Y'know, we've been bouncing back and forth about whether America should do this or that, or if Bush is good or bad, or if such-and-such a policy is wise or disastrous, etc. And it strikes me that we chat about these questions, lay out arguments, make solid points, completely fail to reach a compromise, and then walk away convinced that we're still right and the other fella's inexplicably blind to our flawless logic.

So maybe we should ask a foundational question: What are America's national interests?

I'm not asking "what are any given country's national interests" - that's too abstract, and most of our discussions focus on American policy anyway.

Surely we can agree that the "American national interest" is not synonomous with "world interest". Nor is the American national interest synonomous with "the interest of any given American citizen" or "the interest of General Motors". Nor, presumably, is the national interest synonomous with "the wishes of 50.1% of the population", since people and presidents can mistake what is truly good for the nation. (We have whole threads dedicated to proving that proposition!) Nor even necessarily is the national interest synonomous with a particular religion or even "the moral right" - well, Aristotle would think it is, but he's not on these boards. And it's probably true that "national interest" is not just one single focus (justice! or love! or freedom! or etc.!) but a range of priorities.

I suspect that if we laid out clearly and cleanly what we personally believe to be America's true national interests, a lot of our very real disagreements would be clarified. Not solved, but at least we'd better understand each other. We might find that our arguments over policy are actually arguments over ends, not means. Or we might come to agree that such-and-such a policy is indeed in the American interest but not in the world's interest (or Microsoft's interest, or my personal interest, or the interest of our own country, or whatever).

In the spirit of Death Rabbit, I will refrain from presenting my interpretation 'til others have had a chance to offer their views. Make us proud!

Good Thread, GM. IMO, the national interest of any nation is best served through the virtue of its people. Government is nothing more but the collective force of society. When virtue is missing, the government will be belligerent and oppressive. But when knowledge and virtue are commonplace among its population, there will be a longing for peace and a love for liberty.

If we can agree on this, then the national interest should be how the intellect and moral character of our society can be improved upon and better fashioned. In other words, national security begins best in our own backyards.

[Breaking out his cynical hat] @ Chandos - it's a nice theory, but people in groups act differently than individuals. While many, if not most, people individually like peace and virtue, my cynical side says people in groups act like a bunch of frat boys with a little too much beer - they revel in power and enjoy wielding it.

Sorry for the off-topic bit. As far as America's interests, they vary when looked at on the micro- level and they vary over time. For example, at the micro- level, our economic ties to China make sense now, but did not during the Cold War. Our present position as a creditor to numerous "third world" nations does not make much sense given our deficit and general economic position when looked at from a purely present-day economic perspective, but, if it's put in terms of R&D, it makes a lot of sense to prop up certain nations.

Many people on this board look at our connections to Israel and claim that they add a further destabilizing factor to the Middle East. That may be true, but our interests in the Middle East include having an ally that we know we can rely on through the shifting tides of politics. As is obvious from the fact that the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and as further made obvious by the attacks on Americans through the Middle East, no arab country can actually be counted as a completely solid ally. Also, we have an ostensible interest in protecting any kind of "democracy" we find, as that is our stated preferred method of government (please, no Gore in 2000 comments).

This, however, is really all micro- stuff. On the macro- level, we have one interest - protecting our country and ensuring its continued existence in all arenas: political, economic, and even military. We presently wield the biggest stick and, like every other country in the past that was in the same position, we strive to make sure that the country survives and flourishes. However, our leadership is often misguided (wrong information) and even more often does not properly act on accurate information. Thus, to many our actions appear to be the instinctive reactions of a giant bitten by a mosquito -- we over-react and often do more harm than good. The question is, however, who is suffering the harm? In a Darwinian amoral fashion, anything we do that benefits us at the expense of others is not a bad thing -- to us.

The problem with that is that it's short-sighted and assumes a permanent place as the country with the biggest stick. Realistically, we all know that that is just not the case. The further problem is that everything we do is done by humans, which includes human error. Thus, I think most of us agree that starting the war in Iraq based on [ahem] suspect "intelligence" wasn't a good thing. That being said, one result, the removal of Hussein, is generally viewed as a good thing. Whether it ultimately will actually be a good thing is less certain. It may be that removing Hussein leads to the creation of a theocracy which may spin off even more terrorists that do more damage to us than we suffered in 9/11. I really find it difficult to believe that Iraq was ever going to seriously pose a threat to us, but Bush managed to convince himself and a decent portion of the populace that it was the case. Who knows, maybe it was going to be a threat.

This leads me to my last point. America's "interests" are probably different that what we think they are. When looked at through the lens of history (not history books -- those are creative fiction most of the time), we will probably find that what we think our interest are vary quite significantly from the interests themselves.

Sorry for the ramble, but I think it's an interesting theoretical exercise and will probably lead to some interesting opinions being shared.

I don't really want to touch on the issue of "moral character", it brings up the endemic crux of who's morals...yours, mine, a Fundamental Christian, a Secular Humanist, a Wiccan? It's a veritable Pandora's box, best left shut (or devoted to another thread :rolleyes: )

I will comment on your other goal, that of developing the intellect of the society. Noble cause, in fact history is full of civilizations which have prized and sought to develop learning, intellect and culture. Unfortunately, we know little about those civilizations as they were ground under the boots of conquering aggressors , who subsequently rewrote history and eradicated any memory of the fine accomplishemnts of the vanquished! Societal intellect is a nice ideal, and should never be ignored, but if it is paramount, then that intellect becomes the property of the stronger culture. Societal intellect should be nurtured and cherished but never put ahead of the primary objective of the American national interest.

The American national interest is to secure LIFE , LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS for Americans. This is where it must start. This is the entire purpose for the founding of any sovreign nation. Each of those three items can open up limitless avenues of conversation as to what they mean, but if you start there, every action that the Nation makes in support of those items will be just, defensible and sensible.

*steps off soapbox and hands it to the next person in line*

edit: While I was writing this, DMC was posting his thoughts, which in many ways say the same thing I am saying. Gotta be a little quicker next time!

I'd say America is like a giant corporation. What is a corporation's interests? : To grow and become more wealthy and powerful. The populus is like the shareholders. They become pissed when the corporation does not do the above. (Of course, they're pissed no matter what.) It really doesn't matter who is the world power, everyone is going to judge them without mercy (not to mention unfairly). Me included. It's like a hockey game. The people sitting on the couch yell and scream at the TV because the player didn't pass to center so they could score, or because the goalie was too slow. The guys on the couch are probably fat and slow and can't skate, or don't own a hockey stick, but they still consider it their right to call the players idiots and say "man, what a loser! That guy can't play hockey. Why did they sign him?" The thing about it is, it is their right. Those hockey players wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for those fat, lazy slobs on the couch. Just like the fatcats in Washington (or any other city) wouldn't have jobs if nobody lived in America. Now, I know this rant probably makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but it's our right as human beings to be critical and to complain about our polititions. It's been like that from the beginning of time.

I know you're asking "what's the point?" Well, the point is: It doesn't matter whether it's the UK, America, Russia or China who is the world power... everyone who isn't in the limelight gets totally ignored, while the people in it are being scrutinized and sized-up and getting called names.

You know what. Nevermind. I have no idea what I'm talking about. :)

I agree that you should quote one of the "Founding Brothers" of the American nation, HS, in speaking on the national interest. Since you say that "Life, Liberty and Happiness" is the main function of government, let me quote another of the Founding Brothers and one of the signers of the orginal document (by Thomas Jefferson) from which you quoted:

"The preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people. As long as knowledge and virtue are generally diffused among the body of a nation, it is impossible they should be enslaved." - John Adams

[ October 25, 2003, 08:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Hey Mystra, anyone who can boil down the National Interest to the parameters of a sporting event is OK by me! Sports is really just a microcosm of society as a whole.

@Chandros (this is getting to be a habit!) We remember John Adam's quote and can cherish it through subsequent generations because WE WON!. We had just gotten done securing our freedom, and had the liberty to wax poetic. If we had not won our war for Independence, John Adams would have been hung as a traitor to the Crown, and we would be reading the historical decrees of fatherly King George!

I think every nation has the same national interest. Peace (=safety) and prosperity of it's people and most nations state these things in their constitution as main goal.

National interest has an internal and an external side, which in the end are entwined. Internal ? To get a 4-party system. What would I see as the external national interest of the Americans ? I think DMC's post is great.

As for me, I'd say it would be in their best interest to promote democracy and trade. As it would to lead to more prosperity and peace (safety) outside of their borders and, as consequence, to more of those two inside their borders. My interpretation of things is, that it is not the case in the moment. Indeed, I think if they continue like this, I think they're is even remote (very, very remote) the danger of being torn apart like the Spanish-Empire (which once was very mighty indeed), with no friends but only enemies. Which I think would not be good for anyone.

I will comment on your other goal, that of developing the intellect of the society. Noble cause, in fact history is full of civilizations which have prized and sought to develop learning, intellect and culture. Unfortunately, we know little about those civilizations as they were ground under the boots of conquering aggressors , who subsequently rewrote history and eradicated any memory of the fine accomplishemnts of the vanquished! Like the Greeks fell victim to the Macedonians and Romans. Yet their books are somehow not forgotten. Or the Hebrews were utterly crushed and send into diaspora, yet their special brand of monotheistic religion took on many varieties and spread all-over. Or the Chinese, which build a huge wall to save them from conquerors, which conquered them anyhow. And they seized the oppurtinity to turn the conquerors to Chinese. Or the Romans, which fell in the end to a not stopping wave of migrant-tribes. Which then went great lengths to rewrite history and make it look like the bright light of the Romans would shine on them, taking their titles and claiming succession. renovatio imperii romani.

Your point is well taken, but there is a common thread to all the civilizations that you mentioned...they were all conquerors in their own rights. Alexander controlled the largest empire the world had yet known. If the Greeks had never survived the City-state period and not developed into a world power, would we still be reading the plays or Sophocles or the writings of Aristotle, or would they have been lost? Classical Greek culture survived for us to study today because it survived two-plus millenia ago. It spread, it proliferated due to conquest. As a result when the Greek empire crummbled under Roman expansion, it had become so deeply entrenched throughout the known world that it did not whither. Even Octavian attended schools in Greece.

The Hebrew monotheism survived a diaspora because it brought a truly unique message to a primitive world..."There is a God...He is not you...you can hope for eternal bliss in the prescence of God" This was unprecedented in a polytheistic and natural religion world.

Roman legacy persists because of the special Roman outlook and efficiency of governing conquered territories. Too much to go into now, but all the examples you cited were able to leave a gift to the world of intellect and culture because they were first able, in each their own way, to survive and promote first the basic interest of the nation and citizens. China has always shown a remarkable ability to be conquered and turn the conquerors into Chinese...not sure how they do that...needs more thought.

Dacians, Minoans, Ionians, Chaldeans, Carthaginians, Hittites, Assyrians...the list on the other side of the ledger is much longer...of cultures that have been lost in the shuffle of time. I doubt that the major differences between these and the others mentioned as survivors was a relative difference in societal intellect. If I have gotten too far :yot: , run me through with any suitable bronze farming implement!

:yot: I do not know, if this is really off-topic. As the past somehow determines the way the present and future is seen.

Well, your points are not deniable. But I am not sure, as for celts for example, that the la-tène culture really is completly vanished. I think quite the opposite. It just didn't leave written things, except for city names maybe. And even it's only things like the carneval in Venice and the Oktoberfest in Bavaria. Even if there was a huge imput of greek-culture, again.

But I think that the main factor about the greeks was, that they were merchants. Leaving their mountainous homes on ships and settling all over the mediterranian, likes frogs on a pond. Their downfall came with the peloponnesian wars, leaving them defensless versus the Macedonians. The Macedonians themselves fell out on eachother. But still, greek colonies like Marseilles still exist. They did never stop to exist. The people lived on, doing econmical great, even if their former political entities disappeared and were replaced by others. (That is, in the west, everything did bad in the dark-ages).

And the Sassanid-Empire and the Byzantine Emprie did gave eachother a hard-time, until they were both lying bleeding around, easy prey for the Arabs, coming their way. Yet, too, both cultures were absorbed by their conquerors.

Ideas which have there own merit will not vanish. Nor has the changing of political entities a huge impact. Much more important is economical decline, not so much caused by the entities themselves, but more caused by the changes taking place around them.

To the Chinese: I think there trick is to write in prictures and not in phonetics. If we would have the same system, I wouldn't have to bother learning English grammar and spelling.

Is American national interest a monolith? That is to say, can we truly pin down what is in the best interests of the nation without consulting all this hullaboo the politicians talk about when they say they know what's good for America... I would argue the average American can't perceive or doesn't care about our country's standing occupation in Iraq, its goals, or the interests of the MNCs like Halliburton who have inexplicably won all the reconstruction bids without contest.

When considering questions of national interest, I think a more pertinent and direct question would be, what do the leaders want? There can be a great disparity between what the leadership desires and what the constituency desires.

So maybe we ought to be more specific... subjectively, what was good for GM was indeed good for the US when they passed the Federal Highway Act. It created many hyperspecialized industries and many jobs for the economy. But then the environmentalists will tell you that massive commute will contribute to an apocalyptic meltdown of the polar ice caps.

@Yago

Macedonians were Greeks as well, they weren't a different nation. Also, the Byzantine empire was conquered by the Turks not by Arabs and the byzantine culture was not absorbed by the turks, it managed to survive in the greek-orthodox church.

dmc wrote:

On the macro- level, we have one interest - protecting our country and ensuring its continued existence in all arenas: political, economic, and even military. This is close to what I think but I'd add one, maybe substantial, change. I think America's interests go beyond maintaining its existence in the political, economic, and military arenas and extends to maintaining dominance in each arena where it is dominant and seeking dominance in each arena that it is not. (note that maintaining dominance doesn't mean pissing on everyone else).

I’m going to go back to Chandos’s first post. Chandos talked about what the national interest should be. IMO, that’s not what this topic is about; rather it’s about what the national interest is, which is not necessarily the same thing.

dmc made the comment that groups “revel in power and enjoy wielding it”. This is basically what Laches said above, except he worded it differently. In the case of the U.S., as an outsider, it appears to me that dmc and Laches are right. How often have we heard the U.S. proudly say that “we are the greatest nation on the earth”? And how many times has Bush said that he “expects” some person or nation to behave in a certain way, as if that person or nation should actually care about what Bush expects? This is the behaviour of a nation that wants to dominate. And it is only natural that they should want to do so. Going back to Mystra’s sports analogy, a dominant individual or team wants to continue with, and improve on, its dominance. Similarly, as the most powerful nation in the world today, it makes sense that the U.S. would want to increase its power; after all, nobody actually wants to become weaker.

For Canada, while U.S. dominance is not necessarily seen as good per se, it is also not such a big deal since our two nations are so closely tied together; to a lesser extent, the same can probably be said for much of Europe. However, this desire to dominate is what some parts of the world fear about the U.S., and it is partly why the U.S. is hated so by the people in those areas. And then there is that danger encapsulated by the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Edit: corrected spelling of Chandos's name (I apparently have the same affliction as Hacken Slash - see below)

[ October 26, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Splunge ]

Laches - I meant existence in its present sense (i.e., dominance). It was after 11:00 p.m. and I was tired. Thanks for the correction.

:yot: I know I have an off-topic notoriety

Macedonians were Greeks as well, they weren't a different nation. Also, the Byzantine empire was conquered by the Turks not by Arabs and the byzantine culture was not absorbed by the turks, it managed to survive in the greek-orthodox church. Macedonians: We could settle on, the southerners held the northerners not in high-esteem ?

Byzantine-Empire: I meant that the Arabs had nearly the complete eastern-hellinistic world on a silver plate, i.e. taking control of Persia, Syria, Egypt (and N-Africa). And immediately started to absorb (i.e. translating it into arabic, adding arabic numbers) the culture they found there. Keeping former provinces of their empire defintely out of reach for the Byzantines.

On topic: The point is, how long is it realisticly possible for the Americans to keep their dominance, if this is truly their national interest ? By having two huge countries (India, China) as competitors ? Isn't it in the end unavoidable to be outgrown by them, as the Americans have outgrown the UK ? I think relative decline is unavoidable. But in the end, if it's not absolute decline, why worry about it ?

You know, at this point, I'd be real happy with just being able to run around the block without having to worry about people shooting at me. But then, I would think that my children would also like that same freedom. And their children. And so on, and so forth...

At some point, someone actually has to get some work done instead of hiding in the gym or wine cellar.

Sports is really just a microcosm of society as a whole.
Yes, and everything that's wrong with it!

On topic: The point is, how long is it realisticly possible for the Americans to keep their dominance, if this is truly their national interest ? By having two huge countries (India, China) as competitors ? Isn't it in the end unavoidable to be outgrown by them, as the Americans have outgrown the UK ? I think relative decline is unavoidable. But in the end, if it's not absolute decline, why worry about it ? Interesting point. Certainly by sheer population size, both India and China would seem to be able to simply "outgrow" the US. China in particular has experienced so much growth in manufacturing in the last generation it is a little daunting. Try to find any childrens toy that is not made in China. Even the recent success of the Chinese Space Program shows a certain level of high tech success (although, bear in mind, that they are roughly where the US and the USSR were in @ 1961 and have utilized groundbreaking techology already developed by either nation) I think that the ultimate achilles heel for China will be the very fact that it will never truly become a prosperous manufacturing giant without a Democratic form of government. Interesting that it might serve the US interests more for China to remain a cooperative Communist country than a competitive Democracy!

India I see as a little less threat to American security and growth. They are confronted with the fundamental hurdle of having to develop an effective agricultural sector to feed themselves to stop being a net importer of food. A nation of that many people will always have a significant trade imbalance until such is done. A few cultures have attained world dominance with a complete dependence on imported food (Rome and Great Britain come to mind), but usually a healthy agricultural production is the first step of a manufacturing nation.

I fear that we are sliding off the original topic, however. GM asked what America's interests were. I still feel that they are best named as the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans. Barring any serious differences to those three, maybe we should begin with them and try to define exactly what they are.

I'm sorry, Chandros, what did you say? I was busy watching the ball game :p .

Yes, you must have been, because in the process you misplaced your reading skills (this condition might be induced by watching too much sports). Try Chandos, instead of "Chandros."

Actually, I inserted the "r" intentionally. It is meant to incorporate your sub-name "the red" into your primary name "Chandos". That way I can recognize both your sur-name and your designated appellation in many fewer letters allowing me to more quickly return to my sports and malt liquor. If you believe that, let's talk about some real-estate.

Ah, yes. I'm glad that you mentioned that a ball game is on. It might be baseball, hopefully. Since I have been having trouble falling asleep the last few nights, there is nothing like baseball for a good cure. All I need to do is turn on a baseball game, and I'll be asleep in no time. Isn't it like the World Series, or some such nonsense? ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.

Back on topic, I was mistaken about the thread, since I had thought it was supposed to be a debate about what each of us thought the national interest should be. And as it appears I was wrong, I will just leave this thread to the "might is right" gang of cynics and their "dreams of empire building." As Napoleon said: "God is on the side of the big battalions."

Come on you two this is the serious debate forum. Save your little dances for elsewhere.

I apologize to everyone for bogging down a good thread into mud-slinging. If/when I ever get an avatar with a sub-title, I may call myself "Thread Killer". Back on topic, I think that everyone can agree, at least in one form or another, that internal/external security has to be part of the National Interest. I think we would likely disagree as to how security is defined, but we should try. What does it mean and what measures are appropriate to obtain security.

Just recently there has been a general outcry against the Patriot Act. Are we giving up too much of our hard fought Liberty in exchange for security? Does US security over ride the rights of other sovreign nations? I'll probably have more to say later, just trying to get this topic recusitated.

Just a quick comment to refocus the thread: we're trying to discern America's interests, not its lusts. Maybe, as Laches wrote, America really is trying to gain and/or maintain dominance in every relevant arena. But is that an interest, or a lust? An example: a man might have a legitimate interest in being married to one woman, but a self-destructive lust for every woman within reach (save the Schwarzenegger jokes for the other thread). Or a man might have a legitimate appetite for culinary delicacies, but wanton gluttony is hardly in that man's true interest. Is American dominance a legitimate American interest - indeed, is dominance the legitimate interest of ANY nation - or is it a lust for power that, for historical and ideological reasons, America is the nation most able to indulge?

Thanks GM for brimgimg us back to task :) And I have to agree most heartily that the slating of lusts, be the of dominance or of accumulation, are neither the true interests of the country, nor in the interests of that country.

This said, I also cannot find a single thing Chandos has stated that I find any reason to disagree with.

I am appalled that some of you see the rising of prosperity in other countries as a threat to yourself. That is nothing short of disgraceful, though I perfectly understand why you may think this, it is afterall, the way "America" sustains itself, and I do not fault for it. In times of hostility I could see this as the case, but who really does America think it's at war with?

Let me state my case, and I'm sure you will all agree.

The interests of the country (regardless of the pursuits of those who attempt to lead it) are in short, the interests of the collective members of that country, because if the country fails to address these, then it has failed in its sole purpose. A body of people who share a geographical area, and have agreed to share a political one.

What good is trying to attain dominance or even longevity if the people in that country suffer because of it? What good that the name lives on while the people do not? The country may have sustained itself, but it would do so regardless, perhaps even bettering itself, and as cost for this needless tampering the people lose out. The interests of the country is only that its people are benefitted by its actions, and the people's therefore is, as has allready been laid out, the furthering of moral and intellectual abilty, the perfection of self of every member in that country, with the government existing only to serve those people, not to control them. Thus the people prosper, and share that prosperity with all who come in contact with them.

And yes, to try to attain hollow benefits at the detriment of others, or the decimation of elsewhere, is not in any of our best interests, because it harms us even more than it does them, as would be seen by a country in which its people's interests were served.

So we have perhaps defined what the interests of the people are, but as many of you have pointed out, this is not what they believe their interests to be, this is a problem of language more than any other, but it is true that the majority of the people pursue that which does them the most harm (like the self-destructive lust of the man as GM pointed out). As long as this continues, then the populous will continue blinding itself, and stabbing itself in the chest, while those who have achieved what they previously pursued turn their attentions to what else they may attain.

Perhaps what America as a whole (not just it's regime leaders), should be pursuing is the downfall of the bodies corporate and legislate, for only then I feel will they be able to see they have not been serving their interests at all.

Or maybe they'll just ignore their own slow deaths and slumber in front of the ball game. ;)
This too, in fact serves their best interests, for a country cannot sustain itself in this fashion for long, eventually falling in the only way able to shock such members to take responcibility.

Hacken Slash, with the internal security of each member comes the external security of the whole, and such can only be spoken of in terms of self-defense (as a whole, and in a widely diverging path of possibilities), not attack. It is in the mind, and I do not think that we have rights per se. In my mind, America is its own greatest enemy, and should adress the problems within its own regime before turning its attention to those of others, as can be seen by this patriot act.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted what this act is, could someone explain its outlines to me please?

A lot of what Manus wrote proceeds from this false premises:

I am appalled that some of you see the rising of prosperity in other countries as a threat to yourself. I missed that part. Take the economy - America may wish to remain a dominant force but in what way does that necessitate seing the rise of prosperity elsewhere as a threat? It isn't a zero sum game.

I think some may be knocking down strawmen - such as empire building, might makes right, fear of the prosperity of others etc.

Your contribution deserves a longer reply, Manus, but just as a quick aside, you wrote:

"The interests of the country...are in short, the interests of the collective members of that country."

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that. Maybe you could say that the interests of the country SHOULD be the interests of its members, but not necessarily that they ARE. Take another corporate body for an example - say, Microsoft. Is Microsoft's major interest that its programmers be well-fed? Or that its stockholders get fat dividends? Or that its customers be happy? Speaking purely theoretically, couldn't Microsoft starve its programmers, be stingy with its dividends, and have unhappy customers, and yet "succeed" in its very "Microsoftness"? In the long run, sure, Microsoft has to keep its programmers, owners, and customers happy. But isn't that happiness merely an incidental means to keep them onboard the Microsoft train?

Or another example: when a family joins together, a new family interest is formed which supercedes the interest of its individual members. What happens if the husband decides he'd rather dump his wife and kids for a fling with his secretary? Or more viciously: what if two teenagers mate and conceive an unwanted kid? Surely the interest of the fetus is survival, but that diverges sharply from the interest of the would-be parents to stay wild and free.

I'm not sure how one would prove that the collective interest is synonomous with the interests of each of the collective's individuals. Or more specifically, as posted earlier, that the collective interest equals the sum of each individual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Maybe an even MORE fundamental question is in order: Can there be any corporate interest that is more than the sum of its combined individual interests? Is a marriage only two people with a formal sex contract, or is it qualitatively different? Is a nation just a bunch of people who happen to live in an enclosed territory, or is it something more?

If we remove the people from the country there are no human interests left to consider.

Even the so-called interests of the country as a whole are in fact only the pursuits of those who have the immediate power to weild over their fellow citizens.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your original question. I has surmised at first that you meant "What are the goals of the leading factions of America, what is it that is pursued by those who are able to drive forward or convince the others to follow?"

After the way the discussion was leading, I realised I may have been wrong, and that you meant "What is it that is the most beneficial for the American nation to do?" And in this, the best way for the citizens to benefit (even those currently in power) is for that power structure to dissipate. Those who are defeated, while suffering short-term losses, will still benefit greatly over-all, while every-one else should begin to prosper further immediately.

Now I realise I may have been right in my first assumption, that is, the goal of those in charge. Well, as far as that goes I'm stumped.

If my argument was on track however, how can these goals benefit a country and not its people?

I think we have come across a language barrier here. I see a difference arising between interests (that which is to their greater good) and interests (that which is pursued, sic, what they are interested in). I spoke concerning the former, but I think you questioned concerning the latter.

Thus you are assuredly correct. A nation's interests (using the second definition) may very well benefit none of the people, and be signifigantly contrasted to their own interests (of any sort), so long as it is able to be directed that way by some individuals, regardless of any other considerations.

So I assume the correct question to answer is "What is it that America is directed towards by those who direct it?" Yes?

Well, this has been answered allready. Pride and fear causes the political and financial aims of the country to be to try and dominate whatever it can and to the enrichment of the lives of those in power (as they see it anyway, the enrichment that is). I will not believe for an instant that the national interest ever coincides or intersects any lofty aims of freedom-of any country, America or otherwise, or that these ideals are even held in any sort of esteem by those in (dominant) power. To me, any positive change is enacted more out of fear of losing that power than any solid desire to make things better. (@GM-I think this is what you meant by your example, right?)

There may be some who are perhaps trying to do the right thing, but they must be at least some-what misguided I feel, or they would not be so involved in such a corrupt means, whatever the ends- for very little positive change for the good of others is initiated in this manner, only the illusioned pursuit of benefit, and the inevitable detriment, of the self, regardless of the final result (everyone will learn at least something from their actions). And, nevertheless, the input of such people is next to negligible I feel, as is shown by the over-all "national interest" that we are displayed.

I don't even think those weilding such dominance care what is going on, as long as they are kept happy. It is very rare nowadays for anyone to be led by anyone else with a sincere interest in the well-being of others, especially so in the US where such people would be so at odds with the majority of the general populace, let alone the minority of wealthy elite who like things just the way they are.


Now, despite all this, I still believe that these "national interests" are still in the best interests of everyone individually because I take a progressive view of things. How does one know the danger of fire until one is burnt? Even to be warned of it, someone must have been burnt somewhere. This is not to say that things could not be changed for the better, only that if they are not, some amount of benefit can still be gleaned. This can however, be gained in a far more expedient, and far less painful manner- but some do so insist on learning things the hard way.

America has a couple of national interests, some of which are healthy, in a well understood interest to ensure regional stability and to prevent free trade flow to be disrupted by regional disputes. In the US thinking that means western style democracy (or pro-US despocy) are the best ways to achieve regional stability.
I for my part have my strong doubts that US-style democracy is a universal healer, much more as the US are not willing to allow others the full consequences of self-determination: That is to vote islamist or socialist if they want to. As long as US interests do not accept the consequences of the democracy US policy promotes so much - the US will act in contradiction to the proclaimed American ideals. This is a key weakness of US policy of the last 50 years.

A crucial necessity to achieve the goals of national interest is cooperation with other countries. The importance of that becomes most obvious by looking at the aspect of US basing. Without cooperation US troops wouldn't even be allowed to set foot on ground in countries such as Singapore, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Hungary, South Korea or Phillipines.
Crime- and terror prevention and fighting require close cooperation of security services all over the world. The issue at hand is that the current administration has spoiled lots of the goodwill that made this cooperation possible. No problem for the likes of Bush Jr., Cheney or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz - they want to be feared not loved.
But this superpower can't do it alone, underlined by the problems to maintain the necessary troop levels in Iraq ... and the desperate begging for foreign troop and monetary commitments. The results of a "Who's not with us is against us" polemic aren't really in america's interest either.

The article: "Danger welcomes Americans abroad (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20031020db.htm)" I linked in another thread shows clearly the drawbacks of this approach. A world in which US assets and citizens aren't safe because they are despised, hated and eventually targeted as a result of of their gvt's foreign policy is most probably not in America's national interest as well.
The current escalation of the already glooming problems in this field by invading Iraq with no real connection to the actual war on terror didn't help counter this set of problems, to the contrary.

The US are an important country and their military strength has been a stabilising element (like in the cold war) as well as an destabilising element (like in countries who dared to go "red" or "ayatollah" in the cold war and had a good chance to become victim of US policy). And their power also in the future will be an important element for the international security environment.
The very problem in the attempt to achieve overall military and economic dominance is that it is an agressive set of goals. It practically necessiates an enemy, or several enemies. It invites for polarisation where cooperation might be possible - but would be ruled out by an idology of dominance.
And ideological blinkers are a dangerous thing when used on a giant like the US. The world is a safer place whe he has a wide field of view, allowing him to see walls or abysses early rather than finding them by running into them.

A world where US citizens can travel without fear IMO will never be the result of a world where all those who might target them have been killed. As Israel's regular "success" in killing of leading terrorists shows, they are replaced by others and the carnage goes on for another round. And that is not the fault of another and therefor to-be-attacked country but a selfmade problem. It might take a while to understand that - and an eternity in Washington where the elite around Bush prays "force works, if you only use enough of it".

[ October 27, 2003, 12:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]