(Student’s Full Name)
Throughout its history as an independent nation, the America has adopted both interventionist and isolationist policies. From its early years, America has largely stayed away from “Old World conflicts” (Office of the Historian par. 1). However, Woodrow Wilson argued for the US intervening in the First World War by mentioning that it would be in the best interest of the country if it became involved in the war since it will help in “maintaining a peaceful world order” (Office of the Historian par. 1). Nevertheless, the negative experiences of the First World War caused many to believe that the country should have adopted an isolationist approach in order to avoid such eventualities. On the other hand, there are those persons who argue that adopting an interventionist approach will cause adversarial countries to respect America’s military prowess and other countries will be more willing to provide military assistance to the country in case it does require it. Therefore, it can be said that although it might cause a country to appear weak and cause other states to believe that it only cares about protecting its own interests, isolationist foreign policies used by the American government are helpful because when a country adapts an isolationist policy then it will be less likely to place its own version of morality or governance on another country, they will prevent America from becoming involved in dangerous and costly wars, and prevent the United States from getting violating international law.
The proponents of interventionist foreign policies argue that if America refuses to intervene in countries that are deemed adversarial then America runs the risk of looking weak. For instance, Rosa Brooks argues that President Obama’s response to the “escalating violence in Syria has consisted mostly of anxious thumb-twiddling” (par. 3). Brooks appears to be suggesting that President Obama is opting not to use military intervention in Syria in order to deal with the violence occurring in that country. Furthermore, the writer mentioned that both the “Israelis and Palestinians” are angry at the American government (Brooks par. 3). In addition, the author implies that Obama’s unwillingness to remain in Afghanistan has led to the US President “searching for a way to leave without condemning the Afghans to endless civil war” (Brooks par. 3). Moreover, Brooks noted that Obama’s non-interventionist approach has caused money to be given to the Pakistani army which has led to “little cooperation and love” (Brooks par. 3). Therefore, based on an analysis of Brooks’s writings, it can be assumed that the author is suggesting that Obama’s non-interventionist approach is allowing America to appear weak in the eyes of its enemies and allies, thus permitting the country to lose respect by specific members of the international community.
There are several reasons why Brooks’ arguments for an interventionist foreign policy will sound appealing and logical for many persons. Firstly, if America continues to adopt an interventionist foreign policy then it will be able to gain the respect of both its allies and foes. This point is important when one considers the situation in Syria then a person who would desire that the terrorist forces located there, in the form of ISIS, be totally defeated will naturally favor interventionist foreign policies. Secondly, proponents of the interventionist approach will argue that if America continues to have a strong presence in Afghanistan then it will be able to prevent Afghanistan from descending into the throes of civil war. Additionally, it should be recognized that some proponents of the interventionist approach would argue that if America had remained in Iraq then ISIS would not have been the opportunity to have such a strong foothold in that region of the world. Lastly, persons who support America’s use of interventionist policies would argue that if America has a strong military presence in the Middle East, for instance, then they would be able to provide support to their allies located there, such as Israel, while intimating their enemies, such as Palestine, Iran, and Syria.
On the other hand, those who favor a non-interventionist foreign policy contend that this would be the better option for America. This is because when America adopts a non-interventionist it will prevent the country from imposing its own version of morality or governance on a sovereign state. Jean Bricmont argues that when a country respects another country’s sovereignty then “Great Powers” will be prevented from “intervening militarily against weaker ones” (par. 4). In fact, it was recognized when the United Nations was formed that strong countries will exploit the “internal conflicts” in “weaker” ones (Bricmont par. 4). It has long been believed that the United States have been one of those countries that have failed to recognize the sovereignty of other countries, such as in Iraq and in the region of “Indochina” (Bricmont par. 5). Furthermore, Bricmont argues that the United States has persistently violated the “spirit and often the letter of the UN Charter” (par. 6). In addition, the author contends that the United States on repeated occasions have justified military invasion of other countries by stating that it is acting for the promotion of “freedom and democracy” of other people by imposing its own form of governance on the country that it plans to invade (Bricmont par. 8). However, when the United States does in fact invade a country it usually leads to “disastrous consequences” (Bricmont par. 8).
When the United States adopts isolationist foreign policies rather than interventionist ones then the country will not involve itself in costly and dangerous wars. Bricmont argues that the when America uses “aggressive action” it is followed by a negative “reaction” (par. 9). When an “anti-missile shield” is deployed then it “produces more missiles” instead of “less” (Bricmont par. 9). In addition, when the American government encourages “secessionist minorities” by promising that the world’s only Super World Power will come to their aid if they are “repressed” then it “leads to more violence, hatred and death” instead of “less” (Bricmont par. 9). Moreover, when the United States surrounds a country with “military bases” then that country is motivated to spend more on its defense rather than “less” (Bricmont par. 9). Therefore, it can be argued that when war is not only expensive and deadly for the country being invaded, but also for the country that is doing the invading.
As mentioned earlier, the United States have often invaded countries despite the stipulations and dictates of international law. Bricmont argues that US interventionist policies have not only caused “millions of deaths” through “direct and indirect wars,” but also prevented the same number of people from benefiting from “progressive social policies” (par. 8). Some of these policies could have been initiated by leaders such as “Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Allende in Chile” or “President Chavez in Venezuela,” who have been “systematically subverted, overthrown or killed” with the support of the American government (par. 8). When America consistently uses its military prowess to defeat such leaders then it has engaged in an act that ensures that nations are prevented from achieving self-actualization and maintaining their national sovereignty. In addition, America in the past has blatantly abused the Nato of Resolution 1973, “in order to effect regime change in Libya, which the resolution did not authorize” (Bricmont par. 9). Therefore, totalitarian regimes, such as Russia and China, have been inspired to veto any UN resolution regarding Syria and give them the excuse to “be better armed, make [fewer] concessions and build better alliances” (Bricmont par. 9). Therefore, when America consistently adopts an interventionist policy then it motivates totalitarian governments to be uncooperative rather cooperative with the international community.
In conclusion, it should be noted that although America will gain some benefit from the interventionist foreign policies, it would be best if the country adopted an isolationist rather than interventionist approach to foreign policy. This is because it will ensure that the United States will not impose its form of governance and morality on another state, thereby respecting the sovereignty of the state. Additionally, if the United States implements isolationist rather interventionist foreign policies then it would not become involved in too many expensive and deadly wars. Finally, if America chooses isolationist foreign policies then it will be more likely to align itself with the principles of international law rather than go against them, which will lead to other nations to be cooperative rather than uncooperative.
Works Cited
Bricmont, Jean. “The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.” www.counterpunch.org. N.p., 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 30 July 2016.
Brooks, Rosa. “The Case for Intervention.” Foreign Policy: The Case for Intervention. N.p., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 July 2016.
Office of the Historian. “American Isolationism in the 1930s.” Milestones: 1937–1945. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 July 2016.
