Good And Bads Of Military Intervention
Military interventions around the world have been a source of public debate for over a century. Early statesmen, like George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe were all advocates of non intervention and sometimes even isolationist policies, favoring diplomacy first. On the other hand, Teddy Roosevelt was an early proponent of acquiring Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain in the late 1890s and was further credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia so the US could secure construction rights for the Panama Canal in 1904. Despite intermittent public calls for neutrality and government transparency, more instances of military intervention would soon follow: Woodrow Wilson in WWI, Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon in the Vietnam War, JFK in Cuba, Nixon in Chile, Carter in Afghanistan, Reagan in Grenada, Bush Sr. in Panama, Kuwait and Somalia, Clinton in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, and most recently, Bush Jr’s intervention plan for the Middle East.
“We stand at the armagaddeon and we battle for the Lord,” Theodore Roosevelt yelled from the platform. He continued, “This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.” The case for military intervention was to protect America from selfish interests. With American businesses opening up overseas, there was always the danger that the host country would rise against Americans overseas, thus jeopardizing American investment. This argument would be echoed by subsequent presidents as an excuse to invade the Middle East.
It’s rare for the public to support military intervention these days. The Vietnam War demonstrations and Iraq War protests are evidence of this widespread discontent. Critics of military interventions point to hypocrisy in US government policy, arguing that most of the WWII interventions carried out for “freedom” or “democracy” were actually defending dictatorships controlled by pro-US elites. US officials oversaw puppet governments in Vietnam, Central America, the Persian Gulf, Grenada and Panama, which the American people saw right through. Additionally, once reports surfaced from the front lines of atrocities committed by US soldiers during Vietnam, Americans saw that our own citizens were capable of the same sort of gruesome torture and terrorism we claimed to be fighting against. As a result, these double standards have left long-lasting distrust, discontent and even apathy among US citizens.
The US policy of military intervention largely operates under the guise of “democracy” and “benevolence.” However, the arm of democracy only extends when and where it is beneficial for US economic and militaristic gain. Genocides happening in Darfur and Myanmar remain largely ignored, while America sets her sights on Middle Eastern oil resources. If America is to survive, then some citizens feel more must be done to foster a positive reputation world-wide. The hope of the American people lies in two presidential hopefuls now. Can Barack Obama or John McCain redeem world opinion after seven years of aggressive US intervention?
