Hi Around Midnight,
First of all, let me say that I am speaking as a Candadian, not an American, and that is an impoirtant distinction to make. You are probably quite correct in that I may well be mis-reading the "Americam experience", but I doubt I am misreading the Canadian experience.
Actually, I happen to agree with you on this. The same is true of any national will when it comes to the actions of a coalition. I am reminded of Heinlein's discussion of morality in Starship Troopers (book, not the snuff movie of the same name). To what do we, as humans, owe duty? Family? Group? Nation? Species? The H&MP discussions are well worth examining, since I think they bear directly on what I was trying to get across with the concept of trans-national will.
"National will" is important, and I would never deny that, but so is a trans-national commitment to a particular ideology, vis. individual freedom of choice that ends at the start of the next person's nose. Forget "democracy" - what we are really talking about is the ability of any individual to say "Hey, I think this" and not have them shot by a government or state sponsored organization that disagrees. This, to my mind, is the ideological principle - individual choice - that "we" are fighting for in Iraq, Afghanistan and unversities in North America.
"National Will" is a useful concept in many cases but, I find, is sorely limited in the current situation wherein we find people who oppose the cultural value behnd the rhetoric and ideology operating in every nation. I believe that we are in an ideological war between individual choice and, literally, a "dictatorship" where members of a society are told what to believe. This ideological war crosses national boundaries and has proponents in every nation, hence the term, "trans-national will".
Again, I certainly don't disagree with you. I do, however, feel that while national will is important, the US is unlikely to become an Imperial power in the sense of Rome. You don't have either the "national will", the history or the philosophy. The US was founded on the principle of individual choice, and that is your legacy to the species, not a recapitualtion of Persia, Rome and Alexander.
You mentioned the US Civil War, but that is, in some ways, a chimera - it was an internal "disagrement". It is certainly not a model to take onto the international stage. If the US is going to export its ideology, then you should seriously consider what that means in terms of both body counts and commitment. Britain did this during the period of Imperial Construction and ended up with 25% of the globe under their control. The cost was also insanely high - I would recommend both Kipling and Sasson as insightful analysts of that cost.
I also find that limiting the discusssion to Iraq is, in the long run, another chimera. Yes, certainly the US is highly nvolved in Iraq, but to what end? What is the goal of this involvement? Is this merely the reflection of "... the Executive Branch's loyalty to it’s minority base"?
I remember the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. I followed the debate in Canada quite closely and, I almost hesitate to admit it here, but I supported the Liberals position of not going in. Why? Because you (the US) did not have international support filtered through the required ritual site of the UN (an organization I personally think is useless outside of ritual purposes). On a personal level, I would love to see Saddam hanged heigher than Hamman - he is a mass murdered and a blight on his people. And, while I disagreed with the initial invasion of Iraq, I do have two neurons to rub together and know damn well that to pull out would be a disaster. I do not believe that I am expressing a case of national will but, rather, individual choice based on an examination of the probablities.
Honestly, I find little fault with the US military (okay, 4th army group excepted) over their handling of the Iraq war. I do, however, find a serious flaw in the motivations behind the war and the rhetoric used to support it. And this brings us back to the concept of "national will". Unless the US is willing to try to reconstruct itself along the lines of Imperial Rome, you don't have the national will to succeed in what your political leaders have commited you to.
Furthermore, despite the Federalist agenda, the American people are, IMHO, not an imperial power in the classic sense. An incredibly principled people, a volksgeist based on individual choice with a history to back it up, but I sincerely doubt that, at a national level, you would embark on an imperial expansion that would make Cortez blush. The problem is not that the American people lack a national will but, rather, that they lack a "national will" to impose their beliefs on the world.
This, in my usual round about (and slightly tipsy) way, brings us back to the concept of a trans-national will. The national will of most of the US population, as you note, does not support the war in Iraq. Why? Because individual freedom and choice is not happening as a result of that war. Furthermore, I suspect that a large percentage of the American electorate is womdering why so many people outside the US are saying they are wrong.
How many people feel that the operations in Afghanistan are "wrong"? A lot fewer that those arguing about Iraq. Yes, I will admit that Iraq has control oif the media space and, hence, is a cause celebre. Still and all, Afghanistan is an examople of trans-naional will, while Iraq is an example of national will. In an age when al-Jezira is available world-wide alongside CNN, I would strongly suggest that the trans-national trumps the national.
Marc
ps. I should, in all honesty, point out that the rant above comes after a rather "difficult" argument earlier on (offline) and may, in part, be the result of inspiration derived from the products of several fine breweries and distilleries. In all honesty, this is a discussion that should, IMHO, take place in a pub rather than a board.
pps. Around Midnight: if we ever get together, the first round is on me.
Bookmarks