3 ms·
>Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it
by s_q_b 10y ago
>Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it hurts more than helps?
That is patently false. The United States alone has a long history of successful humanitarian intervention, beginning with Tripoli and running through World Wars I and II. Even within our lifetimes, there was the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I believe you may be looking at this through a post 9-11 lens, which is causing you to place too much emphasis on blowback. Obviously Operation AJAX, the alliance with Baathists, and funding of the mujahideen in Afghanistan had significant negative unintended consequences.
However, that is by no means an ironclad rule. For further information I'd suggest A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power and Freedom's Battle by Gary Bass.
- throwaway2016a 10y agoWorld War II was not an intervention. Even if you are talking our limited pre-Pearl Harbor involvement, the war was an immediate threat. And if you were talking after Pearl Harbor, that by definition is not an intervention, it is a retaliation. I'm not familiar enough with Tripoli to comment on it. So scratch the word "every" from that statement and replace it with "most" I'm also don't consider it an intervention when our allies are being attacked and our allies ask explicitly for our help. Edit: let me make this very crystal clear. I am not a pacifist. I'm a non-interventionists. There is a difference. If we are attacked or there is an imminent threat (I'm talking a battle ships with guns pointed at us right at our or our allies border kind of threat not "credible intelligence" from a "confidential source") we can and should respond with overwhelming force. This is not one of those situations.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2016a 10y agoAll your link that you added proves is that we have intervened. It does not prove that those did not have "unintended and often disastrous consequences" Heck, some of the ones on the list are on US soil and many others are rescue missions not aggressions. I think it was implied when I said intervention I was talking about offensive posturing. Also, that poem is nice and all but I didn't say I don't know what Tripoli is. I said I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I make sure I know what I'm talking about before I write on it. Edit: From YOUR OWN ARTICLE: > U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Literally the whole "Common Themes" section of the article you yourself cited speaks about how intervention doesn't work. You posted a source that defends my point. Thank you.