Editorial: Expanded U.S. Foreign Engagement Vs. Reduced Commitments

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By: Dennis B

The question of what American policy should be in regards to intervention comes with a myriad of other questions and concerns.  Questions such as legitimacy, the type, and the cost to benefit possibilities are only a few.  However, at its heart the question of intervention is a question of engagement or withdrawal from the international arena.  Should the U.S. move further into the world as the major force in international issues or should it be more concerned with domestic issues and only interject at precise calculated moments?  Due to the United States present situation in regards to the war on terror and its already established position as a world leader, there may not be much of a choice left. 

The post-cold war period has seen an increase in overall instability as many of the developing nations experience both the joys and pains of more directly entering the world community.  The U.S. role as world leader dictates that the U.S. must address these issues in some form.  However, it can be argued that in many of the situations in which the United States became directly invested in an intervention(e.g., Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq), especially militarily, that the majority of the time the U.S. interests were not clearly served and the U.S. often left the situation the same or worse than before intervention. There are also situations that showed that direct U.S. involvement (such as the Gulf War) has led to unforeseen liabilities that have ultimately hurt U.S. security, interests, and credibility. The global community as it is today is extremely interconnected which makes it almost impossible to fully understand all the possible repercussions for any given intervention.  Add this to the fact that militarily the United States has not completely adapted to the form of asymmetrical warfare that is the norm today, and it leaves intervention as a very risky proposition.   

            Another important issue is that of the world economy and the effects globalization has on its well-being.  As the world becomes more interconnected, so do each nation’s economies within it.  In this regard, wars and military interventions in one area can effect a whole host of other nations simply by the means of economic exchange.  The argument could be made then that the United States must stay aggressively involved in international affairs simply because of indirect threats to its economy.  The fragility of gas prices in regards to international crisis is a perfect example.  However, economic concerns can also make the choices for intervention more profound in terms of unexpected repercussions.   An argument could be made that if, as some theories posit, countries tend to be more likely to intervene internationally in times of economic downturn, then an interconnected global market could create a self-perpetuating cycle of economic hardship and increased intervention.  As one conflict causes a downturn in another country’s economy then that could perpetuate a pro-interventionist policy within that country that then intervenes somewhere else.   

            Another important factor in the intervention question is that of prior military engagement or commitments.  The United States often determines an intervention by the level of military commitment they have already made.  If this policy continues, given the expansion of military bases around the world, then it would seem inevitable that the U.S. will intervene more.  There is the argument however, that the proliferation of U.S. military bases, and the problems within the communities they create, has given the U.S. an international image as the new empire.  The last thing that we need to do in light of these perceptions is to add messy interventions in those areas as further proof. 

            The history and legacy of U.S. intervention has not had a shining record.  Additionally, the ghosts of interventions past are increasingly coming back to haunt us today.  We can continue our role as the aggressive world leader bringing freedom and morality to the masses, however with our past failures and the overall inefficiency and bad judgment the U.S. has portrayed in many of our decisions on intervention, we risk becoming a leader with no followers.  An expanded engagement policy would do more to alienate the U.S. from the international community than help to build a new world order.  Furthermore, as Iraq has shown, often a military solution to create security for the U.S. can often have the reverse effects.  This is not to say the U.S. should not get involved in any international crises, but instead it should only do so in cases where it is the safest in regards to international opinion, possible harm done, or humanitarian need.  This could be best served through a policy of reduced commitments in so that the impetus or need to get involved in more risky interventions in terms of success or ill repute is much less likely.  Furthermore, the reduced engagement would also allow for a much larger and effective response in cases of intervention because the resources for intervention would not be overstretched.  A reduced commitment can also help to add legitimacy to the U.S. as a democracy builder by reducing some of the more imperialistic actions, perceived or real.   Finally, a policy of reduced engagement can help wean the international community of the idea of the U.S. as the world’s police force and create a much more multilateral structure.

Related articles

• Human Rights Maps (171): U.S. Military Intervention (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)
• Should the U.S Intervene? (thedailybeast.com)
• Reasons why the international community is hesitant of military intervention in Syria (haleybehre.wordpress.com)