Syria Provokes an American Anxiety: Is U.S. Power Really So Special? By Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, New York Times
What to do about Syria?
It is an urgent problem that has consumed foreign policy discussions for the last few years. But much more is involved than the fate of a single country in the Middle East. Underlying the Syria issue is a set of questions that have animated every major debate over foreign policy for a century: What is America’s role in the world, what are its obligations, and what happens if it falls short of meeting them?
One strain of thought holds that America has a mission to champion democracy and human rights, granting it a unique role in the world, along with special powers and obligations. But that idea has always been controversial, with skeptics arguing it is an alluring myth — and a potentially dangerous notion.
Joseph S. Nye Jr., a Harvard political scientist, said the Syrian war, like previous conflicts, had become a surrogate for this debate.
“That’s a recurring theme throughout our history,” Professor Nye said, “going back to the founding myths that the Americans are different.” …
Comments
Modified significantly from by earlier effort:
Part I:
I suggest the following 1993 document as a possible guide to understanding America's foreign policy and grand strategy for the past 100 years and, especially, since the Old Cold War:
Excerpt:
"In such a world, our interests and ideals compel us not only to be engaged, but to lead. And in a real-time world of change and information, it is all the more important that our leadership be steadied around our central purpose.
That purpose can be found in the underlying rationale for our engagement throughout this century. As we fought aggressors and contained communism, our engagement abroad was animated both by calculations of power and by this belief: to the extent democracy and market economics hold sway in other nations, our own nation will be more secure, prosperous and influential, while the broader world will be more humane and peaceful.
The expansion of market-based economics abroad helps expand our exports and create American jobs, while it also improves living conditions and fuels demands for political liberalization abroad. The addition of new democracies makes us more secure because democracies tend not to wage war on each other or sponsor terrorism. They are more trustworthy in diplomacy and do a better job of respecting the human rights of their people.
These dynamics lay at the heart of Woodrow Wilson's most profound insights; although his moralism sometimes weakened his argument, he understood that our own security is shaped by the character of foreign regimes. Indeed, most Presidents who followed, Republicans and Democrats alike, understood we must promote democracy and market economics in the world -- because it protects our interests and security; and because it reflects values that are both American and universal.
Throughout the Cold War, we contained a global threat to market democracies; now we should seek to enlarge their reach, particularly in places of special significance to us."
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html
Part II:
Colonialism, in earlier times, provided the manner by which the outlying states, societies and civilizations of the world might be "transformed" -- so as to better provided for the wants, needs and desires of the Western/capitalist/trading world.
(Schumpeter: "Where cultural backwardness of a region makes normal economic intercourse dependent on colonization, it does not matter, assuming free trade, which of the civilized nations undertakes the task of colonization.")
(Sir Adam Roberts: The idea of achieving the transformation of a society through a military intervention is far from new. It was a key element in much European colonialism ... ")
But America has always thought that colonialism was the wrong way to approach this problem -- of (a) the outlying states and societies of the world not being (b) adequately organized, ordered and oriented so as to better provide for the wants, needs and desires of the Western/capitalist/trading world. And, thus, America determined to address this problem by way of our formal "transformation" of these outlying states and societies; this, more along our modern western political, economic, social and value lines.
It is to this end that the U.S./the West, for the past century, has hoped/attempted to apply -- in some meaningful and lasting way -- its instruments of power and persuasion.
Part III:
Bottom Line:
a. Might we best contemplate the question: "Is U.S. Power Really So Special?" (Or, more correctly, so necessary?)
b. In the context of the thoughts provided in my final two -- Part II -- paragraphs above?