United States Intervention

I started to reply to this and I launched into a long diatribe on the constitution and the founding fathers, but then I realized that the bottom line is that our government should act in it's own best interests. The U.S. must protect the interests of it's citizens.

This will inevitably raise the hackles of many, but let me take this logic to it's conclusion before you vilify me.

To act in a nations best interest must by default take into account the future posterity of it's population and as such it's current actions must be balanced against the ramifications. Logic dictates that unnecessary "bullying" or purely materialistic motives are not self serving in the long run and must be avoided. If these actions are not avoided then inevitably another agent will force the correction, by force or coercion.

Today we live in a global community and the reactions of the earths other inhabitants, both human and non-human must be addressed in every action we make, both personal and social. The realization that the greatest good is in fact the same as our own best interests is a vital part of this argument.

We will all be better off when we understand how intertwined our fates are.

American intervention has freed and brought prosperity to Japan, Germany, the rest of Europe, and South Korea. We are working on making Iraq and Afghanistan nice countries right now.

People who advocate isolationism in the modern day have absolutely no sense of the world we live in. Let’s start this with a joke between Ryan Oskroba and Me…

We were walking into the bathroom while Ryan said “I wonder how big of a dildo we could shove up our ass.” Some guy looked at him weird as Ryan says “There is context to that…” There was, we were talking about if Ron Paul got elected into office and the situation of our international relations once this happens. As some background information of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, a segment from Wikipedia explains it all…

“Paul's foreign policy is one of nonintervention.[8][9] This policy avoids entangling alliances with other nations, in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison,[10] in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to defense. He was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[11][12] In 2003, he said that war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned. He added that, "The American public deserves clear goals and a winning exit strategy in Iraq." [13]
Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others.[14] He denies being an isolationist: he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[15]National Journal rated Paul's overall foreign policies as 20% conservative and 77% liberal in 2006 (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005).[16]
He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty,[9][17] and supports free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[18] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty.”

Now whatever the fuck he wants to call it, his stance is functionally isolationist and fundamentally inconsistent with his advocacy of keeping the world’s market open. Prior to entering the bathroom, Ryan was telling me a joke…

The last time the U.S. was isolationist: World War I. We finally decided to kick some ass in Europe to end the war. Then a politician said “We should join the League of Na… uh uh…” and dies of a heart attack. Another says “What was he about to say?” responded with “I don’t know, let’s ignore it and hope it goes away.” Thus, World War II. One fundamental argument against an isolationist approach is it empirically prevents major power wars from occurring shown by the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th Century. If the U.S. bothered to join the League of Nations, it might be been credible enough to prevent a World War II from occurring. However, this is only one empirical example of withdrawal from the world.

America is a global empire, there is no arguing that. We have military bases and operations across the entire world and our presence influences the geopolitical spectrum of every region of the planet. A withdrawal from the world will inevitably result in the collapse of this empire. History shows that the Dark Ages proceeded after Rome’s collapse while the collapse of the British Empire gave way to a multipolar system that exploded into the First World War. In the age of nuclear weapons, how will the world look in the absence of U.S. hegemony.

Ron Paul next advocates “bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others.” Every debater knows where I’m going with this one; I might as well copy and paste the Khalilzad article, deleting useless lines…

“Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. Germany would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. U.S. withdrawal could, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia.”

This isn’t even accounting for the Middle East, where Ron Paul will probably first withdraw our troops, which… “Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies … Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts.” Our presence in the Middle East allows us to control the flow of oil, which stops a massive gauge of oil prices. A price hike would destroy the U.S. economy at this point and likely force us to enter Africa, Central Asia, or the Middle East again. I’m not going to divulge into withdrawing from Iraq because that’s such a diverse and complex subject.

The next issue is of terrorism. Many people say that terrorism exists simply because of our presence in the Middle East. Partially true, but if we withdraw, terrorists will not go away. As a matter of fact, it might free up some of their time and hatred towards a renewed and more vigorous search for weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal. We might not be in the Middle East, but Israel still is. I’m just damn hoping the Ron Paul, at the very least, will continue a flow of money to Israel to maintain military superiority over hostile states. Most of these nations don’t even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, which means they will attack again. Hezbollah already has a damning weapons capability that could destroy a good portion of northern Israel. However, influence in the (terrorism) region can quell terrorism. Our assistance in Pakistan after their earthquake provided positive opinions within a strongly Muslim nation. Humanitarian aid after the Tsunami gave us 80% favorable opinions in one of the largest Muslim countries. Our influence can prevent people from resorting to terrorism out of hatred.

The last major point is Ron Paul’s advocacy to “withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.” Eroding what sovereignty? The U.N. disproved U.S. intervention in Iraq and we did it anyways. However, the U.S. and France bilaterally pushed Syria out of Lebanon through the United Nations, intervened during the Korean War (fucked up gracefully by the PRC), helped nonproliferation efforts, provided a forum to discuss international issues. What commitment has NATO drawn us into that weren’t for American interests. There are tons of reasons why the U.N. is stupid and such, so I’ll first go on NATO. Withdrawing from NATO would relinquish the burden of Article 5? of our European allies, which means they no longer have to be there in Afghanistan. Then we’ll have to send more troops to that region to prevent mass destabilization of all of Central Asia, and imperial overstretch will probably take on a new meaning. NATO still remains a force of containing conflicts in Eastern Europe and deterring potential Russian aggression. NATO airstrikes were crucial in the campaign in Bosnia and Kosovo. NATO is also the bridge that gaps the transatlantic world and maintains U.S. presence in Europe.

Additionally, withdrawal from international organizations in general is pretty fucking bad idea. Ron Paul claims that these institutions hamper our sovereignty. Though this is true to an extent, imagine a world that the U.S. left an international organization and attempted to perform an unpopular action to advance U.S. interests. The remaining members of that institution will likely use the collective power to constrain whatever action the U.S. was undertaking. International alliances have its flaws, but in the modern day, they are a critical deterrent to war and preventing overstretch. If the U.S. military is involved in a crisis, allied nations are more likely to contribute troop strength. As an example, U.S.-ROK relations allowed the deployment of 50,000 South Korean troops in Vietnam. Pakistani soldiers assisted U.S. Special Forces and Rangers in Somalia.

If that wasn’t long enough, there are still a ton of minor, lesser known reasons why the U.S. isolationism would suck hardcore…

-The first I can think of is Kashmir. The U.S. is one of the key allies to both India and Pakistan and can exert a degree of influence to make those two not nuke each other for some piece of shit land. Since both countries own nuclear weapons, it’s pretty important they don’t piss on each other too much.

-U.S. hegemony can also stabilize Pakistan by giving aid and well, selling them really cool weapons such as F-16s. An Islamic revolution in Pakistan would put the nuclear arsenal into the hands of Islamic extremists who just hate everyone.

-Korea is another place where the U.S. military can actively prevent an invasion from North Korea. Since the U.S. has some of the most modern and powerful weapons, U.S. soldiers deter aggression from North Korean conventional attacks.

-Let’s not care about Africa either. As true as this is for the military, our economic and humanitarian aid efforts. America is offering billions of dollars that should help the AIDS pandemic through PEPFAR. Perhaps the U.S. military should intervene more often; I think the failure in Mogadishu not a result of military intervention, but the insufficient intervention. We sent a few hundred soldiers against their tens of thousands of militia. Our isolationist approach in Rwanda caused the death of 800,000 people within the matter of months. Sudan is a recurring topic that may require some form of military to stop the genocide.

-Taiwan is an area in which I take personally. China’s claim over Taiwan is a very unwarranted one. Regardless, U.S. military deterrence against a Chinese invasion (except in instances of independence) is possibly the only reason why China hasn’t launched one yet. However, if China managed to gain control of Taiwan, it could provide the resources and landmass to disrupt the stability in the entire region.

-Hegemony prevents a reversion back to a multipolar state, which could include contesters such as the European Union, China, Russia, or India that could lead the world back to 1914.

I really don’t know anything about Latin America.

This has already been addressed under the thread "Does might make right? -- America's global role" -- if you click the browse button you can find it, it is towards the bottom.

You'll find lots of discussion about this subject has already taken place...and I'm sure people are still willing to debate this subject. It is a very important topic.

I'll answer you here.

"America has completely shifted from the isolationist principles our founding fathers stressed, which is very disturbing to me. We now spend so much attention to the rest of the world, using our power and influence to bully smaller countries around."

America has also shifted from a nation that was primarily agricultural to a nation primarily industrial to a nation that outsources too much. America also shifted from a nation with a large slave trade to a nation with segregation to a nation with a black man as one of the leaders for the Democratic nomination for president.

Times change. When Washington gave his Farewell Address urging the United States of America to remain neutral in world affairs we were a young nation without the military or financial power to compete with or influence the world powers. Hooray for Switzerland--they are neutral...as well as unimportant. Fact of the matter is, the US is the leader of the free world. We're gonna be involved, like it or not.

"Now, many of those countries we took advantage of are supporting leaders who gain power by promising to end America's influence on their region (Iran and Venezuela come to mind first). So by swinging our freedom stick to make the world a safer place (at least that's what I was told, I still believe the oil companies own our government)"

Insane, evil dictator is saying America is big and bad... we should believe him! Really, what do you expect them to say? "America is trying to end my regime and make all of you free, this is a good thing!"? Third world countries without democracies are bound to breed dictators--more than likely men whose ambition not only got them to the top but intends to keep them up there. These third world citizens do not have the benefit of an education that you and I do. They believe what their government tells them. I wish the entire world could be democratic but It can't. We're doing the best we can.

"we have made it one where you need a full body cavity search to see a baseball game."

Making outlandish exaggerations about security at sporting events might score you points with people who never go to them, but people who actually do know how ridiculous this statement is. I'm a huge sports fan--I go to Suns, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Sun Devils games...I've even been to a Coyotes game or two--and University of Phoenix stadium is the only one that even searches people. At the others they rarely even use a metal detector wand on you.

"I seem to think we should only use our power to end genocides, such as Darfur, but instead influence the world by setting an example."

Easier said than done. So we need to intervene in the genocide in Darfur, but when Saddam Hussein kills hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Iraq we should wait to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction" before we stop him? Look, I'm all for helping the poor people in Darfur and I wish we could, but it is much more complicated than that. The evil men who run Sudan and are overseeing the killing of all of the innocent people are backed by Russia and China. As sad as it is to say, interfering in what is going on in Darfur is completely against our national interest. We are making strides against genocide, however. Not many people know this, but George Bush is the first president in United States history to declare a conflict a "genocide." Presidents before-- Bill Clinton with Rwanda and Bosnia, Woodrow Wilson with the Armenian genocide, and FDR with the Holocaust--have chosen to either downplay these horrible situations or simply turn a blind eye to them. (I'm not trying to pick on Democratic presidents and say that Bush is great or anything, in fact all of our presidents who have been in power during a genocide have done a poor job handling it)

"Use the money we are spending overseas to generate jobs, invest in science and technology for cleaner energy, clean up the ghettos, fix health care, fix social security, protect our borders and ports, etc."

I do agree with you here. I wish we would allocate a larger percentage of our money towards domestic growth. This war in Iraq has become ridiculously expensive and as soon as the region becomes stable we need to withdraw. Would've been nice to see the 1,000,000,000,000+ dollars (not an exaggeration) we spent fighting this war in the Middle East go towards something like health care, energy, etc.

One last thought, I think Americans worry far too much about what the rest of the world is saying about us. No one ever likes the top dog. Throughout history, when Athens, Rome, Portugal, Spain, France, England, USSR, USA, etc. etc. were the largest force in the world, did anyone ever really like them? Did people in 1842 say, "Man I love the British Empire, it is so neat how the sun never sets on them?" We need to expect a certain amount of resentment towards our country, our status as the global superpower warrants that. The amount that foreign people "hate us" is exaggerated also. I have traveled to Europe and from my experience everyone was very friendly to me, even when they found out I was American. (And this was France, they are supposed to hate us the most).

America isn't perfect. Not even close. But would you rather live in a third world country next door to Rome or the United States? People say we are imperialistic--I say look at history.

America has completely shifted from the isolationist principles our founding fathers stressed, which is very disturbing to me. We now spend so much attention to the rest of the world, using our power and influence to bully smaller countries around.

Now, many of those countries we took advantage of are supporting leaders who gain power by promising to end America's influence on their region (Iran and Venezuela come to mind first). So by swinging our freedom stick to make the world a safer place (at least that's what I was told, I still believe the oil companies own our government) we have made it one where you need a full body cavity search to see a baseball game.

When do you think we should intervene in world matters?

I seem to think we should only use our power to end genocides, such as Darfur, but instead influence the world by setting an example. Use the money we are spending overseas to generate jobs, invest in science and technology for cleaner energy, clean up the ghettos, fix health care, fix social security, protect our borders and ports, etc.