Nonintervention Policy
As international problems the United States faces continually mount, a call to action must be taken in order to secure our best interests and save our nation from further turmoil and distress. The world is always changing; new technologies are developed, factions rise and fall, populations shift geographically, and ballots are cast to determine new world leaders. With change comes difficulty, a type of friction of conflicting interests, found in social strife, hurtful politics, and in the most serious cases, violence and oppression. The tension between ideas of what is best and who should dictate law is age old, and far too often, is only intensified when players of the global stage take action to mold other peoples far away to act to the influencers liking. Many times, the United States takes this role upon itself to force its’ will upon other nations, and most of the time, the tensions created force competing ideas to end in obstacles. Looking at Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Libya, and almost every other nation in the world, you will see the hand of the United States in some way trying to move pieces to the political or social chess games. We intervene in the lives of many nations, most commonly through military presences, manipulating foreign entities to reflect our goals and best interests. Though this is reality, it doesn’t have to be so, and I believe there are a myriad of negative consequences stemming from our role as “the worlds police,” which has put us in a bad position in regards to financial security and foreign relations. Therefore a call to non-interventionism, which the Free Dictionary properly defines as the, “refusal to intervene, especially the abstention by a state from intervening in the affairs of other states or in its own internal disputes,” is surely needed. When our nation oversteps its rightful bounds and attempts to govern and influence other people who are not our own through military arms, we spend astronomical amounts of money, damage relationships, and hurt individuals. We need to step back militarily, letting other nations handle their affairs in a manner they deem necessary. Continuing to take a combative stance will only lead to more debt, more violence, and more injustice.
Good intentions do not always produce a positive outcome, especially with foreign intervention. The United States has intervened in many nations’ affairs over the years, and many times our intentions are not reflected by the outcomes. All too often, unforeseen externalities are incurred upon both the U.S. and the nation it takes issue with. The most common argument for why the U.S. needs to get involved is to ensure oppressed people gain freedom from tyranny. Of course, this is a commendable ambition, but we never take into account the full cost in order to reach that goal. The recent war in Iraq clearly outlines the problems with jumping into a conflict and finding our efforts were not enough to ensure peace. Sending over hundreds of thousands of troops from 2003 until 2011, Americans lost 4,800 sons and daughters, and over 31,985 were wounded, many of which will carry disabilities for the rest of their lives (U.S. War Death Statistics). Our goal was to topple the Hussein regime and restore order to the people in Iraq, setting up a Democratic political system; a very noble idea, and one that gained widespread support before action was taken. But with all said and done, in addition to American deaths, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the conflict, many more than Hussein’s regime had killed. Many now question the stability of the government we helped to set up, and how democratic the elections have actually been. Some feel the Iraqi people are very susceptible to the potential for another tyrannical regime, since new factions of an upper echelon appear to be fighting for control of the country now (Nowicki, Dan). Yes, the threat of Saddam Hussein was removed, but at what cost and how much better have we made the situation? Thousands of lives lost, and the best outcome from the long war is at risk of being replaced by yet another. Most American citizens agreed initially to go to war, but now have turned toward ideas of pece now realizing horror of war. The U.S. may mean well when intervening, but ideas, governments, and cultures foreign to America are not things we can manipulate at gunpoint and expect to go away.
Long lasting damages caused by poor decision commonly grow out of the ruin left by the wake of the United States military. Good foreign relationships, growing ever more important as globalization and technological advances move nations to interact, are vital to ensuring peace and unity for nations. Tampering with other nations’ affairs will only impair alliances with a government. The United States relationship with the Iranians is perhaps the greatest model of why meddling in other’s affairs in order to profit at the expense of others has lasting consequences. In 1953, The United States helped overthrow democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, in favor of Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled an authoritarian government from 1953 until 1979, placed in power by the CIA in order to gain close trade favors with the Iranians through the Shah, while also being able to have greater control over Iranian policy. That all backfired in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution, which toppled the authoritarian Shah, largely in unison with anti-American sentiments (A Short Account of the 1953 Coup). The new government of Iran, along with most of its people, felt a deep resentment toward the West for crushing their democracy to put a tyrant into power. This exact tension is what many believe is the root of the current state of relations between the U.S. and Iran. Fast-forward to the 21st century, and things between both nations do not look good at all. Many Iranians, including President Ahmadinejad, have openly proclaimed they wish to destroy many Western powers, including the U.S., still holding on to a bitter grudge. Forcing a country’s government to change because another nations calls for that change is not going to be well received, and will be far worse if a foreign power removes the majority’s choice of leader and replaces that leader with an oppressive dictator. The United States would most likely not take kindly to another country trying to impose its will upon Congress. We have to realize that foreign powers are not simply going to lie down to our will. Bitter grudges and hatred are the major products of unwanted military interference, outweighing any good that could possibly come out of bullying other nations to do as the U.S. asks.
Policing the globe with soldiers additionally produces harmful consequences. According to the Department of Defense there are 662 U.S. military bases, located in 38 countries worldwide, although there number over 4,000 military sites, not including places Iraq or Afghanistan (Bilchik, Gloria Shur). 227 of those bases are located in Germany, a very close ally and trade partner to the United States. How would the American citizens feel if a Chinese or German military base was located in New York or Los Angeles? I’m sure the citizens wouldn’t feel too comfortable, and probably some resentment would grow, just as resentment grows toward U.S. bases on soil not our own. Bases such as those set up in Germany serve only a deterrent and are there in case something goes awry near the bases. It is not fair to the United States to use up resources for the protection of other nations that do not need it, nor is it fair to other countries for the U.S. to put military watchdogs in foreign soil. Despite good intentions, it is not the role of the U.S. to police the world, which could only lead to more friction between the police and those nations inhabited by foreign armies.
In a time of economic distress, recently recovering from a recession that caused global panic, funding aggressive military ambitions is very ill advised and totally unnecessary. It’s clear that Congress needs to find areas in the budget to cut, and prioritizing programs and fund to siphon from is a difficult task. The aggressive military programs are fueled by huge sums of money, which could be better allocated to areas of the budget that need more funding. The Defense budget, encompassing all military entities and programs, home and abroad, was about $530 billion in 2012, which is roughly 20% of the overall U.S. Government budget (Moore, Jack). Approximately $102 billion of the $530 billion goes to financing these bases annually. On top of that, since 2003, as a nation the U.S. has spent an estimated over $3.7 trillion dollars in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (Trotta, Daniel). Spending fortunes on military headquarters that possess no real strategic purpose, combined with $3.7 trillion on fruitless, harmful wars, is absolutely absurd! The United States spends less than an 8th of the Defense budget, and less than a 600th of the Iraq and Afghanistan war funds on education annually were the money might actually profit American citizens rather than causing problems (Budget Office-U.S. Department of Education).. With an aggressive, eager to react military presence around the world, manifested in small instillations or whole battalions of troops ready for combat, a ludicrous amount of the U.S.’s budget is squandered on completely unnecessary expenditures, only adding more stress to our hurting economy and robbing other government programs of important funding. The military already takes up over $400 billion of the annual budget for research and development and domestic defense, so cutting from foreign bases and wars would just free up money to help further technological advances or other areas of the budget. The extraneous parts of our military’s funding can be cut without hurting the effectiveness of our national defense.
A change must be made soon in order to secure peace and raise the United States onto a more stable and respected platform. The nation cannot expect to achieve peace with hostile nations until we lessen our inclination to send in arms if we don’t get what we want. Instead, trying to understand another nation’s viewpoint and objectives without putting up a threatening show of arms would serve our country much better, not only in securing peace but also in gaining admiration and respect from other countries. The nations hostile toward the U.S. now often are hateful because of past wrongs and fear of further abuses, and only by acknowledging that some matters were poorly handled in the past and moving on to mending that hurt can we reconcile differences without launching missiles or airstrikes. Withdrawing troops from bases abroad, especially those bases that hold the appearance of hostility near nations that are not friendly, will allow for reallocation of money to domestic projects and can only help to lessen ill wishing sentiments of other nations. Saving American lives should be our top priority, and actually taking a defensive position can keep our soldiers safe. Preemptive measures to secure peace are not necessary, and, as history shows, cause unfavorable sentiments that possess the potential for real violence. Avoiding another situation like Iraq or Afghanistan should be an ambition for the U.S., and we must be able to take a more passive stance for this dream to be realized. Drawing our troop’s home U.S. soil does not mean we will never get involved in an international conflict, but it will keep the U.S. from making more hasty and costly decisions. Non-intervention would mean less pointless wars, less mounting debt, less mothers crying over the loss of their son or daughter, and less foreign enemies. Loosening our grip on the rifle and instead putting it back in its sling doesn’t mean we’re not well equipped, but it will make a friendlier appearance and can be the first real step toward reconciliation of foreign relationships.
Works Cited:
“Non-intervention.” The Free Dictionary. March 17, 2013.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonintervention
“U.S. War Death Statistics.” Statistic Brain. August 2nd, 2012.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/u-s-war-death-statistics/
Nowicki, Dan“10 years later, many see Iraq War as costly mistake.” The Arizona Republic. March 17th, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/iraq-war-10-years-later/1993431/
“A Short Account of the 1953 Coup.” Iranian Chamber Society.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php
Moore, Jack. “2013 Budget Request: Agency-By-Agency Breakdown.” Federal News Radio.com. February 13th, 2012. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/146/2746212/2013-budget-request-Agency-by-agency-breakdown
Bilchik, Gloria Shur. “Military Mystery: How Many Bases Does The U.S. Have, Anyway?” Occasional Planet. January 24th, 2011.
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2011/01/24/military-mystery-how-many-bases-does-the-us-have-anyway/
Vanden Heuval, Katrina.“Around the Globe, US Military Bases Generate Resentment, Not Security.” The Nation. June 13th, 2011.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/161378/around-globe-us-military-bases-generate-resentment-not-security#
Trotta, Daniel. “Cost of War at Least $3.7 Trillion and Counting.” Reuters. June 29th, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
“Budget Office—U.S. Department of Education.” United States Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html
As always, well done Eric. I liked when you discussed in the second paragraph the fact that even if the intentions of the US’s foreign policy are good, the outcomes are not always tantamount. This point is very strong and refutes a possible counter argument (that the intentions guiding the United States’ foreign policy are good ones) while simultaneously strengthening your own argument. I liked especially the evidence you cited in the third paragraph that showed what problems can come of the United States’ very “hands-on” approach to foreign policy; the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh attests to the ramifications of such a “hands on” approach very well.
I also think the development of your argument was good. Aside from some grammatical errors (which I know you have already revised in a more recent version of your essay), I would suggest only a couple things to add to the piece. To strengthen the argument made in the third paragraph regarding “long lasting damages,” perhaps include other United States foreign policy missteps; the first two of the many missteps of the sort that come to mind are those of Patrice Lumumba’s 1961 assassination and the Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980’s. Also, in the last paragraph, you state “saving American lives should be our top priority”–I feel that your essay would benefit from a clear statement to this effect earlier on as well. Overall, well done. This essay was very informative and also further convinced me that there is some wisdom in the policy of “non-interventionism.”
This is a really well done draft, I particularly like your call to action in the conclusion. I think your argument is very logical, and a lot of Americans don’t understand that an overbearing foreign prescence isn’t necessarily a good thing. Not everyone ones to be American- after all, they like their countries too. In your conclusion you said this quote, “less mothers crying over the loss of their son or daughter.” If you really want to make a final emotional appeal, this is a powerful starting point. But in general, I really liked your structure your arguments. There are a few typos in there to look over, but overall this is a great work.
Well, I feel disgustingly unprepared by comparison, haha.
Anyways, I think this is a fantastic draft–you clearly have a good understanding of the subject that is well-supported by the research and facts you have provided. I think your diction is just stern and convicted enough to make your opinion clear and support the momentum of your argument without seeming too aggressive.
I just have a few suggestions–
It might be because the blog butchered the format of the essay, but I’m having trouble locating your thesis statement (if you have one). I think, giving the multi-faceted nature of your essay, you’d do well to try and sum the content of the three paragraphs into one or two clear statements. And between paragraphs, you might want to make the opening sentences slightly smoother in terms of transition. When reading, it feels as if there’s an abrupt change.
Also, this might be more of a pet peeve than an actual problem, but I would consider reworking the first sentence of your last paragraph. I think that, compared to several other statements you’ve made, that this particular one is a little weak. “A change must be made” is a little vague and passive. I’d go with something like, ” In order to secure peace and raise the United States onto a more stable and respected platform, American/United States foreign policy must be altered/changed/revised/etc.” I think it’s a little stronger, and the opening sentence of the final paragraph is particularly important in an essay.
But, in general, I think this is a great paper so far! A little bit of tweaking, and I think you’ll do great. It’s definitely refreshing to read a formal statement calling out our rather broken foreign policy, and I think you’re doing the subject justice.