Over
the past few years, Syria has known little other than upheaval, chaos and
anarchy, only further perpetuated by dictator Basshar al-Assad. As a result,
population has diminished due to Syria citizens fleeing in search for a better
life, while crime has sky rocketed because of short-handed law enforcement.
Likewise, Syria’s been reduced to 45% its original economy, as its agricultural,
construction, oil, and tourism industries plummeted drastically. It appears
that until peace is restored in this unsettled nation is restored, any chances
of growth are minimal.
America,
being the superpower that it is, has chosen to step into the civil war. The
government aims to behead the current Syrian regime and to provide its citizens
with a chance to operate under democracy, not unlike it did in Iraq and other
Middle Eastern nations. There has been extensive speculation as to what the
American government’s motives are in intervening—whether President Obama is
attempting to distract the American people from the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, etc. or
if we are simply trying to not look weak in this situation.
Though
I generally side with Smith, Hume and company on the morality argument—that
people generally do good selflessly for the sake of others—I believe that
America’s involvement with the Syria conflicts is mainly done through
self-interest, as our man Bernard Mandeville would likely suggest. Perhaps the government is
seeking to resolve this in an attempt to minutely work towards world peace;
regardless, America benefits from being involved in foreign affairs. Syria has
a number of desirable commodities (which is presumably the reason we pledged an
alliance with the Middle Eastern nation in the first place), and protecting the nation from itself
will economically promote us domestically. Conversely, the alternative—to stay
out of the Syria conflicts—would also be done out of self-interest by these
standards, as the United States would save money and avoid casualties, while
Syria burns. It is difficult to identify the government’s true motives, but
regardless, assisting another country in need is America’s humanitarian duty,
and the world will be better off with a more peaceful Syria.
Cullen,
ReplyDeleteI didn't think the United States would intervene so that they can get something out of it in the end. That's a great connection between Mandeville and how the United States could possible be looking for a "reward" after they finish their job in Syria. It doesn't sound good but it is a very true reason that should be taken into account. I don't believe the United States would get involved for the sole reason of receiving something in the end but it is a very good point to realize, a point that I didn't at the time. I think that you made two great points, both of ones that I didn't see. Another great point you made was on how the United States would save casualties, lives, and money, another selfish move. Very interesting blog.
John McDaid
Cullen and John, you are both hitting on a view sometimes called "realism." It's the view that the primary concerns in international relations is (and should be) national interests. Here the idea is not so much to extoll selfishness, because nations do not actually have vanity, pride, and self-love (although citizens can of course be vain about their nations) but simply to argue that it makes no sense to think in terms of what altruistic behavior would look like for a nation. Sacrificing a whole nation for a higher cause is different from sacrificing a person, so this idea goes, so it is better to advance interests, and to help others only when it helps ourselves (otherwise, things are just a zero sum game, trading benefits for harms and making the world no better off on the whole). I think this view has to be taken seriously on some level, and it's interesting to think what it would mean.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting how you related Mandeville to today's current fiasco with Syria. America has two options that can both lead to an interpretation of selfishness. I think outsiders should consider that before adding their opinion into the ongoing debate. I agree with you in saying that America should adhere to their humanistic duties. Great blog!
ReplyDelete