And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

JMA:Well, I certainly agree it is a difference but I do not see it as a large one or think that it changes much of anything other than some skewed perceptions. Anyone who thinks the US is a liberal bastion who is ready and willing to intervene to help mankind isn't paying much attention. We may be a bit nicer and willing to 'help' than some but national interest still trumps. As it should..

It is this national interest thing again. If there was any agreement within the US of what constitutes US national interest it would help outsiders understand what the US is doing and take the US seriously.

Watching the US budget debate on TV (I can take a couple of minutes of that now and again) it quickly becomes obvious that there is no general agreement in the US over what is and what isn't supposedly in the US national interest. In fact it soon becomes horrifyingly apparent to the foreign observer that the "other" party's plan (for balancing the budget and just about everything else) is seen to pose a greater risk to US national interest than Osama bin-Laden. A truly bizarre spectacle.

Ken, you would have noted that I often ask some of the serial offenders in the use of "we" who in so doing somewhat arrogantly purport to speak on behalf of the American people on what basis do they believe they are able to speak on behalf of the American people. Never had a straight answer.

Now you have used the term national interest in terms of how it guides US decision making.

I have noted that supposed US national interest seems to change with every change in Administration. This has not done US credibility much good in the third-world or anywhere. In the good old bad days this could have meant that what you did last year was OK but if you do that this year you could receive a visit from a few squadrons of B52s. All very confusing.

I served with a fine ex-Marine officer in the 70s and asked him this question back then. His reply was something like this. The use of "national interest" is the fall back position for a person who has no sane and/or logical argument to support his position on normally some foreign policy issue. After that the argument degenerates into a "not it isn't", "yes it is" exchange where the merits of the various arguments are then lost.

So to my point. Who decides what is in the US national interest? How do those under possible threat of (nowadays) a drone strike find out what the Americans believe to be in their national interest before its too late?