Here the American Conservative’s Daniel Larison explains America’s tendency to exaggerate foreign threats.
Why is threat inflation a problem? When we exaggerate dangers in order to sell a military [action], we are more likely to do the wrong thing instead of taking the time to figure out if a) action is really necessary and b) what the best course of action might be.
It’s fair to say that U.S. officials wouldn’t have to exaggerate foreign threats so often if military action were clearly necessary. The U.S. is an extraordinarily secure country, so it requires an extraordinary amount of dishonesty and exaggeration to convince Americans that launching attacks overseas is necessary for our security. Government officials have to overstate threats from overseas in order to justify military action that they all know isn’t strictly necessary, and so they also overstate how many interests the U.S. has in the world and exaggerate how important those interests are. All of a sudden, the U.S. is defending supposedly “vital” interests in places that have no importance for American security whatever. The assumptions behind preventive war also give each administration greater leeway. These allow presidents to dismiss the lack of evidence of a direct threat right now because of a belief that a threat might materialize later on.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Bracevich is Sick and Tired of War Party Neglecting its Duty - February 20, 2017
- How to Survive a Stock Market Meltdown - February 17, 2017
- Flynn’s Exit Looks Like a Dodged Bullet for Peace in the World - February 17, 2017