What interests were we pursuing in Korea or Vietnam that anyone would have considered worth the expenditure in blood and treasure, apart from the strategic goal of containment? True, self- interest enters into strategic defense, but so what? We could have sacrificed Vietnam easily, and drawn the line elsewhere, after the North Vietnamese had exhausted themselves in securing the South. Clearly, there is an interweaving of material and moral interests. But the effect of moral interests is often unmistakable.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with taking sides, especially when our own security interests are involved. I do not think that direct military intervention is ordinarily the way to go, but it is not playing God to prefer one faction to another, for example, Solidarity over the Polish Communists, and to aid Solidarity as much as possible, which we did, both overtly and covertly. It is not playing God to try to prevent chaos in Liberia, or to try to prevent genocide in Rwanda, as we should have. There are always questions of practical limitations, and whether the persons we support are not just fanning the fire in some cases, but we are often the only nation that can be counted on to give meaningful aid. |
