Something I’ve
begun to think about while traveling recently is how citizens of other
countries view the United States, and on a larger scale, how the international
community views it. In my experience, it is very easy to grow up with the
notion that the United States is a benevolent hegemon-more so in my case
growing up in a military family. We are presented with rhetoric such as the ‘war
on terror’-as if we were the good guys waging a holy crusade- and told that our
military operations are all carried out with righteous intentions.
I found it
interesting that both Libya and Iraq are included in this week’s lecture; to me
these two operations carry different perceptions of their validity and
intentions. Iraq was the bastard child of the Bush administration and turned
him into the nation’s lampoon and political scapegoat for the better part of a
decade. Obama’s intervention in Libya is viewed in the public eye as a much
more genial action-where US bombers soared as freedom fighters sought their
sovereignty.
The Nardin
piece made me think. Was Libya really that legitimate? Perhaps so, but the ease
with which Obama went into Libya contrasted with the apprehension to go into
Syria really makes one wonder if it is all for morals. And like Walzer points,
if the US is willing to go into Libya on such presumptuous circumstances with
no real end game, how can it stay out of Syria where people are being
slaughtered. I think it would be naïve to assume that all of our intentions are
benevolent, but it can be unnerving to realize that the decision to intervene
and save human lives can come down to power calculations.
What do you think the interests that got us into Libya but not Syria are?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement that it is very easy to grow up in the U.S. thinking that we are a benevolent hegemon and buying into American exceptionalism. However, I spent the majority of my childhood in Serbia and lived there during the NATO bombings and the Kosovo intervention and witnessed firsthand the types of rather negative local reactions to U.S. foreign policy and intervention. The deaths of civilians, the seemingly irrelevant targeting by aerial bombers (Chinese embassy?) and other such questionable actions certainly placed the U.S. under stern criticism, even though NATO was technically responsible for the attacks. Having been on both sides of the fence (I moved to the U.S. when I was 10 years old, shortly after the intervention), I find that without a doubt the media plays an integral role in the way U.S. actions are portrayed. The actions of the U.S. are glorified at home while the situation on the ground paints a much more grim picture. I also think this is the reason behind the fact that some Americans are easily able to distance themselves from the military action in foreign countries and even turn a blind eye to it.
ReplyDelete