Trump cynically floats pardoning Snowden, Dems split on considering it

[Agema]

Quite a few countries seem to do well enough without going out to destabilise or topple overseas rulers, or install dictators. It's not a battle of necessity: the US has economic power and security quite enough without this stuff.

The countries that do well not bothering are usually the ones without the power or reach to make it work, or not in the right geopolitical situation.

Denmark doesn't need to. Denmark meets the vast majority of its needs through the EU which is full of stable countries operating a system of mutual advantage, which vastly reduces the need to screw with ones neighbours (Although even then, if memory serves me back in the 80s the French government was bribing German politicians.) Canada is vastly tied to the USA, and effectively piggybacks off any advantage the USA achieves because the trade flows so freely over the border, so it doesn't need to do much itself.

However, countries which have lots of antagonistic opponents and/or significant interests in unstable parts of the world are much more likely to benefit. The Middle East is an obvious example: at least four major regional players (Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran) plus global players, full of religious and ethnic instability and an incredibly vital resource. For the USA to stand back is effectively for the USA to concede influence over a lot of these places. It doesn't matter how much the USA makes the people of Ruritania love the USA if Russia strongarms a brutal dictator into control of Ruritania, who then trades exclusively with Russia for Russia's gain and the USA's loss.

I am intensely aware of the tension between defending the rationale for interference in other countries' affairs, despite deploring the frequent results. I think these are very difficult questions in the world, where morality and practicality don't necessarily gel very well. My ethos is perhaps "enlightened self interest": try not to fuck with people, but if you have to for your own good, try to be as gentle as possible. And remember to feel bad about it, so you carry on that way.

Thus I'd rather have the USA that looks at the wreckage it has wrought and asks itself "Guys, did we do a bad thing here?", than other regimes that would spread destruction and misery and just have a congratulatory wank over a job well done. The USA is much more likely to exercise restraint.

 

[Eacaraxe]

You win some, you lose some. Few wars are won without any lost battles along the way, and few achieve greatness without making enemies.

So we're just going full Krauthammer now, is that it? And, like Krauthammer, not considering the current geopolitical situation vis-a-vis American influence and reputation as the result of decades' of American foreign interference and unbridled economic imperialism, rather than as a precondition for it? Nor pretending to not understand the full meaning or implication of the term "blowback"?

I might note Iran's influence in the Middle East is maintained by tactics at the worse end of anything the CIA does.

Would that be the same government put in power by a popular revolt, after the CIA helped overthrow a free and fairly-elected thriving Western liberal democracy to reinstall a monarchy, by any chance? Would that be the same monarchy that was ousted in WWII for being literally pro-Nazi? You know, because BP didn't want to pay a fair price for Iranian oil?

Saudi Arabia funds wars, terrorists, and hauls journalists into their embassies and chops them up into pieces.

And yet, we invaded Iraq for no fucking reason on Saudis' dime to serve their economic interest, and instead of using those drones to turn Saudi palaces into parking lots, we're selling them Strike Eagles and JDAM's to drop on Yemeni civilians. Funny how that works out.

China funded the Khmer Rouge, and god knows how many other groups in SE Asia.

Yet, funny how little attention is paid to who actually stopped the Khmer Rouge, and the relation that might have to other countries fucking around in that region at the time. Which pesky little country is just east of Cambodia, again, and what was its history between 1954-1975?

It's all part and parcel of the game of nations. You can refuse to play all you like, but your enemies will do it to you.

By "...but your enemies will do it to you", you must mean "manufacture your own enemies when you don't actually have any", right?

 

[Silvanus]

The countries that do well not bothering are usually the ones without the power or reach to make it work, or not in the right geopolitical situation.

Denmark doesn't need to. Denmark meets the vast majority of its needs through the EU which is full of stable countries operating a system of mutual advantage, which vastly reduces the need to screw with ones neighbours (Although even then, if memory serves me back in the 80s the French government was bribing German politicians.) Canada is vastly tied to the USA, and effectively piggybacks off any advantage the USA achieves because the trade flows so freely over the border, so it doesn't need to do much itself.

However, countries which have lots of antagonistic opponents and/or significant interests in unstable parts of the world are much more likely to benefit. The Middle East is an obvious example: at least four major regional players (Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran) plus global players, full of religious and ethnic instability and an incredibly vital resource. For the USA to stand back is effectively for the USA to concede influence over a lot of these places. It doesn't matter how much the USA makes the people of Ruritania love the USA if Russia strongarms a brutal dictator into control of Ruritania, who then trades exclusively with Russia for Russia's gain and the USA's loss.

Sounds like a job for defence treaties and mutual agreements, rather than a race to exploit the places first and (maybe) slightly more cleanly.

The US has high economic stakes in Europe, and has managed to keep that relationship rather more stable through mutually-beneficial agreements rather than aggressive action. And the USA's presence also plays the same role of warding off the aggressive militaristic designs of Putin's Russia.

On the other hand, in those areas of the world where the US has attempted hegemony through subversion and invasion (such as the Middle East), the situation has become far less stable or reliable, even from an American perspective. Not to mention how long-term, it stores up endless resentment, which will eventually explode.

 

[Agema]

By "...but your enemies will do it to you", you must mean "manufacture your own enemies when you don't actually have any", right?

We have enemies just by existing and not doing exactly what certain other people want. History is full of quiet, mostly inoffensive people minding their own business who got overrun by people who think the world is theirs to take.

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to do is convince you to change your opinion. People like you are absolutely vital to form a counterweight to the ruthless arseholes who'd burn their way through any number of other people for a few dollars, and that important social role should be cherished. I'm just really saying I kind of think we also need some ruthless arseholes prepared to burn their way through other people, otherwise we stand the risk of becoming the mostly inoffensive people who get overrun.

On the other hand, in those areas of the world where the US has attempted hegemony through subversion and invasion (such as the Middle East), the situation has become far less stable or reliable, even from an American perspective. Not to mention how long-term, it stores up endless resentment, which will eventually explode.

The Middle East was never stable. Except perhaps when the Ottomans ran it, and it was a completely irrelevant backwater. Mind you, even then, the Ottomans and Persians had wars. Even had the Americans, British and French sat out the Middle East, the USSR was clearly sinking its hooks in where it could, and Iran and Saudi Arabia were almost certainly going to end up having a right old ding-dong. (In fact, someone recently unearthed an 80s interview with the lead MI6 agent involved in the deposition of Mossadegh. It was always assumed the British did it over oil, but he states it was because he was convinced the Soviets were turning Mossadegh into a puppet.) I'm sure they hate us plenty. But would them hating us less have been worth potentially doing without all that relatively cheap oil? I have no idea, but I don't think the answer is as easy as "Yes".

Anyway, I think there's a "horses for courses" element. You can much more easily arrange a mutual defence and trade pact with a stable country that has similar ideas about the world than you can with an unstable country which isn't inclined to like you very much.

 

[Silvanus]

The Middle East was never stable. Except perhaps when the Ottomans ran it, and it was a completely irrelevant backwater. Mind you, even then, the Ottomans and Persians had wars. Even had the Americans, British and French sat out the Middle East, the USSR was clearly sinking its hooks in where it could, and Iran and Saudi Arabia were almost certainly going to end up having a right old ding-dong. (In fact, someone recently unearthed an 80s interview with the lead MI6 agent involved in the deposition of Mossadegh. It was always assumed the British did it over oil, but he states it was because he was convinced the Soviets were turning Mossadegh into a puppet.) I'm sure they hate us plenty. But would them hating us less have been worth potentially doing without all that relatively cheap oil? I have no idea, but I don't think the answer is as easy as "Yes".

Right, it wasn't stable before. But the ethical approach to an unstable area in which you have economic interests is to provide support to build it up, and form mutual treaties to defend it from malicious outside actors like Russia. Endless exploitation ensures the instability will never be effectively addressed.

It's not a necessity that the US access the oil as easily and cheaply as possible. If a country absolutely needs the oil to function, and if the options are to pay more money or kill people, you pay more money.

 

[Trunkage]

Right, it wasn't stable before. But the ethical approach to an unstable area in which you have economic interests is to provide support to build it up, and form mutual treaties to defend it from malicious outside actors like Russia. Endless exploitation ensures the instability will never be effectively addressed.

It's not a necessity that the US access the oil as easily and cheaply as possible. If a country absolutely needs the oil to function, and if the options are to pay more money or kill people, you pay more money.

I don't know what drugs you are on, but I want some. The answer is, particularly when you are talking about the US, killing people is the better option. Second option would be to manipulate the populace into civil war (eg. Panama). Third would be sending in a company with their own troops to strip mine (eg. conflict diamonds.) Fourth would be to send a company in to force a populace into accepting lesser wages and dangerous working conditions (sweatshops, normal mines). The last and never taken option is paying more money.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

...and if the options are to pay more money or kill people, you pay more money.

The latest covid pandemic in the UK and US has clearly demonstrated you can do both simultaneously without any risk to one's grasp on power (unless you happen to be labelled left wing by any large enough media, only then standards are apparently required).

 

[Agema]

It's not a necessity that the US access the oil as easily and cheaply as possible. If a country absolutely needs the oil to function, and if the options are to pay more money or kill people, you pay more money.

Now, there's probably only modest risk. Back in the febrile days of the Cold War, that's less clear. The 70s oil shock, for instance, when OPEC flexed its muscles, caused huge problems to the West. Imagine if the USSR ended up dominant in the region, and what that may have meant for the West's oil supply (and the ability of the Communists to fund international Communism).

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Silvanus]

Now, there's probably only modest risk. Back in the febrile days of the Cold War, that's less clear. The 70s oil shock, for instance, when OPEC flexed its muscles, caused huge problems to the West. Imagine if the USSR ended up dominant in the region, and what that may have meant for the West's oil supply (and the ability of the Communists to fund international Communism).

Sure, but it's three decades later and thinking hasn't changed with the times. The West's ability to function will not collapse if they don't foment coups & install dictatorships.

The time is long passed for rapprochement. Now, the long-term risk is much greater in storing up resentments and getting people killed-- both overseas and servicemen. Not to mention preventing these countries from being able to develop into more stable situations by placing them under constant threat and turmoil.

 

[Silvanus]

What other choices do the US have? Don't get me wrong here, I'm entirely with you on the morality (or lack thereof) around what's happened in the Middle East and there are some heinous things done for the sake of Imperial Hegemony by a lot of people (US, UK, France, USSR etc.). But as Trunkage points out, there aren't many morally clean options when you want to leverage a population that doesn't like you to begin with. If you've got tons of money, plenty of time and no one competing with you, you can probably do what China is doing in Africa right now and pour trillions of dollars into infrastructure projects, industry investments and general humanitarian aid with the expectation that people will like you and help you a decade or two from now. But if you're in a hotly contested geographic area with several major competitors trying to outdo you and an urgent need for favors, resources or buffer zones right now, that's off the table. That's when you spend a lot of money to have the locals who don't like you removed or killed as quickly as possible, that's when you pressure the locals into terrible trade deals and fund rebels, military coups or terrorists for all you're worth, because the alternative is to concede the area to your enemies. And they'll be doing the very same to these people as you are.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure Trunkage was being sardonic.

Secondly, the United States and Western Europe do have enormous economic capital. I'm not talking about providing development aid and expecting preferential treatment in return: I'm talking about creating treaties to protect places from outside malicious actors such as Russia politically dominating the area (as numerous Western countries already do with Eastern & Southern Europe), and then trading on fairly regular terms.

One might also note that the US and NATO have definitely not been adverse to sending aid and forming defense treaties with the nations that have accepted it. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in particular are great examples of terrible countries that decided it was better to cozy up to the USA then it was to fight them and they've gotten a ton of stuff back from that decision. But not all countries want to be strong armed by a superpower and when they resist, like Iran, Chile or Panama, then you can't really go about pouring money into them, especially if they hate your money and influence.

The hatred for the US in Iran, Chile and Panama did not just come randomly from nowhere, though, did it? And it's not as if any of them are threatening the US's ability to function. Why is the US's purely economic interest here being prioritised over human lives?

It is the sad truth of geopolitics that the weak will be pushed around by the strong and that the strong will have to push the weak around if they want to remain strong. Because, let's be honest here, it is far better to be strong and in extension affluent and prosperous then it is to be weak and impoverished. Even countries like Sweden and Switzerland, who are bit players in geopolitics, have found niches and allies they can ply for all they are worth to remain in the group of "strong" instead of ending up like Transnistria, Georgia or Belarus.

Yeah, I very much doubt the geopolitical strength of the US is in mortal danger if they stop installing dictators and fomenting civil wars.

These have not made us safer in the long-term. They've saved the US money (of which it has plenty), much of which has then been siphoned off by enormous corporations involved in the fuel industries. Then it's provoked simmering resentment and gotten a lot of people killed, and even created hostile governments along the way as a reaction.

We are not safer for this. Fifty years ago, perhaps having a buffer state may have protected us regionally from the USSR. Today, we live with a critically-high danger of a terror attack.

 

[Trunkage]

Firstly, I'm pretty sure Trunkage was being sardonic.

I find your insult insulting *throws down glove*

Being serious: The last thing the US is going to do is pay more for something. There are many ways the US will do this. Probably the second to last option would be killing people. But it would definitely be a higher priority than pay more for something. That's the opposite of what the West stands for

Yeah, I very much doubt the geopolitical strength of the US is in mortal danger if they stop installing dictators and fomenting civil wars.

These have not made us safer in the long-term. They've saved the US money (of which it has plenty), much of which has then been siphoned off by enormous corporations involved in the fuel industries. Then it's provoked simmering resentment and gotten a lot of people killed, and even created hostile governments along the way as a reaction.

We are not safer for this. Fifty years ago, perhaps having a buffer state may have protected us regionally from the USSR. Today, we live with a critically-high danger of a terror attack.

You gonna have to show me where any government, let alone the US one, think more than 5 years ahead. Long-term is generally not in the politicians vocabulary. Most citizens dont care for it either

 

[Agema]

Sure, but it's three decades later and thinking hasn't changed with the times. The West's ability to function will not collapse if they don't foment coups & install dictatorships.

Probably not. Or at least not quickly, anyway.

But then, I think it's a much more ingrained habit. The likes of the Romans manipulated border tribes to fight each other and helped uprisings in enemy states. Medieval kings would forment dissent to depose and kill off enemies, so really it has been going on since pretty much forever. For all the coups and propped-up dictators, the West really does also support plenty of countries in a healthier and friendlier way.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Agema]

Machiavelli was entirely right when he said that the sinews of war are gold, gold and more gold.

I think that comes from Cicero, originally.

 

[xmbts]

Something about a broken clock being right twice a day. Too bad it's all just hot air.

 

[Silvanus]

Being serious: The last thing the US is going to do is pay more for something. There are many ways the US will do this. Probably the second to last option would be killing people. But it would definitely be a higher priority than pay more for something. That's the opposite of what the West stands for

You gonna have to show me where any government, let alone the US one, think more than 5 years ahead. Long-term is generally not in the politicians vocabulary. Most citizens dont care for it either

But then, I think it's a much more ingrained habit. The likes of the Romans manipulated border tribes to fight each other and helped uprisings in enemy states. Medieval kings would forment dissent to depose and kill off enemies, so really it has been going on since pretty much forever.

Because the US economic interest in extension is in the interest of humans in the US. I get that that is a terrible ethical argument, but it is the plain truth. The US and Western Europe have both created their economic affluence by denying entire other continents theirs.

All three of these arguments boil down to "that's the way it is". I'm clearly not disputing that: I'm well aware what the US government has determined its priorities to be. I'm talking about what they should be doing on moral grounds, not disputing what they are doing or why.

I know it's normal. I know states have been doing it forever. I'm saying that what's considered normal represents some fucked up, grotesquely cruel priorities.

If the economy is allowed to slide, how long before the US ends up like the USSR? How long before China becomes even more aggressive? Machiavelli was entirely right when he said that the sinews of war are gold, gold and more gold.

The theory that the US is saving lives globally by sacrificing lives in the countries they have economical, political or military interest in might be wrong. But I for one am not entirely thrilled at the prospect of seeing what China, Russia, Iran et al would do if the US or NATO wasn't around to threaten them with its bloated military. Because the USA is the lesser of two evils here.

Again, an issue better addressed through mutual cooperation rather than subversion & domination. The US and Europe are not going to lose their military might if they cease toppling democratic regimes around the world, or invading foreign states: they're quite capable of maintaining military strength and relative domestic prosperity without doing that, since their spending power derive from production and trade. If anything, starting countless military disputes around the globe just stretches you too thin, and demands endless costly investment.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to be encountering so much support for aggressive military intervention into non-hostile states. Does self-determination count for so little?

 

[Agema]

All three of these arguments boil down to "that's the way it is". I'm clearly not disputing that: I'm well aware what the US government has determined its priorities to be. I'm talking about what they should be doing on moral grounds, not disputing what they are doing or why.

I know it's normal. I know states have been doing it forever. I'm saying that what's considered normal represents some fucked up, grotesquely cruel priorities.

I would argue that as a general rule, the top consideration is self-continuation; I would classify that separately from self-interest, although there is significant overlap. If we assume as axiomatic that countries will have enemies, then any country has a duty to maintain sufficient strength to ensure that its enemy(-ies) cannot overwhelm it. This then sets us a notional boundary between maintaining sufficient power to be secure, and needless self-aggrandisement. Coercion of other states may be justifiable for the former but not the latter.

But where exactly is that boundary, in the endless unknowables of the future? Would our descendants really thank our moral decency if in 50 years it meant their way of life and sovereignty were in mortal peril - and likely also the values we intended to uphold?

Again, I don't presume to have answers here, just to try to illustrate the magnitude and complexity of decision-making involved.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Something about a broken clock being right twice a day. Too bad it's all just hot air.

In this case it's more like a random number generator than a broken clock.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED