Does national security necessitate total world domination (external and internal)?

N.B. Looks like the idea of “national security” is more of a jumping off point to a larger idea.

I’m playing devil’s advocate to my own conventional thinking in asking this question. Also, I’m sure there’s a simpler or more concise way of explaining this concept, but I don’t know it, so pardon my wordiness if that is the case.

The thought I want to test is whether national security for the U.S. (and more broadly for what we generally think of as our alliance of western democracies) necessitates the control of everything that is to be controlled if only for the purpose of negating an enemy’s (or conflicting ideology’s control) and maintaining dominance in the balance of power. In other words, if we don’t have our thumb on a given resource, whether it is oil or the flow of information or the beliefs (by means of propaganda) that motivate individuals to pledge support to our political, military and corporate apparatus will we necessarily lose dominance to another power. Are our only choices then to assume or abdicate that power? If so, then don’t the ends necessarily justify the means whether it is a false flag event or the rescinding of absolute freedoms such as those of free speech and freedom from search and seizure?

Taking that thought one step further, should not the political, military and corporate apparatus that dominate the balance of power enjoy the freedom to do so as they see fit even if that means expending hearts, minds and bodies of its supporters and benefactors? Isn’t it safe to trust that the subjugation demanded by these powers is only equal to the need to ensure dominance in the balance of power? Even if the demands of these entities err on the side of indulgence in satisfying some greed and lust at the expense of supporters and benefactors is that not preferable to the loss of power that may by “natural” law be assumed by an “enemy.” Does that not make it okay to subjugate weaker nations, because if we don’t it will strengthen a rival nation that will subjugate it otherwise?

At the end of the day does all of the above signify little more than a natural consequence of a bedrock truth, that in the material world we must all navigate the churn of political power. I would add ”(or be consumed by it)” but are we not consumed by it regardless? Do we only get to choose to some degree how we will be consumed? In a way, is the whole process sort of amoral? That really the only constant is the churn?

When it comes to talk of a new world order or one world government, is this not just another manifestation of the balance of power described and the degree to which any of us benefit by, for example, the absence of war is offset by increased individual sacrifice?

Assuming we are invested to any degree in the material world, doesn’t this line of thinking make sense? Do you see holes in this argument? If not, do you find it palatable, especially when compared to the options of blind patriotism (or being blinded by any uncritical -ism) or equally detrimental angst and anger perpetuated by “delusional” (if you accept the above) beliefs in pacifism, self-determinism, the Constitution, etc.

If we cannot manifest universal peace and liberation because it does not (yet?) exist in this material existence, is it not preferable to see this amoral churn, accept it for what it is, and navigate it as best as one can? Other than for the satisfaction of exercising of one’s personal beliefs or motivations is it not worth worrying about the deaths of 3,000 Americans or 1,000,000,000 Iraqis or because the churn of power dictates that these deaths and injustices will occur more or less regardless of who is on the barrel end and who is on the trigger end of the exchange? Is attempting to profit from these inevitabilities merely a sophisticated way of accepting them as such? (And by extension or derivative the opportunity for profit will create a similar amoral churn.)

I guess what I’m arriving at is that perhaps mouth breathing red staters are right even if most don’t understand fully why that is so. Trying this thought on for size certainly alleviates my seemingly perpetual distress. Is this what it’s all about? More so than peace on earth and goodwill towards men as nice as that may sound?