venkat_r wrote:
USA looks after its own interests alone
We are all taught that nation-states look after their interests especially the 'superpowers'. But, does this dictum tally with the actual behaviour of the nation-states?
When someone says, "USA(or any other nation-state) looks after its own interests"; then one assumes that in that in that statement, 'USA'(or any other nation-state) refers to the people of that state or atleast the majority of people of that state. If we are referring to the majority of the people of a state when we talk about a nation-state, then does the behaviour tally with the dictum we are taught?
I don't think so. IMHO, nation-states(or any organizations) look after the interests of those who control them.
So, nation-states(like the erstwhile historical empires) primarily look after the interests of those who rule them. The interests of the rulers are of highest priority. The interests of the country(or even the system) are secondary for. The rulers can be political, economical, social, cultural, or religious forces. They may be ruling covertly or overtly. They may rule directly or through proxies.
Nation-states(like any other organization) becomes a vehicle to fulfill the needs, desires, whims, and fancies of the rulers/controllers. In fact, any organization can be further sub-divided into sections, each having its own ruler/controller(with his own agendas and bias).
So, nation-state has a set of people who control it. All of these people need not have same interests. They may have some common interests. But, all their interests need not be common. Different people have differing interests. The corporations have certain interests. Politicians have certain interests. Generals heading military and intelligence bodies have their own agendas. Each of these categories can be sub-divided into further categories(which are headed by another set of people). The lower down one is on hierarchy, the lesser his views/deeds will impact the views/deeds of organization(in this case, nation-state). Actually, let me refine it and say that the further you are from the decision making process, thew the lesser your views/deeds will impact the views/deeds of organization.
Any organization(including a nation-state) is controlled by people. And, people have emotions. Emotions like: desires, anger, greed, delusions, ego, and envy; are present in all the people. Whenever, a logical course is not followed we can easily put it down to an emotion. If a person has not taken the logically correct choice, then one can account it to one of emotions. Eg:
Q: Why did you do it, when you know better than that?
A: I was angry! or
A: I was afraid(delusion)! or
A: I was ecstatic(delusion)! or
A: I became greedy! or
A: I jealous!
A: I couldn't resist the temptation(desire)!
The primary in all beings is:ego. 'I'. This leads to 'Mine'. That means, people think,"whats in it for me(or my people)?"
This leads to:
a) nepotism i.e. favouring one's favourites.
b) corruption i.e. putting individual goals above the goals of organization.
So, there is ample chance that people may not make correct choice even when they have the correct knowledge. Of course, people seldom have correct knowledge and wherewithal to assess it properly. That means, the chances of people(consequently the organizations) making mistakes is always high. Now, add to it that the interests of the decision making people may be at odds with the supposed goals of the organization. Then, consider that this can happen at all levels(sections) with an organization. Even in a relatively small organization, the performance of different sections can have an impact on the final performance of the organization itself. But, there is also a chance that it can rectified quickly due to the smaller scale. But, as the scale increases, this becomes more difficult to rectify. So, larger organization can find it difficult to pinpoint the problem. This becomes more difficult if the problem is not limited to one sector but is spread across the several sectors. If the problem ids underlying, then it is much more difficult to locate and cure. So frequently, in such cases, the symptoms are cures while the original problem persists and continues to grows worse. We are assuming that people want to solve the problem. But, most of the time, those in the organization don't want to solve it because the status quo suits them or trying to solve it involves lot of risk (particularly if the problem happens to be in the higher echelons).
To this equation, nepotism adds another angle. Nepotism(and favoritism) is far more feasible in the higher levels than the lower levels due to the powers wrested at higher levels. Nepotism ensures that the system continues to be headed by small set of people who have relations to each other. The relations could be family relations or business relations. Cartels/nexus of power are formed such that people protect and promote each other within a small selected group. These links can be formed through business relations and marital relations. This gives rise to elites who wield power and money. These people control all the choke points of a society. They project their interests on to the nation and society.
All of it is common knowledge. But, somehow, people want to think about nation-states as if they are robots trained to look after their national interests. They completely ignore that human aspect. The thing that can change the human aspect is ideology. So, ideology needs to be given the importance also, when trying to understand the actions of a state. The behaviour of the nation-states is much more understandable when we take the role of human behaviour(including individual/group agendas) and ideological motivations(of the people controlling the state) into account.
This explains the behaviour of US, pak, India, Iran, Libya, or any other state. None of these states looks after their national interests.
You say that US acts according to its national interests. But, for that, first you have to define the national interests of US. I would presume that weakening the entities that fund terrorists would be part of the US national interests. Then, if the rulers of US cared about its national interests, then it wouldn't be funding pakis who fund terrorists who kill US soldiers. Not just US soldiers, but even the mainland security is threatened by the terrorists, is it not? Then, why are rulers of US comfortable with funding them indirectly? I don't expect, US to serve Indian interests, but US is not even pursuing US interests.
Similarly, do rulers of India care about Indian interests? Then, why aman ki tamasha even when the 26/11 case has not moved an inch in pak?
Do rulers of pak care about paki interests? Then, why are they not going after the terrorists that are ravaging their nation?
But, in all of the above cases, the nations are perfectly protecting the interests of those who rule them.
venkat_r wrote:
USA would deal with irritants and almost always gets what it wants. This is a world reality and it would be easier if that fact is understood.
This is a myth. First and foremost, one needs to specify what are the goals, then we can assessed whether those goals have been met or not.
What did US want in Vietnam? Did it get it? Was it worth it(in terms of the cost of men and money)?
What does US want in AfPak? Did it get it? Is it worth it(in terms of the cost of men and money)?
The problem here and in previous cases is that the goal posts are shifted too often, so that there is no standard by which one can decide whether US got what it wanted or failed. Eg: Did pakis win in Kargil?
To answer that question, one has to first know what were the objectives of the pakis in occupying kargil. But pakis, like US, shift their goalposts and ultimately declare victory.
Anyway, from a military POV, pakis lost in Kargil. Similarly, US lost in Vietnam and is losing in AfPak, if they retreat in 2014.
Lastly, IMHO, US should physically stay in AfPak. I think it is the US presence that is creating all the mess for the pakis. If US goes away, then the pakis can go back to their old games. I think US will continue funding pakis whether it stay or leaves. So, I think it is better that they stay and experience the full viciousness of the dog they have armed.
)
