Pros And Cons Of American Interventionism

1580 Words4 Pages

American interventionism is no new concept, and any scholar can see the inherent dichotomy between ‘realist’ and ‘idealist’ foreign policy. A quote by John Quincy Adams eloquently points this out. “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all.” In theory, this quote is an idealistic approach to national security and America’s homeland defense strategy. But in practice, this idea is not the current reality. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and countless other foreign interventions have demonstrated that for decades America’s foreign policy has fallen short of this utopian theory. And some argue we have become the very monsters we wish to destroy. In this essay, we will discuss …show more content…

We cannot use military force to meet every humanitarian challenge that may arise. Where would we stop?” There must be more restraint. The cost of American lives in search of idealistic hope has become too high. Research shows that military force can be used successfully, when certain criteria are met. Political scientists Jennifer Kavanagh and Bryan Frederick explored how often U.S. military interventions have advanced U.S. objectives, by building a database of conflicts and crises that involved U.S. interests between 1946 to 2018. Their findings showed that “the real danger is not military interventions per se, but large ones with expansive objectives that are out of touch with the reality on the ground.” For example, after invading Afghanistan post 9/11, the United States’s finely tuned counterterrorism mission against al-Qaeda morphed into a broad, nation-building initiative. From 2001-2014, over 2,000 American deaths occurred in Afghanistan with over 20,000 wounded in action (Kavanagh and Frederick). For what?. For the nation to collapse and the Taliban to swiftly take over after U.S. forces leave? What have the last 20 years accomplished? “The U.S. military is poorly equipped to handle political …show more content…

Additionally, the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent Iraq War left scholars similarly perplexed, not only by the shockingly high death toll but also by the lack of success according to goals laid out by the United States. In early 2003, American military forces invaded Iraq on two primary guiding principles, 1) to end Saddam Hussein’s rule and 2) to find and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (“The Iraq War”). While the U.S. did succeed in capturing Hussein, no weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered. In fact, in early 2004 the former top U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay, told Congress: “We were almost all wrong” in regard to the search for weapons of mass destruction (“The Iraq War”). Additionally, in March 2005, a presidential commission concluded that, “the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure,” (Silberman III). Throughout the Iraq War, nearly half a million people were killed between 2003-2011 due to war-related causes (“Iraq study

Open Document