you wrote this ?

So has the US stopped torturing people yet? Or are you going to ignore that and bang on about how 'special' the US is?

[denspark]

"There are few countries that fight wars not for territorial maximization but for less tangible global goals; but those are far from unusual occurrences in American history."

You have got to be joking?

Jast about every single war the US fought, with the exception of the barbary pirates, between the 1770's and 1914 was a land grab.

Are you really this ignorant of your own country's history?

[doug]

to say that clinton and blair started the kosovo war for humanitarian reasons is completely absurd.After all the lying such as 100000 people missing numerous mass graves and over one million ethnically cleansed we learnt the truth.Forensic teams found about 2800 bodies and for the large part couldnt with certainty say whether they were serbs or albos,civilians or combatants.Incredibly though the US now has the largest military base since Vietnam in guess where "kosovo".Its funny how not to many news sources have ever mentioned camp bondsteel and that the consruction on it began even before Nato's first bombs on Serbia.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[ghghg]

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold

[michael jordan shoes]

Cheap Jordan shoes and Gucci shoes are on sale

[Ugg London]

This is very useful article, I like it, thank you!
Uggs london
Never frown, when you are sad, because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[dstti]

After World War I, many Americans had concluded that propaganda meant lies and they should stay out of other people’s wars. When World War II broke out in Europe in 1939, most Americans did not want Hitler to win, but they opposed U.S. intervention.