What’s Wrong with the World

It is sad to see people like Hagel selling out their ideals.

But, it seems to happen among politicians. Again and again.

Well, from a geo-political "national interest" perspective, would anyone really give a rat's behind about the Middle East if it was not a large producer of black gold?

What Kristol is really criticizing is Hagel's momentary lapse into honesty. He better be sure that never happens again.

I do think it's darkly amusing that America gets criticized both for acting abroad "where America has no interest" and for acting abroad "for oil." Sometimes by the same people. I've got plenty of isolationist sympathies, but I try to be a little more consistent than that. Or perhaps the way to square the circle is to interpret the first criticism as "acting abroad where America has no interest that the person making the criticism thinks we ought to care about" where the ability to purchase oil is regarded as something that we shouldn't care about.

Then again, one rarely finds those same people strongly urging that we crank the ANWR and the domestic nuclear power plants so as to achieve more energy independence...

Then again, one rarely finds those same people strongly urging that we crank the ANWR and the domestic nuclear power plants so as to achieve more energy independence...

Well, there are a few of them who do urge getting rid of foreign oil entanglements AND who urge eradication of home-grown fossil fuel and nuclear power messes. The Unabomber, for one. Of course, these are the people who think that humans are intrinsically a blight on the face of the Earth, and urge a reduction of human population by 95 to 99 percent. (But why is it that they so rarely start with getting rid of themselves?) How they arrive at this conclusion when they are also materialistic evolutionists, whose conclusion OUGHT to be that humans are a wildly successful instance of biodiversity in the ecosphere, and obviously another instance of nature taking its implacable course, I'll never understand. Nor will they, since they don't ever ask that question, since it's a question about "ought" rather than "is", and materialistic evolution has no place for such questions.

Yeah, I was talking about going the opposite direction: Urging that we get rid of foreign oil entanglements by developing our own resources. Don't hear that much from most of the people who yell the loudest about "war for oil."

Our foreign oil entanglements don't have to be tied up in interventionist political and military policies though - do they? What about the notion of free trade? Do we really have to be the Saudi kingdom's military proxy in order to buy oil from them?

I think we do - only not because we need their oil. We've struck a deal with the devil in order to keep our currency afloat - and we will continue to intervene politically and militarily in the middle east whenever and wherever the petro-dollar is threatened.

So it's not "war for oil" it's "war for the petro-dollar".

Well petro-dollars is one linkage that makes sense, but the "interventionist" foreign policy is a pretty vacuous term in my view. Relations among nations correspond to the social nature of man, as do personal relations. The latter are inherently interventionist right down to the terminology, except for sociopaths. Everyone is an interventionist, personally and politically, the debate is really about what makes a good one vs a bad one.

Piracy and terrorism are symptoms of what afflicts completely failed states. The Barbary pirates were brought to heel by the Americans in the First Barbary War and by the French invasion of Algiers. Oil has very little to do with the problems in the ME, but it has had a greatly corrupting influence it from both sides. From the inside, oil wealth has let regimes act very irresponsibly without internal repercussions for a long time.

Interventionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interventionism_(politics)

Interventionism is a term for a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, to manipulate an economy or society. The most common applications of the term are for economic interventionism (a state's intervention in its own economy), and foreign interventionism (a state's intervention in the affairs of another nation as part of its foreign policy).

Non-interventionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Non-interventionism is a policy in government only and thus does not exclude non-governmental intervention by organizations such as Amnesty International.

Non-interventionism in the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.
George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase "entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.
In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar." Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."
The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.

Test...

My last comment was held for moderation. That's never happened to me before so I'm posting this as a test.

OK mods,

Should I wait for you to approve my comment or repost it?

It's a matter of the number of links. As the notes say below the comment box, more than two links, which includes the link in your name, will result in the comment's being held.

Reading was never my strong suit! Thanks Lydia.

What about the notion of free trade?

When theory does not meet reality, the reality wins.

Daniel, this "non-interventionism" theory cannot be distinguished IN PRINCIPLE from a mild form of interventionism. I give 2 arguments.

First, from facts. The very people who first formulated the non-interventionist position were, themselves, responsible for certain interventionist arrangements. For example, during the Revolution the new US and France formed an alliance. Second, Thomas Jefferson "intervened" when he put down the Barbary Pirates (they did not operate on our shores, only on our trade in other parts of the world). Third, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was a policy effort to change the very structure of French control of its (or "its") land - a kind of intervention. Fourth, the non-interventionist Monroe Doctrine made Central and South America an allowable region for our policy to operate outside of the US, and was an explicit attempt to impact European relationships to other countries besides the US. De facto, the people who invented "non-interventionism" were themselves interventionist in certain respects.

Interventionism is a term for a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, to manipulate an economy or society. The most common applications of the term are for economic interventionism (a state's intervention in its own economy),

Let's note that first sort of "interventionism", that of economic - "a state's intervention in its own economy". Properly, a state cannot "intervene" in something that is intrinsically it's own proper sphere of action, any more than a person can "intervene" in his affairs in deciding what he is going to eat, what he clothes he will take out of the closet to wear, etc. These are not INTERVENTION, they are merely deciding one's affairs. That should have begun to tell you that the meaning of "intervention" here is poorly defined.

The second sphere, foreign intervention, is the more usual sphere for the notion of intervention. But there, again, there is no way to carve out "intervention" from merely carrying out our affairs, not in a principled way. If the US wants to trade with UZBEKISTAN, but we want the Uzis to honor our (and international) patent law, we are managing our own affairs when we suggest to them that the cost of their government's not bothering to (internally, mind you) put a stop to patent infringement is that we will not trade with them. It is our trade goods to sell to them or not, as we choose. It is their choice whether trade with us is worth changing their internal policy on patent infringement.

And it is easy to show ways of graduating from trade policy to human rights to international agreements on nuclear material to communally dealing with failed states, none of which are IN PRINCIPLE anything more than our managing our affairs, and dealing with others insofar as they bear on us and our affairs. Every man is my brother. Or cousin. Human solidarity is the natural consequence of human nature.

While I do not agree that trying to influence the internal politics of foreign nations is something that can be set off in principle as "interventionist" in a sense that ipso facto makes it morally off limits, that does not mean that all forms of such intervention are moral. It is one thing, for example, the the US Chamber of Commerce to take out a full page ad in the London Times supporting free trade (and whichever party in England that impacts, if any), and another thing entirely to use an agent to seduce a married minister of Parliament and then either splash the seduction into the public to ruin him, or extort changes in his policies by threat. There are indeed wrong ways to influence foreign nations.

Tony:

First, from facts. The very people who first formulated the non-interventionist position were, themselves, responsible for certain interventionist arrangements. For example, during the Revolution the new US and France formed an alliance.

Yes they did. It was resisted until they felt there was no other choice though.

Second, Thomas Jefferson "intervened" when he put down the Barbary Pirates (they did not operate on our shores, only on our trade in other parts of the world).

Non-intervention does not specify "our shores" as a limit - only that the action be one of defense. If another nation attacks US citizens, we have a right to defend our own.

Third, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was a policy effort to change the very structure of French control of its (or "its") land - a kind of intervention.

That seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Fourth, the non-interventionist Monroe Doctrine made Central and South America an allowable region for our policy to operate outside of the US, and was an explicit attempt to impact European relationships to other countries besides the US.

That's probably why the article says "the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent".

De facto, the people who invented "non-interventionism" were themselves interventionist in certain respects.

Perhaps they were in a limited fashion. Nothing like the US foreign policy of today though.

Let's note that first sort of "interventionism", that of economic - "a state's intervention in its own economy". Properly, a state cannot "intervene" in something that is intrinsically it's own proper sphere of action, any more than a person can "intervene" in his affairs in deciding what he is going to eat, what he clothes he will take out of the closet to wear, etc. These are not INTERVENTION, they are merely deciding one's affairs. That should have begun to tell you that the meaning of "intervention" here is poorly defined.

What it is referring to here when it talks about a state attempting "to manipulate an economy" is economic central planning; the notion that it is the role of the state to control economic markets. It is the antithesis of the free market.

The second sphere, foreign intervention, is the more usual sphere for the notion of intervention. But there, again, there is no way to carve out "intervention" from merely carrying out our affairs, not in a principled way. If the US wants to trade with UZBEKISTAN, but we want the Uzis to honor our (and international) patent law, we are managing our own affairs when we suggest to them that the cost of their government's not bothering to (internally, mind you) put a stop to patent infringement is that we will not trade with them. It is our trade goods to sell to them or not, as we choose. It is their choice whether trade with us is worth changing their internal policy on patent infringement.

Or we could just leave it up to individual companies and persons whether they want to trade with Uzbekistani companies and persons or not.

And it is easy to show ways of graduating from trade policy to human rights to international agreements on nuclear material to communally dealing with failed states, none of which are IN PRINCIPLE anything more than our managing our affairs, and dealing with others insofar as they bear on us and our affairs. Every man is my brother. Or cousin. Human solidarity is the natural consequence of human nature.

When we "punish" another nation, we don't punish those in power there - only the citizens. Has Castro gone hungry because of our economic embargo on Cuba? So who are we punishing? And why? We went to war with North Vietnam, killed thousands of their citizens, lost thousands of American lives, and for what? Now we trade with Vietnam and goods and people flow freely between our nations. Which policy works better?

While I do not agree that trying to influence the internal politics of foreign nations is something that can be set off in principle as "interventionist" in a sense that ipso facto makes it morally off limits, that does not mean that all forms of such intervention are moral. It is one thing, for example, the the US Chamber of Commerce to take out a full page ad in the London Times supporting free trade (and whichever party in England that impacts, if any), and another thing entirely to use an agent to seduce a married minister of Parliament and then either splash the seduction into the public to ruin him, or extort changes in his policies by threat. There are indeed wrong ways to influence foreign nations.

I have not introduced a moral argument for or against interventionism in this thread. I think there IS one that can be made but I don't know that we need to go there (yet).

When we "punish" another nation, we don't punish those in power there - only the citizens.

I'd like to add that such embargos also punish our own citizens - those who would like to trade with the people in Cuba but cannot.