Are We Really More Humane Than Others?

In Response to some of things my friends have posted on this site

Discussions on America’s role in the world often turn on twin assumptions that if we don’t act, someone else will, and they will make things worse. 

Such assumptions rest on a further belief—the superiority of our methods and motives in using power, often military, to force people to comply with our plans for their lives. 

I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around this in a more general sense, leaving specific examples for more detailed analysis.

Our government, in part at least, represents the interests of our economic elites.  (They provide most of the campaign money for the people who run in our elections.)

I think we can assume that as flawed humans their motives are mixed as they make and implement decisions that affect the lives of people in far corners of the world. 

What’s best for America?  What’s best for the planet? What’s best for their own and their allies’ economic interests?  What’s best for their own wellbeing and careers?   

Each motive tends to overlap with others, but not withstanding some nuanced differences, it is hard for me to believe that the governing elites of other nations are, or would be, different.  People everywhere are much the same when they are tested in action.  There are a lot of reasons why we often talk as if Americans are better than other peoples—in their moral vision and wisdom (know-how).  But a neutral reading of history doesn’t support this ideal. 

I’m not attacking the intelligence or integrity of those who believe in such an “American Exceptionalism,” not least because I have probably sounded this way myself.  Nevertheless, let’s acknowledge that it is largely a myth. (There are extreme cases and the Taliban are perhaps such an example. At least their likelihood to stay in power for any length of time and their actual role in governing a land of war lords would require further analysis.)

Perhaps there is another way in which we can justify military interventions? While accepting that we are no more altruistic than others, is it possible that we might have less reason to exploit those that we control?  Let’s say that county X has a rare mineral and we have less need for it, or have more alternative sources, than other States.  Might we not, therefore, be less ruthless in obtaining it? Or not? Perhaps this is too simplistic an example?

Or perhaps our occupying forces will be more disciplined and treat those that they control with more decency.  Perhaps, but again history doesn’t come to our aid.

Or are we likely to be more considerate of traditional beliefs, less demanding that an occupied people (because this is what we are talking about –boots on the ground) accept our values and serve our God(s)?  Not, I imagine, if you accept the fact that our Gods are secular values offered to others with a good deal of old fashioned religious zeal.   

On the whole, our puppet regimes have been as corrupt and self-serving as any other.  Puppet regimes? In those states where we support governments that share our global economic and security objectives, leaders receive both formal and informal assistance to retain power. 

Their regimes become what social scientists call rentier states, societies where the government receives sufficient outside financing that it can exist without dependence upon internal financial support, i.e. without a genuine democratic culture.

Be critical, therefore, of the argument that our military or diplomatic incursions are “rescues” from worse alternatives.