NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something I have been thinking about a for a little while.

Why do modern powers still try to justify their military actions?

Personally I'm glad they still do. The lack of a good-looking pretense probably stopped a few military conflicts.

Especially military actions. Say, for example, the Second Gulf War. Why did the Bush Administration draw the CIA into fabricating assessment about WMDs?

If the United States had not bothered with a pretense and gone downright blatant expansionist/imperalist:

"We're taking Iraq now; it will now be part of the glorious American Coprosperity Sphere Forever...*propaganda* ".

The reality on the ground would not have been any different; it'd still be raining steel and US (*ahem* Coalition) ground force would still be on the drive to Baghdad.

I don't see how going imperal would have drawn anyone else to Iraq's defense. Iran would see opportunities, Syria would be worrying about itself and everyone else in the region is a US-aligned lap-dog government/monach.

Why did the US Adminstration bother with a pretense when it would have no effect on the bottom line for them?

Of course, other nations would have made formal protests. And what do they amount to? Angry words and empty threats on pieces of paper. Thats all diplomatic gestures ever are.

Maybe I chose a controversial (and too-current) conflict to illustrate my point.

Maybe it'd be easier to see a historical comparison to now, back in the golden age of European colonialism, the European powers conquered and raped countless indigenous state entities without so much as making up an excuse.

The attitude was "We're taking what we want, because we are more powerful and there is nothing you can do about it."

Why do powers in the modern world try to justify their expansionist tendencies behind near-seethrough lies?

We should be damn glad they still bother.

Can anyone answer the question posed?

I can see the usual "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" posters threadjacking already.

Simple.

Its easier to take over the world, when no one tries to stop you.

If you can buffalo everyone into thinking your using the moral high-ground, then they will actually praise you.

Domestic support. It improves morale to think that you're fighting for freedom and democracy rather than just being greedy motherfuckers.

Actually in colonial times there WAS a justification. It was the 'mission civilatrice', or civilising mission.
The imperial powers, certainly Britain and France, justified it to themselves as bringing the benefits of civilisation and christianity to the heathen savages.
The fact that the practice so often made a cruel mockery of the theory (especially Belgian Congo)....
The theory was still there, and in some places it had a good effect.

So one, everyone needs a justification, and two, sometimes a good justification can lead to improving the actions taken.

American propaganda isn't made for foreign people. It's made for the American citizens. They like to think of themselves as spreaders of democracy and freedom rather than imperialists and their government tries to ensure this belief.
I don't think that a presidential canditat with an clearly imperial agenda would be very popular when it comes to vote.

Because if they did not, the cause would be lost if they came out for what their "real" intentions were, losing everything in the process. If Dubya's intentions for Iraq were for imperialization, and he came out to it live over millions of viewers, then everything would fall apart on itself.

Without support for a cause, it's all over.

People tend not to like countries trying to take over the world. Look how it went for Hitler [/Godwin]. Perhaps Dubya took a history class or two in his day.

Domestic support. It improves morale to think that you're fighting for freedom and democracy rather than just being greedy motherfuckers.
Pretty much. It's not so much your enemies (or allies, for that matter) you are trying to convince as it is the domestic population. Popular support is essential to any large-scale action undertaken by a nation abroad (or even internally). And, like you say, it fosters the us vs. them sentiment.

Because they can.

Because they can.
You gotta love them - we put them there to provide us with law and order and to be governed by us, they get a mind of their own and go on a global rampage, like Frankenstein's monster, spreading pathetic, half-wit idiocy such as "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Such is life. :D

You gotta love them - we put them there to provide us with law and order and to be governed by us, they get a mind of their own and go on a global rampage, like Frankenstein's monster, spreading pathetic, half-wit idiocy such as "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Such is life. :D
What can you say except that we take after our parent countries? ;)

What can you say except that we take after our parent countries? ;)
Or maybe they take after us. <.< Sort of like the egg and the chicken, which came first.