Quote:
Originally posted by pulque
D9's policy change would mean that the only stated reason would be #2 and 8. Even if the real reason at the time were #1 or #3.
|
Without going item by item, I agree I would not use #1 or #3 as those are not morally legitimate reasons to send our military anywhere IMO. However, I do think it is fine to point those out as incidental benefits to the appropriate audience.
If, for instance, you are going over to Iraq because you think WMD is a big threat to American Rights, but in the process the Shi'ites will benefit if they place nice, then I have no problem pointing that out.
But I do not think you should ever be embarrassed about the fact that your interests are the primary motive in your policy. At a tactical level, I can imagine there are some situations where deception and ruse are valuable options. At a strategic level, I think it is completely self-defeating.