Happy Monday faithful FR readers! I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that this Monday’s post is brought to us by Stephen. Thank you Stephen. Everyone have a great day!
This article was originally written some months ago pertaining to the events of the day, unfortunately, due to certain technical difficulties it was not posted in a timely fashion. However, in light of recent events dealing with Iran, it is somewhat topical again if rather tangential to the current state of affairs. Rest assured, there will be a fresh new post next week.)
Recent news about allegations coming from our government that Iran was behind an attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-prices-rise-saudi-arabia-attack-blamed-by-us-on-iran-trump-strategic-petroleum-reserve-today-2019-09-16/ “The Houthis, the Iran-aligned rebel army that has been fighting a Saudi-led military coalition in neighbouring Yemen for the past four years, claimed responsibility for the attack.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/16/saudi-arabia-oil-attacks-everything-you-need-to-know However, the Saudis claim that there is not sufficient evidence to overtly blame Iran for the attack despite their suspicions and inclinations.
Many took to social median to decry the attack and push the idea that this attack Saudi Arabia, more specifically on the vital oil interests of Saudi Arabia upon which the world relies, should be sufficient provocation for the United States to go to war with the state of Iran.
One should always be mindful of the greater and more abstract philosophical questions rather than getting caught up in the emotions of the moment, to let cooler heads prevail and inquire seriously upon the intricate questions of diplomacy, alliances, and hostilities.
My immediate reaction, as it often is, was rather contrary to the prevailing hawkish view, stating that merely because another country is attacked is never a sufficient reason to declare war upon the aggressor, that it is not America’s, or any other nation’s, duty to defend a nation from a third party.
Naturally, this is an oversimplification of a general principle and such universal statements ought to always be made with certain caveats and qualifications which greater time and length of discussion can further elucidate.
We are all too familiar with the notion of the NATO alliance and the principle upon which it is founded that an attack on one NATO ally will be deemed an attack on all of the NATO nations.
This of course has been problematic over the years, for instance American insistence on the admission of Turkey into NATO based on the idea that it was technically a European nation. Though it is mostly Anatolia, i.e. Asia Minor, the nation does extend into Europe just for one city, namely Byzantium, I mean Constantinopolis, make that Constantinople, or is it Istanbul these days, and the surrounding territory.
Turkey being the most technologically advanced of the Middle Eastern nations having a decently powerful military and was a useful thorn in the side of the Soviet Union, but it has never been exactly a modern enlightened nation akin to western nations. It has been through this backdoor to Europe that many of the “refugees” have invaded Europe seeking free stuff.
However, we all remember when the UK went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands where the US stood aside rather than take sides in a conflict between tow allies. Not just America but neither did any other NATO country get involved in the conflict. Clarifying the NATO principle is that it was a strategic alliance against the Soviet communist bloc, and not an absolute alliance against all conflicts.
When does the alliance of one nation obligate them to go to war with the enemies of their allies? When should it? President Washington warned our nation of getting entangled in European conflicts and intrigues, that our nation ought to remain as much as possible in our own tranquility to pursue our own interests.
There is an old guidance in our culture that one should not “punch down”, that is to take advantage of your power and position against weaker opponents. Thus a great nation which declares war, employs their military, or even engages in covert operations against a smaller weaker nation seems inherently wrong, like bullying.
No decent person wishes to pick on weak nations, not matter how obnoxious and bellicose their rhetoric may be, because you know their words are effectively meaningless and impotent. Further, you risk the good graces and opinion of more powerful nations, nations more viewed as your equals.
As for a small nation, they may wish through heated rhetoric to distract from their own internal problems by lashing out at a great nation in part because they know that their opinion will go unheeded and overlooked by the great nation. There is a reason Chavez went before the United Nations and alluded to Pres. Bush being the Devil rather than harangue their neighbors in Colombia or Peru.
When you insult a nation your own size, they might just take you seriously. If your rhetoric is taken seriously, that could lead to war. Being of comparable size and strength, you might lose a war with your peers. However, taunting a great nation is a mere annoyance and unlikely to elicit any real response.
Back during the cold war this situation came up again and again where the US would ally with one nation while their rival nation would ally with the Soviets just to maintain a balance of big brother power. America allied with Iran while the Soviets backed Iraq until the balance was upset by a fundamentalist usurpation in Iran.
Conflicts in and with such satellite nations, can sometimes invoke their powerful allies not into open conflict, but rather proxy wars where the large nations supply their respective sides support and armaments to engage in their conflict with their neighbors, or in a case like Spain, a civil war.
However, what should happen when one nation is allied with a powerful nation while engaging in a conflict or dispute with a nation their own size? If Iran starts a fight with Saudi Arabia, or even Israel, does the US have any moral obligation to come in on their side?
You have one nation with a larger military against another nation which has the larger economy but has chosen not to spend it on the military. The sides if it ends up in conflict are about equal. In a certain parlance, it’s a fair fight.
Why should we be involved? Do we have the moral right to interfere? How does getting involved serve our interests? If we were to get involved, would that justify another powerful nation coming to the aid of Iran, like China?
Not all regional conflicts need to point to a global free-for-all and a world war. Proxy wars are there to prevent the major powers from going at each other directly. A regional conflict between relatively equal powers ought to remain a conflict between those powers.
A nation which tries to police the world will quickly exhaust itself, not only financially but in manpower as well. The British Empire learned this lesson getting involved in regional conflicts around the world trying to prevent local conflagrations from growing and consuming greater powers. In the end, the British exhausted themselves, an empire dying the death of a thousand cuts. By the time the 20th Century rolled around, they were no longer the dominant world superpower they had been in the 19th Century.
It would be unwise for America to ignore these lessons of history and the moral lessons of reason to attempt to police the world and exhaust their citizenry on foreign ventures. Let America be unique among the great powers of history to resist the temptations of power, to remain tranquil and secure, to not try to attain world peace.
We must avoid the foolishness of the Ms. America diplomacy. It is an old cliché that every beauty pageant contestant always says that they “want world peace” as their answer in the interview portion of the pageant. It is the nature of the tyrants of empire to try to impose “world peace” upon an unwilling world, to not only recreate the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, but to extend that to the entire world.
Few people remember that such was the goal of Adolf Hitler. Surprised? He spoke of peace more frequently and more vehemently than any other ruler in history. Oh, but “he was just lying” you say. Except that he wasn’t. He believed that conflict was caused by racial and ethnical differences, so by creating a powerful and unified Germanic state he thought to end wars in the future. Every dictator wants to end wars by being the only one in charge, the natural problem being that quite a few of the other seven billion people also want to be in charge.
It is a little ironic that those who most seek “peace” seek to impose it by force and create just the opposite, but those who are wise enough to tolerate the existence of conflict without trying to impose their desire to stop it actually manage to avoid greater conflicts. I suppose this comes down to me rejecting the declaration that I want “world peace”. I just want other people’s conflicts to remain theirs and not mine, to keep our nation out of conflict whenever possible.
Ergo, if Iran is found to attack Saudi Arabia, that is their business. If some nation attacks Israel, again that is their business. Short of being America being attacked, I see little reason to engage in foreign military ventures, with one exception. Only if China or Russia are the ones attacking an ally of America, then it becomes our business.
