U.S. Intervention

Should the United States enter into military intervention in foreign countries for humanitarian reason? Why? Why not? Under what conditions should the U.S. intervene if at all?

History has been shown to repeat itself, and if we don't learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. We have watched many genocides happen within the last decade, some of which the U.S. has intervened, and in some cases where they have not. The United States should not intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons because the U.S. may lack investing the amount of troops and resources necessary to make the intervention successful ; that doctrine will be abused unless there is a self-interest at stake.

Another reason why the U.S. should not intervene in foreign countries is because they do not always have the support of the citizens. The intervention in Somalia is a perfect example of humanitarian intervention where the U.S had no economical reasons or self-interest. Their main goal was to provide food to the Somalis suffering from starvation due to political oppression. The U.S. helped the starving Somalis, then tried to go after the person responsible for withholding the food. This turned out to be a very bad step for the U.S. Being a country with no freedom of speech, the Somalis had no access to television, radio or newspapers, and listened to what they were told by their leaders who told them the U.S was there to convert them to Christianity and take their first born children. Alarmed by the idea, the Somalis turned against the U.S soldiers. Men, women and children who were armed and ready to fight and defend their country, outnumbered the U.S. soldiers. The Somali citizens were told by their leaders that if they shot a couple of soldiers, the U.S would leave; which is exactly what happened. Instead of deploying more soldiers and bringing in more resources to Somalia, which could have helped capture the leader, help end starvation and accomplishing their mission, the U.S. withdrew its troops as soon as two U.S. helicopters went down. It is estimated that the Somalis deaths ranged anywhere from 1,000-10,000 civilians, and 18 U.S. soldiers were killed. The U.S won the battle, but lost the war. Sure the U.S helped feed millions of people for a certain period of time, but overall the intervention turned out to be unsuccessful because once they left, starvation would soon hit Somalia once again. The Somali leader and the main instigator of starvation was not arrested, many innocent people were killed and when the U.S withdrew its troops, 18 soldiers' lives were lost in vain because their mission was not accomplished with their deaths.

The U.S has military all over the world, and is stretched to the limit and the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is in agreement that these peace operations are "stretching our military [to] the verge of the breaking point. (John Hillen 125). In Patrick J. Buchanan's article "The United States Should Not Intervene in Regional Conflicts", he states that "Europeans are fully capable of defending themselves" (118). They should form their own intervention power instead of the U.S sending its troops from overseas. He agrees that our military is stretched thin due to "America's overseas defense commitment, to the point that the United States would be unable to defend itself against a concerted attack by its enemies."(118). The United States should have its troops on its own soil, defending and securing it, and John Hillen agrees with this when he says that "the United States must realize that a failure to be prepared to combat serious security threats will sooner or later have consequences so catastrophic as to dwarf the problems of muddling through a Bosnia, Haiti, or Somalia- type mission."

Many U.S interventions have been referred to as "Humanitarian Interventions", which has come to be known as just another reason to justify the war. Take the Iraqi war for example, which has failed to meet the qualifications for a humanitarian intervention. There have been more killings with the U.S intervention then when Saddam Hussein was leader. The U.S. went to war to take Saddam Hussein out of power and confiscate the weapons of mass destruction. Now that Saddam is dead, and no evidence of weapons of mass destructions have been found, why is the U.S. not withdrawing its troops from a war that has not led to any human rights improvement, and has produced more harm than good?

Many countries view the U.S. as a world superpower, and expect the U.S to intervene and prevent violations of human rights. If the U.S. is so busy taking care of other nations, who will take care of the homeless people wandering the streets of the United States, or those with disabilities who are unable to work and depend on government aid or the children without medical insurance? The US needs to take care of domestic issues before policing the worlds issues. All the money that the United States would be spending on a military intervention in foreign countries that may not even be successful, (such as in Somalia), could be spent helping the millions of Americans that have no health insurance coverage, and no jobs. The United States believes that children are the future, therefore that money could be spent in education such as buying books, used toward building new schools, etc.. where it would actually make a difference.

The U.S economy was at a good start during the Clinton Administrations and it is now plundering down the hole since we have intervened in foreign politics.