Good And Bads Of Military Intervention

humanitarian intervention

In his 1801 inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson called for "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." He set the tone for non intervention during his administration, which was also later adopted by James Monroe in 1823. Part of the Monroe Doctrine read, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." However, over the next century, America would be put to the test and past policies of non intervention quickly turned into military intervention after military intervention, as Americans strove to assert their dominance and values around the globe.

"We stand at the armagaddeon and we battle for the Lord," Theodore Roosevelt yelled from the platform. He continued, "This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." The case for military intervention was to protect America from selfish interests. With American businesses opening up overseas, there was always the danger that the host country would rise against Americans overseas, thus jeopardizing American investment. This argument would be echoed by subsequent presidents as an excuse to invade the Middle East.

It's rare for the public to support military intervention these days. The Vietnam War demonstrations and Iraq War protests are evidence of this widespread discontent. Critics of military interventions point to hypocrisy in US government policy, arguing that most of the WWII interventions carried out for "freedom" or "democracy" were actually defending dictatorships controlled by pro-US elites. US officials oversaw puppet governments in Vietnam, Central America, the Persian Gulf, Grenada and Panama, which the American people saw right through. Additionally, once reports surfaced from the front lines of atrocities committed by US soldiers during Vietnam, Americans saw that our own citizens were capable of the same sort of gruesome torture and terrorism we claimed to be fighting against. As a result, these double standards have left long-lasting distrust, discontent and even apathy among US citizens.

There can be no easy answer to the question of whether to use military intervention or not. When aggressors set their sights on America, the US has no choice but to respond with Roosevelt's "big stick." When political analysts speak of living in "a post-9/11 world," they point to the difficulty of simply sitting idle, allowing the world to stew in anti-American sentiment. However, people like Noam Chomsky point out how American interventionist ambitions led to most of the violence against the country.