“In America’s Interest” Is Not Enough

Listening to “the case” that the president and the ‘bomb Syria’ crowd is making is an answer to the wrong question. The only question to ask when it comes to using military force on another country is this, are we under direct threat of attack or under attack? Is our national security being compromised or about to be compromised? That’s all our constitution calls for when it comes to a standing military as commanded by the president.

Listening to my favorite financial guy Stewart Varney say how it is in America’s interest to strike Syria almost made me physically ill. Citing the death and destruction going on there. Citing that because we have the power to intervene, then we should.

Not picking on Varney, he has a lot of company in this kind of thinking. Where does this thinking come from? It comes from the belief that we should be the policeman of the world. That we should interfere in another country’s civil war by waging war on them. Not only is life not that simple, but more importantly, someone else’s civil war does not constitute an immediate threat to our national security. Nor does it mean we have to step in and get involved. They need to fight their civil war to its conclusion. Just like, without foreign intervention, we fought our own civil war.

Would it be in America’s interest if the fighting would stop? Not necessarily. Especially if alQaeda were to be the ones filling the vacuum created by our military strike.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume it to be true that it would be in America’s interest for us to use military force in Syria. Let’s also assume that Iran and Syria would not attack Israel like they said they would. I can think of other situations where it would be in America’s interest to deal with problems in another country. Wouldn’t it be in America’s interest to put an end to the Mexican drug cartels that are invading our country and killing our citizens? Aided in many ways by the corrupt politicians in Mexico. The same politicians, their president included, that facilitate illegal immigration across our southern border. Let’s bomb them. Let’s send in some drones to wipe out the drug kingpin’s homes. Take out Mexico’s command and control. Because it’s in America’s interest. Then there’s Venezuela, hosting terrorist training camps. Nationalizing the oil industry, confiscating Exxon, an American company. Well, it’s in America’s interest to stop that. Bomb them.

See the difference between “national security” and “America’s interest?” When the U.S. uses its military for what is in America’s interest, instead of for protecting its national security, it’s not hard to see why the terrorists and the axis of evil refer to the U.S. as war mongering imperialists. To their lame brain followers, those kind of actions make a compelling case.

Further, the people who want to go to war for “America’s interest,” label those who only want to go to war for “national security” as “isolationists.” As opposed to what, war mongering imperialists?

Having a president that couldn’t take a stand and be responsible for anything is bad enough where our reputation around the world is concerned. When, merely adhering to our constitution, instead of our national ego, would so more to regain the respect in the world that the bomb Syria crowd says bombing Syria would get. It’s their answer to the wrong question.

2 thoughts on ““In America’s Interest” Is Not Enough”

  1. So are you saying that if the Syrian government gassed innocent civilians, we should stay out? Or are you saying that if we’re going to be involved, we should call it a humanitarian operation (which it more likely is) instead of “in our national security interests?”

    1. Two good questions. To the first, I’m saying we should not attack militarily because our national security is not threatened. They’re engaged in a civil war, in which over 100,000 Syrians have already died. To get hyper over how the last 1,500 died is immaterial and still not a threat to OUR national security. It remains their civil war. Besides, as far as I know, the jury is still out as to who used them. Not to mention that if we started bombing in Syria, those most likely to benefit is alQaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      What I’m saying is that, yes, what’s going on there is terrible. We had a civil war of our own and it was terrible. But, without a threat to our own national security, it’s not our job or responsibility to get involved in theirs.

      Think about this for a sec. What other country do you see wanting to get involved? Anyone? So why should it be us? NATO does’t want it. The UN is out. Russia and China are out. All the Arab states are out. All the European countries are out. (France is in favor of us going in but not in favor of using their own military.) We too should be out in a military sense. Let them fight their own war until one side wins, and the other side loses. After which, we and the rest of the world will know what kind of country Syria will end up. Either rejecting radical Islam, or part of radical Islam. It will make our, and the rest of the world’s, decision making about how to handle Syria much easier.

      To your second question, I do see us getting involved in a humanitarian way. Not by bombing in Syria and calling that humanitarian. But by offering aid, comfort, and support to the millions of refugees that have fled into Jordan and elsewhere. It is there, with those refugees, that our help will be both wanted and appreciated. IMHO, that’s the role we can play that is the ‘American way.’ In America’s best interest. Being the world’s policeman not only is not the American way, but is not called for by our Constitution.

      That’s what I’m saying.

      And btw, thanks for your input. It’s always a pleasure to have discussions on the issues instead of the name-calling and bumper sticker arguments all too common in the comment section of the PNJ. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *