@Lethologica, you said: "@orothaic:
"So the phrase 'protects American freedom' actually translates as, 'protects the American economic interests' - which may seem fine."
No. I gave an example where those two points align; I didn't state that they were equivalent. Of course, it's only in the depths of theory that anyone can even pretend freedom isn't tied to economic security--and for that it doesn't matter if the economy being secured is capitalist or not, your pointless non sequitur aside. (By the way, said non sequitur did not constitute a refutation of the example, so when you ask for examples, I must ask you to reonsider the ones I've already provided.) "
Yes, well you are wrong; they are equivalent. One of the things western military policy focuses on is economic security. Very little else is important. Saudi Arabi could stop producing oil tomorrow, and the world would not end (lets say due to civil unrest). The price of oil would increase. The US would continue to expand production in the Alberta oil sands (despite local objections and sacrfice of their lands) More frakking would increase production aswell (despite the local objections, people would be over-ruled/ignored where possible) This trend to increase production has only stalled because of the recent drop in oil prices ( you can see the drop from august 2014, from over 110 dollar per barrel, to under 50. That is the effect of current Saudi oil production: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/crude-oil/5-year/) Germany likewise would continue an energy strategy, which currently invovles a massive increase in subsidies for solar panels. Russia would be more stable, as oil prices would balance their budget - i'm not sure what they will do in the current crisis.
Regardless, supporting the house of Saud is problematic. And US policy doesn't value the freedom of the people there. I would argue that whenever the freedom of people conflicts with economic security, the economy comes first. And further, the economy doesn't protect everyone equally; It protects the rich (and their investments) first. Hence my comments about local people being ignored in frakking and tar sand exploitation - that's not the militaries doing, but it is happening.
(Germany is more socialist in this sense, because they are allowing average citizens to install their own solar power. But still protects the wealthy and their investments more than the poor who can't afford a house in the first place; you could describe it as a mixed socialist-capitalist economy)
The problem i have with the alliance with Saudi Arabia goes beyond how the Saudis treat their own people; it also relates to their support for Islamic extremists. The fact remains that the Saudis see it in their interest to spread Sunni Islam and be seen as a becon for protection of their religion (just like Iran and Shia Islam) - this has goes hand in hand with the Sunni movement of Wahhabism, which is using assymetric warfare - what you would call terrorism - to spread their religion.
This is radical Islam and the (fewer than 5 million) Wahhabis have had an alliance with the House of Saud since 1744. Oil income in the 70s has massively increased their influence, with Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the most recent splinter group ISIS/Daesh (who don't follow any form of Islam, but were a part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq before disagreeeing and breaking off)
And the Saudis have every reason to want Assad gone, he is a ally of Iran, and Iran just picked up Iraq as a major ally - due in part to the democracy which America brought to Iraq - (they voted for Shia leaders).
This is all well known to th US military leadership and intelligence community. But there is no re-considering the alliance with Saudi Arabia.
--
That is just one example of US foreign policy being designed to sure up the economic system at expense of American freedom, at the expense of the principles which America claims to uphold. At the expense of people world wide hating America (not Americans, but this is sometimes this distinction is not recognised) The most recent relevant example i can think of is the Boston bombings - where "Dzhokhar said he and his brother wanted to defend Islam from the U.S., which conducted the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan, in the view of the brothers, against Muslims."
In a globalised world security becomes a very different game from the 1900s. And again the US military and intelligence community knows this. They have not changed policy, there is no 'Change' which Obama promised. Though he has massively changed gears with respect to negotiations with Iran, and thawing of relations with Cuba. So some (re)consideraiton of these issues has been made.
--
@Amwidkle
The general point is, militaries are designed for waging war. And this can make your country less secure, thus inhibiting freedom.
If i truely beleive that Ireland doesn't engage in this kind of militarism, then I can claim militaries have a place. However, the only reason Ireland's military doesn't act like other militaries, is that we're not strong enough to. We can't act like Imperial powers, with aggressive/antagonistic foreign policy because we don't have enough force to hold our own. (we could, for example, join NATO, but that would merely make us complicite with Imperialistic policies of the large NATO countries)
"I suppose you could argue that the military could refuse to carry out such a mission."
Yes, you could hold individuals responcible for their actions. But as the Milgram experiment (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) shows 'I was just following orders' is a valid excuse for people not trained to think about their actions and evaluate the moral principle behind each one.
For obvious reasons, militaries don't want to train their soldiers to behave this way, for one thing, indecision on the battlefield could get them killed.
"Case in point: Political leaders order the military to bomb a hospital = Political leaders at fault. Alternatively, the military (through negligence) bombs a hospital = military at fault."
You seem to be making a weird dicothomy here. As if there is only a one-way interaction between the political leaders and the military leaders.
The military leaders don't just follow a plan of their own design with goals set by the political leaders. The military leaders are asked what is reasonable, and then put toget a proposal (or a few) which the political leaders then choose between. So there is some two-way commnication of ideas to decide what the military should do.