Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Intervention vs. Isolation: Why the Debate Isn’t so Simple

I am not a proponent of the American military intervention in every locale throughout the globe because I think it uses valuable resources that could be better served at home and is very costly economically that we simply cannot afford amid the current economic climate. Further, it denotes an arrogance on our part that our conception of the world is the only right one.

 Throughout the world, there are many intelligent people with great intentions who are better suited to determine the future of their countries better than we are. Overthrowing dictators should not be our business, we’ve seen dictators fall throughout the Middle East…the spark for those movements was domestic, even if we supplied much firepower.

Yet, we can’t isolate either, at least not in the sense of the 1920’s and 30’s. The economy is too global now and the events of the world can creep over us quicker than ever through the Internet and modern air travel. If we do take a step back in the arena of global affairs and work our domestic debt trouble, it doesn’t end our problems because Al Qaeda will still find rationale to attack us, and there will still be situations that require international interventions like genocides, and natural disasters.

Some people view intervention as an absolutist solution. Newsflash: this isn’t 1930 boys and girls. We can’t disengage with the rest of the world fully without creating the inverse problem to what currently exists an overexposed military that has it’s nose too many places.

No comments:

Post a Comment