A case for interventionism

A growing isolationist movement across the political spectrum has resulted in, for the first time in a while, more than 50 percent of Americans identifying as “dovish”—defined as those who believe the U.S. should “never or rarely use military force.” This change in attitude likely stems from a few key moments over the past two American presidencies: first, the Iraq war, where our successful invasion failed to uncover significant active weapons of mass destruction that President Bush accused Saddam Hussein of possessing; second, the dovish rhetoric of President Obama, who ascended to the presidency by denouncing the mistakes of his predecessor’s war; and third, a failure of the American establishment (not just politicians) to continually remind the American people of what’s at stake for our security. We should greatly worry about the increased dovish-ness of our fellow patriots, for interventionism throughout the world is the strongest way to ensure American safety at home.

The Obama administration has been an incredible example of the profound disaster that results from a foreign policy rooted in submission and abrogation. The Islamic State is the direct result of a disgraceful, politically motivated decision to withdraw from Iraq—a decision that allowed radical Islamic jihadists to easily capitalize on our military equipment and Iraq’s oil to turn the country into a caliphate. America’s vacuum in East Asia has resulted in the prominent rise of Chinese militarism, with the nation aggressively laying claim to the South China Sea, and North Korean recalcitrance. As we sit on our hands, Russia has made power moves, expanding their influence on the rest of the world, including annexing Crimea. Putin has made deals with the likes of Syria’s Assad and Iran’s Rouhani, helping to arm the tyrants in return for political and geographic influence. The foreign policy playbook of the 21stcentury can be summarized in surprisingly simple fashion: where America isn’t, evil is.

The case for interventionism, then, stems from conventional wisdom: it is better to be in the driver’s seat than to be dragged behind the car. By leading throughout the world, America capitalizes on several key strategic advantages. For one, our massive economic might creates an incentive for countries to work with, rather than against, the interests of our nation. The United States’ impeccable military technology and diverse capabilities make us attractive allies for any combatant, allowing us to form strategic alliances. For example, America has a great ally in the Christian Kurds of Iraq, who have shown a far greater willingness to fight ISIS than the Shia. A strong President would arm them (rather than the Shia, which also has anti-Western elements) to the teeth immediately. Finally, our location is an important advantage — far removed from Europe in the East and Asia in the West, our geographic buffer allows us to shift militaristic focus to imminent threats abroad.

Most important to our involvement worldwide, however, is the moral character of our country. Our nation, while still growing, has fought battles for inherently good reasons, promoting the banner of human rights, democracy and liberty. As World War II and the Cold War demonstrated, the balance of good and evil in the world rests firmly in the involvement of the United States; and, while far from perfect, America is the globe’s only hope to ensure the eventual victory of liberty over tyranny.

The counter-argument to interventionism will, expectedly, lie in the errors of our leaders. What did intervening in Vietnam get us? Iraq? Libya? The list of foreign policy mishaps go on and on, with history textbooks often highlighting mistake after mistake. Any intervention carries the risk of failure, but refusing to act comes with the risk of allowing your enemy to gain strength even further down the road. For example, the President boorishly labeled the Islamic State a “JV” team in 2014 when, at the time, they were a relatively smaller force the American military could have quickly handled. Now, the Islamic State continues to savage Syria and Iraq and continues to grow in strength and numbers—happily transforming from nuisance to supervillain in the span of 12 months without any American resistance. Errors of strategy when intervening are far easier to notice, but errors of passivity like the President’s in Iraq are what create far more serious problems over time.

The 21st century has resulted in a fundamental transformation of global politics. Globalization, immigration and technology has created an environment where the interests of nations—especially the powerful—are intertwined in every region of the globe. America cannot afford to sit out confrontation with radical Islam, communist influence and dictatorial provocateurs. The U.S. is primed to be a leader in the world for many years ahead. Now is the time to get involved, flex our muscle and fight tyranny abroad.

Max Schreiber is a Pratt senior. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays.