U.S. Global Dominance and the National Interest

Is global dominance in the national interest of the USA? I wish there was consensus on what constitutes the national interest, because it seems that for some, wars of aggression can be fought in the national interest. After all, there are people who justify the invasion, conquest and occupation of a foreign country (which posed no threat to the USA) as part of the national interest. For example, let's say that Iraq has mineral resources, the control of which is necessary to the maintenance of US global dominance. Does the control of those resources justify aggression toward Iraq (keep in mind the consequential suffering of the civilian population of Iraq)? Is global dominance necessary to maintain the US lifestyle? - Maybe it is just that wars of aggression are the "American way." I don't think so.

There are those who will attempt to obfuscate the facts and say that the reason for the US occupation of Iraq is because of the terrorists. Well, don't let them fool you! The reason that there is terrorism in Iraq is precisely because Iraq is occupied by the US!

So, what is the national interest? For me, the national interest is having a healthy population; it is living in a sustainable and conscious manner. It is in the national interest to demonstrate respect for all life, for diversity and for future generations. For example, how better can we demonstrate respect for future generations than by living sustainably?

For President Bush, the national interest appears to be promoting and maintaining global dominance, including the ability for [the ultra (monetarily) wealthy] [changed to] prominent decision makers and powerful individuals to dominate discussion of what is in the national interest, and to dominate the global environment of finance and trade. (For President Bush, a smaller government comes with the price of corporatism...)

I am frustrated. Invading Iraq was not in the national interest; at least it was not in my national interest. Maintaining global dominance is also not in my lexicon of national interests. What would be in my national interest? How about fostering a cooperative and friendly, or neighborly, relationship with international partners? That would be interesting. But to play the part of an international bully is not for me, nor for the USA that I love. Woe that my country does such grievous harm in my name. Woe that people suffer for the sake of a supposed US "national interest."



Please see Bill Moyers Journal | Body of War
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/profile.html
[full video available online]