America has been a shining beacon for the world since the end of WWII and for good reason. As a nation predicated on the concept of freedom, America has seen growth and prosperity unknown to the rest of the world. With this prosperity, however, comes much responsibility in the realm of foreign policy.
There are two sides to the debate over foreign policy and America’s engagement in the world. Some believe that America has the power, prestige, and duty to stand up for freedom globally. They believe America should work with the world and the UN on global problems in every corner of the world. Others argue that America is not responsible for the woes of the world. They believe the era of global leadership has passed with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. They assert that America can now withdraw from the world stage and focus on domestic issues. Both views are incorrect in their outlook on the world, as recent events around the globe have shown.
The first outlook, that America must do everything it can to further global prosperity, can be further split into different outlooks. On the Left, we can find those who believe that America must embrace the UN as a world-changing organization. They believe we should remain globally engaged but as an influential follower and not a leader.
This stance was best characterized as “leading from behind” by an adviser in Barack Obama’s administration. This reflected the general thrust of President Obama’s foreign policy. This belief, that America must follow the actions of the UN and specifically of western European countries in the UN to a fault, is badly mistaken. The notion that the world consensus is always right, or that the UN is competent and capable of making the correct policy choice, is a terrible concept.
This United Nations is brazenly anti-Semitic. They have passed more condemnations of Israel than of North Korea. It has failed in its most basic mission: to end world suffering in places where the evidence was clear that suffering was coming. The best example of this failure is the tragic genocide in Rwanda when over 700,000 Tutsi’s were killed by their Hutu neighbors in one of the worst acts of racial oppression since the Holocaust.
This is not to say that the UN cannot be useful; a favorable vote by the UN Security Council gives global legitimacy to American policy concerns. However, with Russia and China standing counter to American interests and France and Germany hiding behind their globalist policies, the notion of a unified Security Council is a pipe dream.
On the other side of the “globalist” outlook are the interventionists, best personified by Dick Cheney. Labeled ‘neocons’ by the media, these people see the power of the US military as an asset we should flex as often as possible and in as many places as possible. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, despite little connection to 9/11 and even less proof of chemical weapons, is a prime example of this principle.
In an effort to shape the order of the Middle East, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush invaded Iraq, committing America to a quagmire. Engaging in wars in such a way is terrible policy. They unnecessarily alienated the US from the rest of the world and committed America to a conflict where our national interests did not clearly reside.
Another example of military adventurism is the ongoing push for military intervention in Iran. As much as Iran stands counter to American interests, the loss of American life in Persia far outweighs any benefits such a war might bring.
Standing against most forms of global engagement are the isolationists, both on the left and the right. They believe that America must invest in America first. This belief is shown in Bernie Sanders on the left. He believes in a heavy reduction of US military strength and in massive investments by the government at home. On the right, we see it in Patrick Buchanan, a man who criticized George H. W. Bush for invading Iraq in 1990.
The American response to Syrian gassing of citizens in 2013 is a prime example of the flaws in isolationism. The world needs a moderating force to effectively check the enemies of freedom, peace, and stability. America alone fits that role.
Throughout all of human history, countries with the capacity to have stepped up as the global power able to maintain peace. Rome did it, Britain did it, and now America must do it. If it does not, another, less free nation (i.e. China) will fill the role.
The best course for American global policy is one that embraces America’s role as a world leader while remembering the Westphalian concept of national-sovereignty. America must intervene in places where American values are under threat We must do so with the caveat that we should not harm American interests in doing so.
A prime example of this is Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro is a heavy-handed dictator, reminiscent of another time. This threat to freedom is on America’s backdoor, and we must act. Juan Guiadó, the rightful President of Venezuela, has shown that he has the support of the Venezuelan populace. America must commit troops to ending the threat of Maduro and ensuring that democracy in South America stands.
As mentioned above, a great example of where American moral interests do not coincide with American geopolitical interests is the Iranian problem. Since the 1970’s, Iran has been a terrorist sponsor. The nation threatens American lives both in the Middle East and worldwide. They are an evil nation, and the idea forwarded by the global community that we can peacefully coincide with Iran is foolish.
Trump was right to pull out of the nuclear deal for this reason. However, the reality of the situation is that, without inner strife, the mullahs in charge of Iran are impossible to dispose of. The interventionists who suggest war with Iran fail to recognize the geopolitical realities of the Middle East. They are wrong in their policy subscription.
American foreign policy is complex and always has been. The world is a complicated place, and we as Americans must live and work in that complicated world. By embracing American principles, however, we can make that world a little less complex and a little more free. America is a shining beacon to the world, independent in its decisions and global in its approach. It must remain so, or face dire consequences.
Scott Howard is a constitutionally-minded conservative freelance writer with a focus on fiscal matters and foreign policy. You can follow him on Twitter: Follow @thenextTedCruz
Editor’s Note: Where is the proper middle-ground between intervention and isolation? America’s early isolationist tendencies were cemented in the national conscience by George Washington’s farewell address. Yet, this is contrasted by the equally foundational view of Thomas Jefferson who swore, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thus, from 1823 to World War I, America stayed out of all European affairs while still engaging in heavy intervention in Central and South America under the Monroe Doctrine. I think Scott Howard correctly surmises that we should be led by our interests. The real foreign policy should be less on debating the various extremes and more on a real national discussion about what our interests are. -Justin