I hear you. I think you raise valid points, and important ones. That being said, and maybe this is just me being too pessimistic or not being idealistic enough, but I have a deep skepticism about the efficacy of most suggested military responses to these sorts of crises. Don’t get me wrong; there is a part of me that really, really wants to send in the flag and kick butt and take names, and yes, I do think on a moral level Rwandan or Syrian lives are worth the same as American lives. Whether that’s a viable argument to persuade people about national policy is another question, as many will argue that a nation’s priorities have to, by nature, put their own people ahead of others. I do think you can make a case for a more ecumenical approach, but it won’t be easy.
But my real concern is that when we speculate about how possible or practical military intervention might be, we are often IMO quite wrong. Did we have a lot of military power in 1996? Sure. But a crisis like Rwanda requires very specific types of power, in that case, strategic lift and logistical support sufficient to project a very large mobile force into the heart of a vast continent on very short notice. It varies, but our actual ability to put large numbers of “boots on the ground” places is often far less than people would like, or are aware of. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the rather hefty strategic reserves we used to keep, nowadays it’s hard to scrape up more than a brigade or regimental combat team for short notice deployment, with all the trimmings, AFAIK. I am not 100% up on stuff any more, so it could be different, but the trends have been down, not up, in terms of forces on hand ready to move in large numbers. And Rwanda IMO would have taken a lot of people.
Ditto for Syria. The force we have in abundance is stuff like cruise missiles and air sorties. Not the most useful for seriously affecting what happens in a complex environment. Helpful, even essential, but not sufficient, again IMO. But the bigger problem in Syria is, who do you help? Hell, Assad is a horrible monster, no doubt about it. He’s also probably the only reason a bunch of minority groups in Syria haven’t been eradicated by their countrymen–Druze, Alawites, Shiites, who knows who else. The people opposing him have damn good reason to oppose him, but too often also feel they have damn good reasons to hate everyone else, too. If you believe all Syrians who aren’t actively being war criminals deserve safety and support–and that’s certainly a good thing to believe–you have to figure out a way to intervene that doesn’t simply substitute one set of victims for another.
One could argue, I suppose, that no matter what it’d be better than the status quo, because (supposing we could muster the force/support/will to intervene with the power necessary) we’d at least be trying to stabilize things. I remain skeptical that such a balancing act is possible in the modern US diplomatic and military landscape. I think we’d just make it worse, though I fully understand that as bad as it is already, it’s not unreasonable to argue that any change might be better.
But on the broader point you make, yes, I have to agree–the cavalier manner in which Americans view everything solely in terms of US national interest–and usually in a very shallow and often counter-productive way–is more than annoying. It’s disturbing, not the least because it does not work. If constant intervention, manipulation, and domination of others in the US interest was actually effective, we would be a frickin’ powerful empire with obedient satraps and docile viceroys everywhere. But that ain’t the case. Our meddling is usually counterproductive, so even from a purely utilitarian point of view it’s a bad idea. Pick and choose and do it well, which in effect means do it on a limited basis, because if you try to just generically and reflexively muck around everywhere, you won’t be very successful, as we’ve seen.
Morally? Nation states do have a somewhat different moral landscape than individuals; they have to spy on others, and do things that individuals would not be expected to do. But I wholeheartedly agree that it is unhealthy to create an international environment where nations can justify anything in the name of national interest. What the USA never stops to think about is that, if we can argue it’s ok because 'Murica, others will argue that what they do is ok because of whatever jingoistic nickname they have for themselves. Of course, we view all other nations as effectively invalid and meaningless.
When I worked with the military and intelligence community, it was during the Cold War. The stuff I was focused on was pretty mainstream–no Contras or narco-terrorists or fixed elections or what not. Just the USSR and its military establishment. But even then, there was a lot that made me uncomfortable, and I’m pretty happy I’m long gone from that sort of environment.
