Military Intervention Has Advantages and Disadvantages

Military interventions around the world have been arise against Americans overseas, thus jeopardizing
source of public debate for over a century. EarlyAmerican investment. This argument would be echoed
statesmen, like George Washington, Thomas Paine,by subsequent presidents as an excuse to invade the
Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe were allMiddle East.
advocates of non intervention and sometimes evenThere was another argument for military intervention
isolationist policies, favoring diplomacy first. On theoffered up by President Woodrow Wilson. In response
other hand, Teddy Roosevelt was an early proponentto Armenian genocide occurring during his term, he
of acquiring Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain in thepetitioned Congress for a humanitarian intervention
late 1890s and was further credited with inciting theoverseas, stating: "The sympathy for Armenia among
Panamanian Revolt against Colombia so the US couldour people has sprung from untainted consciences,
secure construction rights for the Panama Canal inpure Christian faith, and an earnest desire to see
1904.Christian people everywhere succored in their time of
Despite intermittent public calls for neutrality andsuffering, and lifted from their abject subjection and
government transparency, more instances of militarydistress and enabled to stand upon their feet and take
intervention would soon follow: Woodrow Wilson intheir place among the free nations of the world.
WWI, Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon in theOur recognition of the independence of Armenia will
Vietnam War, JFK in Cuba, Nixon in Chile, Carter inmean genuine liberty and assured happiness for her
Afghanistan, Reagan in Grenada, Bush Sr. in Panama,people, if we fearlessly undertake the duties of
Kuwait and Somalia, Clinton in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo,guidance and assistance involved in the functions of a
and most recently, Bush Jr's intervention plan for themandatory." This argument resurfaced as a
Middle East.justification to invade Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
"We stand at the Armageddon and we battle for theThere can be no easy answer to the question of
Lord," Theodore Roosevelt yelled from the platform.whether to use military intervention or not. When
He continued, "This country belongs to the people. Itsaggressors set their sights on America, the US has no
resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should bechoice but to respond with Roosevelt's "big stick."
utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner willWhen political analysts speak of living in "a post-9/11
best promote the general interest." The case forworld," they point to the difficulty of simply sitting idle,
military intervention was to protect America fromallowing the world to stew in anti-American sentiment.
selfish interests.However, people like Noam Chomsky point out how
With American businesses opening up overseas, thereAmerican interventionist ambitions led to most of the
was always the danger that the host country wouldviolence against the country.