The Limits of US Military Intervention
The United States has real but not unlimited power to influence the course of events in other countries. Since World War II we have become increasingly accustomed to overestimating that power, and especially the efficacy of US military intervention around the world. Other nations are very much aware of our propensity to overuse military force, but we have not been willing to listen to criticism or alter our course substantially.
I chalk it up to a convergence of a longstanding messianic idealism in our national character, together with the peculiar circumstance both of having successfully deployed US military power twice in global wars and of maintaining for a very long time the largest and most powerful military in the world. We have believed that we are good and ought to pursue good in the world. We have believed in the effectiveness especially of our military efforts to bend the world in the direction we think it should go. And we have had both the financial resources and the military preeminence to pursue this path.
But recent years have shown the limits of our power and the increasing costs of attempting to exercise it. We invaded Iraq and have left behind much blood and treasure invested in a dubious, very partial democracy. We invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 and are somehow still engaged there in, if not a nation-building effort, somehow an Afghan police-and-military-building effort—which is only marred by the fact that they don’t want us there and the people we are training keep shooting at us. Meanwhile, our national debt rises as we borrow rather than tax to pay for our bloated military and our unscheduled but constant wars.
When we see the terrible pictures from Syria, it is natural to want to intervene. When we imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon, it is appealing to try to cut that regime off at the pass through some kind of military action—if that could somehow be effective, which is doubtful.
But I believe that this is a good moment for us to begin strengthening the skillfulness of our deployment of non-military means to exert influence and affect the behavior of other nations. Reports from Iran signal the effectiveness of the economic sanctions that are choking that regime. After being told so many times that sanctions can’t work, these reports come as a welcome surprise. While I do not rule out the legitimacy of the rare foray into military engagement, our nation needs to lead with diplomacy, coalition-building, economic investment or pressure, and moral example. Look at how China slowly builds up its position in the world and how they almost never threaten or use force as they do so. The time has come for us to learn a lesson from them, even while we recognize fundamental divergence in many values.
I do not believe we should intervene militarily either in Syria or Iran. I do believe we should join with many nations in providing humanitarian assistance in the former case and international isolation in the latter. In both cases we should keep lines of communication open even with regime leaders whose behavior is odious—not because we like them or endorse them, but because that is the best way to advance our own interests and the interests of the citizens of those nations. And in no case should our involvements in the Middle East be affected by speculative apocalyptic end-times scenarios or by a romanticized vision of the modern state of Israel.
I agree completely with this point of view. The most powerful country in the world does have responsibility toward humanity. Over history, Empires did not shy away from developments occurring in the world. However, such Empires intervened with the purpose of occupying other countries. The goals of intervention were both economic and political.
Not the United States. After WWII two superpowers dominated the world scene. The Soviet Union had its interests over all other considerations. The U.S. countered by nudging countries toward democracy– occupying of another country was never a goal in itself. The motive was only for humanitarian reasons.
Now, our country faces a national debt approaching $16 trillion, and an annual deficit > $ one trillion. This fact should pose serious restraints on getting involved in wars of choice (Iraq). Intervention, when necessary, should be the very last option after completely exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Even then, getting involved militarily should weigh carefully the cost/benefit ration. Does the intervention helps the interests of the U.S. or not? The stress here is on the U.S. only–not any other country. To be dragged into another war in defense of another country does not help the U. S. especially under such economic conditions we now face.
Wars can deplete resources. As an Egyptian-American I had seen how Egypt deteriorated economically over a two-decade period because of wars. Some of those wars were forced on Egypt, some were wars of choice.
Needless to say, the U. S. has been blessed by abundant resources more than any other country is man's history. But still, the cost of wars is cumulative. If the country is threatened, then war becomes mandatory but being dragged under outside pressure must be opposed.
I agree completely with this point of view. The most powerful country in the world does have responsibility toward humanity. Over history, Empires did not shy away from developments occurring in the world. However, such Empires intervened with the purpose of occupying other countries. The goals of intervention were both economic and political.
Not the United States. After WWII two superpowers dominated the world scene. The Soviet Union had its interests over all other considerations. The U.S. countered by nudging countries toward democracy– occupying of another country was never a goal in itself. The motive was only for humanitarian reasons.
Now, our country faces a national debt approaching $16 trillion, and an annual deficit > $ one trillion. This fact should pose serious restraints on getting involved in wars of choice (Iraq). Intervention, when necessary, should be the very last option after completely exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Even then, getting involved militarily should weigh carefully the cost/benefit ration. Does the intervention helps the interests of the U.S. or not? The stress here is on the U.S. only–not any other country. To be dragged into another war in defense of another country does not help the U. S. especially under such economic conditions we now face.
Wars can deplete resources. As an Egyptian-American I had seen how Egypt deteriorated economically over a two-decade period because of wars. Some of those wars were forced on Egypt, some were wars of choice.
Needless to say, the U. S. has been blessed by abundant resources more than any other country is man's history. But still, the cost of wars is cumulative. If the country is threatened, then war becomes mandatory but being dragged under outside pressure must be opposed.
I agree completely with this point of view. The most powerful country in the world does have responsibility toward humanity. Over history, Empires did not shy away from developments occurring in the world. However, such Empires intervened with the purpose of occupying other countries. The goals of intervention were both economic and political.
Not the United States. After WWII two superpowers dominated the world scene. The Soviet Union had its interests over all other considerations. The U.S. countered by nudging countries toward democracy– occupying of another country was never a goal in itself. The motive was only for humanitarian reasons.
Now, our country faces a national debt approaching $16 trillion, and an annual deficit > $ one trillion. This fact should pose serious restraints on getting involved in wars of choice (Iraq). Intervention, when necessary, should be the very last option after completely exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Even then, getting involved militarily should weigh carefully the cost/benefit ration. Does the intervention helps the interests of the U.S. or not? The stress here is on the U.S. only–not any other country. To be dragged into another war in defense of another country does not help the U. S. especially under such economic conditions we now face.
Wars can deplete resources. As an Egyptian-American I had seen how Egypt deteriorated economically over a two-decade period because of wars. Some of those wars were forced on Egypt, some were wars of choice.
Needless to say, the U. S. has been blessed by abundant resources more than any other country is man's history. But still, the cost of wars is cumulative. If the country is threatened, then war becomes mandatory but being dragged under outside pressure must be opposed.