US to Focus on Forcibly Toppling Syrian Government

[Yves]

I am staunchly in favor of humanitarian interventionism... imperialist

Of course many of the imperialists thought they were humanitarian in their intentions, bringing the goods of western civilization to the less developed. The difficulty in any situation like is determining what "humanitarian" really means in practical terms--and when "humanitarianism" is just "us imposing our way of life on yours."

[Christian Teen Forums]

[Wesker]

Of course many of the imperialists thought they were humanitarian in their intentions, bringing the goods of western civilization to the less developed. The difficulty in any situation like is determining what "humanitarian" really means in practical terms--and when "humanitarianism" is just "us imposing our way of life on yours."

Agreed. I merely do not believe the difficult is insurmountable.

[Slave of Elyon]

I'm skeptical of any externally induced revolution's ability to behave predictably. In general, undermining the status quo from the top down--rather than organically, slowly, from the inside--leads merely to another totalitarian state without the boundaries of the conservatism that had existed prior to the revolution.

Really, I'm not making a statement on what we should or shouldn't do. I'm just pointing out that, whatever we decide to do, it doesn't matter why we do it as long as we do a good job.

[Yves]

Really, I'm not making a statement on what we should or shouldn't do. I'm just pointing out that, whatever we decide to do, it doesn't matter why we do it as long as we do a good job.

The why will frequently have an effect on the what.

[Mr Spock]

I am not quite sure you understand what realpolitik is. There is nothing inherent in the philosophy of realism that guarantees what it claims is in the national interest, is actually in the national interest. International liberalism argues that realpolitik leads to what is against the national interest.

Not only did you not answer the question, but I'm not sure that you actually understand what realpolitik is. It doesn't matter if a realpolitik approach truly is in the national interest. But leaders certainly use realpolitik methods believing that they might achieve some nationally advantageous political end. Piedmont-Sardinia's Count Cavour once made a secret deal with Napoleon III to aid them against Russia in the Crimean war in exchange for aid against Austria who would ceratinly oppose Peidmont' declaring Italian Independence. You're right that there was not "guarantee" it would work or that if it did work that it would really be for a true national interest, it was simply a gamble. In that case realpolitik mostly worked, while 40 years earlier Italian unity via Italian Nationalist Romanticism had utterly failed to work.

So back to my original question if you care to answer: if the US helping Syria is merely Realpolitik, then what backdoor advantage would America's leaders possibly be hoping to gain?