Canadian army....

[Bond]

It's been a long held view of many Western intellectuals that some powerful democracy (in this case, the United States) must dictate objective morality throughout the world. If not, by default, that morality will be dictated by dictatorships. You could look at our military as a proxy to serve these means.

Our generational military superiority will also keep us in a position of strength when our power inevitably declines.

Also, for fun, compare military spending to medicare/medicaid and social security spending in the United States. You'll run into some interesting numbers.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

It's been a long held view of many Western intellectuals that some powerful democracy (in this case, the United States) must dictate objective morality throughout the world. If not, by default, that morality will be dictated by dictatorships. You could look at our military as a proxy to serve these means.

Aren't we sort of like moral dictators though...in a sense.

[Professor S]

I find there is one major flaw in the "military is bad" philosophy, and that is the supposition that military's cause violence. They do not. People cause violence and as long as man proves himself to be a violent creature, armies will be necessary to protect the more enlightened from the less enlightened.

We are blessed to live in relatively free societies governed by their people. These freedoms were not handed to us, but won from those who would tell us otherswise, and whether it's France, Britain, Germany or the US, freedom was not won through force of reason, but by force of arms from those who would not see reason.

EX. American colonists begged King George to reconsider his policies before the Revolution. Most of the colonist leadership entered the Revolutionary War with regret, not vigor, and viewed revolution as the last resort but still necessary. No one is arguing that was is the ideal, but this world is not the ideal and those who have power would take it from you.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
~ Thomas Jefferson


And I believe the Western intelellctuals that Bond refers to are also known as "neo cons" to many, and it's a reaction to the old Reagan era philosophy of propping up foreign dictatorships to keep greater threats at bay. Surpisingly enough, many liberal intellectuals agree with this philosophy and quote it when arguing against the Iraq war.

The "neo con" philosophy is very new and it's first real (JFK's Bay of Pigs was the first attempt) experiment in culture building is Iraq and we'll have to see how it turns out. Right now, it looks pretty positive over the long run after a period of uncertainty. Is it a bit totalitarian? Absolutely, but so was our occupation of Germany after WW2, and its success is derived by the idea of moral superiority; that forced democracy (toppling tyrants on behalf of it's people) is > tolerated tyranny/dictatorship. The philosphy is that an opressed people will always support an opportunity for self-rule regardless of how it is won.

My opinion? The Iraqi people will have to fight for their freedom. I believe the allied military has given the Iraqi people an opportunity, but it is still unknown whether or not the people value their own freedom enough to fight for it once we leave and a second, lesser fight begins. Success or failure will be measure on how the battle ends and it's effects on the region. Until that happens, we will not see if the "moral authority" vision of foreign policy is correct or at least correct in the case of Iraq (an admittedly westernized nation). I have my doubts, because I don't know if people can value freedom when it is handed to them instead of won through the will of it's people.