Result of the US invading Iraq & further stirring up sectarian conflict, this time in the form of the Shia regime deciding it was Payback time for what Sunni rule had done. In response, Sunni have to an extent thrown in with the militant Islamist elements that emerged post invasion. Similar elements in Syria that were present in the fight against Assad (a fight the US was partially backing) came to link up and decided to try erasing the border between them.
There are some on the Left that debate whether the empire is uniquely calculating in its actions vs being uniquely unobservant or even dumb. Personally, I think both give the elite too much credit, by each defining them apart by more than money and power. For the most part, I think those in control of the empire simply pursue their self interest and try to make the most of things however they can -- it's the scale, their means, & their goals that's the distinguishing factor. Maximizing utility just looks different when your tools are billions of dollars & state of the art weaponry as opposed to what you and I have at our disposal.
There's a difference between knowing *of* people via articles & media, and knowing them as we know ourselves & our close friends. We observe, we aren't immersed in their cultures and meeting with them every day. Their goals, fears, and desires are a blurred, incomplete picture to us as a result.
Our interpretation as common people is flawed inherently. The interpretation of the ones that actually wield power here, though, has a different problem: it is deeply selfish, constructed with "what's in it for us?" as its key consideration & treats people as means to that end even if it means escalating the doom they already face. The portrayal of concern on the part of the stewards of the US foreign policy status quo is like a firefighter who themself fuels & starts the blaze they claim credit for trying to put out. We keep being told to follow the fires and feel like they're being dealt with, but what does it mean while the arsonist is still loose?
It's not so much "our" interests that are the issue, to extent it can ever be said that any of us common folk can possibly have a meaningful interest in places we know nothing about. It's the interests of the Western ruling class that have been trying to cancel out the interests of people in the rest of the world, by manipulation and force. The rest of the world has no reason to trust the empire and its allies even if it claims to have good intentions, and neither do I.
Indifference implies non involvement. For it to apply we'd have to actually get to try standing down.
How is it diminishing them to consider them the best arbiters of their own interests? I oppose empire precisely because I see them as equal human beings with their own goal, views & interests, that no one has the right to decide for them.
The explanation you give here rings more of paternalism than humanism -- others as children and only children.
CK:
Result of the US invading Iraq & further stirring up sectarian conflict, this time in the form of the Shia regime deciding it was Payback time for what Sunni rule had done. In response, Sunni have to an extent thrown in with the militant Islamist elements that emerged post invasion. Similar elements in Syria that were present in the fight against Assad (a fight the US was partially backing) came to link up and decided to try erasing the border between them.
There are some on the Left that debate whether the empire is uniquely calculating in its actions vs being uniquely unobservant or even dumb. Personally, I think both give the elite too much credit, by each defining them apart by more than money and power. For the most part, I think those in control of the empire simply pursue their self interest and try to make the most of things however they can -- it's the scale, their means, & their goals that's the distinguishing factor. Maximizing utility just looks different when your tools are billions of dollars & state of the art weaponry as opposed to what you and I have at our disposal.
Why IS exists to begin with suggests it's highly relevant...
There's a difference between knowing *of* people via articles & media, and knowing them as we know ourselves & our close friends. We observe, we aren't immersed in their cultures and meeting with them every day. Their goals, fears, and desires are a blurred, incomplete picture to us as a result.
Our interpretation as common people is flawed inherently. The interpretation of the ones that actually wield power here, though, has a different problem: it is deeply selfish, constructed with "what's in it for us?" as its key consideration & treats people as means to that end even if it means escalating the doom they already face. The portrayal of concern on the part of the stewards of the US foreign policy status quo is like a firefighter who themself fuels & starts the blaze they claim credit for trying to put out. We keep being told to follow the fires and feel like they're being dealt with, but what does it mean while the arsonist is still loose?
It's not so much "our" interests that are the issue, to extent it can ever be said that any of us common folk can possibly have a meaningful interest in places we know nothing about. It's the interests of the Western ruling class that have been trying to cancel out the interests of people in the rest of the world, by manipulation and force. The rest of the world has no reason to trust the empire and its allies even if it claims to have good intentions, and neither do I.
Indifference implies non involvement. For it to apply we'd have to actually get to try standing down.
How is it diminishing them to consider them the best arbiters of their own interests? I oppose empire precisely because I see them as equal human beings with their own goal, views & interests, that no one has the right to decide for them.
The explanation you give here rings more of paternalism than humanism -- others as children and only children.