Should the US intervene abroad?

Anonymous asked this question on 6/3/2000:

Should the U.S. intervene in the national concerns of another?

morrisonhimself gave this response on 6/3/2000:

This is easy: Absolutely not!
In fact, even the United Nations charter forbids interfering in a nation's internal affairs.
George Washington warned against "entangling alliances."
Common sense -- not very common among politicians -- tells us not to get involved in other nations' internal affairs.
Morality tells us not to initiate force to deal with others, and that rule should apply to nations as well.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Look at the current U.S. president. After dodging military service for himself -- lying to avoid it and just continuing a pattern for his life -- Bill Clinton has sent military forces more often and to more places than I believe any previous president.
There definitely needs to be a more restrictive restriction on the use of U.S. military forces.
Does your question go further than military?
Thank you for the question.
Michael Morrison

madpol gave this response on 6/3/2000:

A question this short and broad can only be properly answered with a lot of other questions.

To what end? On behalf of whom? In defense of what US interests? Is it money, lives or ideology at stake? Or all 3 in what combination?

In general, it's a bad idea to get involved in other Nation's wars or politics. The reasoning given by Washington, Franklin, Madison and others on this subject still holds true.

But the US doesn't have the planet to itself. Sharing a world means shared concerns among nations. Human Rights violations, International aggression, disruption of commerce, unsound environmental policies, land use, resource mgt., etc. around the world all affect the US sooner or later.

Intervention should only take place when there is a compelling need. And military intervention should always be the last resort.

There is no question that the US has intervened in the affairs of other nations more often than we should have. But the option should always be available.

Ask any European if we should have intervened in the 2nd World War, or any Black South African if we should have imposed trade sanctions to break the Apartheid system.

JesseGordon responded:


Return to index