To follow up on our class discussions please read this BBC series on the question of how America projects its power. Try to post your comments.
This is such a huge issue that a small comment on a blog really won't crack the issue very much, but it's a good topic, and it does extend what we were talking about yesterday, so I'll pull out a quote that somewhat reflects what I was talking about yesterday.
In part five there is this quote:
"One of the things we ought to have learned from 9/11 is that in this globalised world we potentially pay an enormous price for the inadequacies and flaws of Middle Eastern societies" (Richard Haas, former Bush Administration senior official)
Now, replace "Middle Eastern" countries with the word "all" and you get an idea of what I was talking about yesterday. Sure, not all countries that aren't exactly like us are going to produce people like bin Laden -- but "failed states" can definately be problematic and we as the only superpower have a duty to ensure that doesn't happen. It is my opinion that the US should not let countries flounder and disintegrate on moral grounds -- however, it is a simple fact that we only really care once that country's disintegration starts to affect us (Afghanistan in 2001, Haiti in 2004). That's no good -- this is the point of nation-building, that Bush shyed away from in the 2000 campaign, but is now being forced to do it in two countries at once (Afghanistan and Iraq).
It is in everyone's interest (in the idyllic sense) that countries have social, political and economic development.
However, as was mentioned, who are we (as the US) to impose our will on others? I agree with that, which is why I think that these type of topics need to be complex and nuanced. Leaving countries alone isn't always good, and the US imposing its version of "democracy" isn't always good either. This is a really hard issue and I don't believe that there's a hard and fast answer.
Posted by: Cyrus J. Farivar at February 25, 2004 12:30 PM