Pros And Cons Of Military Intervention

response to intervention

Some historians say that the United States military intervention strategies date back to 1898, when the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico were seized from Spain. The US intervention in the Cuban-Spanish-American war was against the will of President McKinley, but was largely driven by Congressional desire to acquire Hawaii and Cuba. The ambassador of Spain called McKinley "weak" in a private letter that was published in the news. Public opinion was further swayed by media reports that the Spanish government was behind the explosion of the USS Maine in the Havana Harbor that killed 266, despite adamant denials. After a military intervention, the US acquired Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico as protectorates. This set the tone for US further military interventions, which some say is a misguided solution that has led to unfavorable opinions around the world.

"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.

The cases for non intervention are multitudinous of course. "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible," George Washington said in his farewell address, adding that America had no business in Europe's affairs. In 1823, President James Monroe added, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." Critics of US military intervention argue that these actions do more harm than good, place governments in a state of disrepair, are fueled by selfish "Manifest Destiny" and create a negative response to intervention and a negative perception of America around the world.

It's grown increasingly difficult for the US government to justify military interventions, given the statistics. In Iraq, over 100,000 have died as a result of US bombings, invasions and occupations. In Somalia, 10,000 were killed by military intervention. In Vietnam, 3 million were left dead, with an additional half-a-million in Laos and even more in Cambodia. One million people were massacred in Indonesia and 300,000 in East Timor. The government President Clinton supported in Guatemala exterminated 205,000 people by death squad. These are only a few instances where US interventionist policy led to egregious consequences.