Foreign Intervention Never Plays Out Like They Say It Will

While foreign intervention has continued to be employed liberally, even as the public has less interest in it, politicians continue to justify it through several tired excuses. They might even gain popularity by throwing aside their pretensions at justice and stating the real reason for their conquest, but the reasons they give unknowingly show a glaring contradiction. One reason often cited by the US and the UN when invading some unfortunate country is that they are seeking to mitigate violence. While in most countries they encounter, violence may be present, they are multiplying that violence by guaranteeing the deaths of any who stand up to their attempts at world hegemony. Protection against tyranny is also a key ground for attacks, yet most only replace the tyranny of that country’s government with a US imposed tyranny and an increased level of economic tyranny on US citizens. Additionally, the justification of unifying the world under one big happy family of democratically governed nations is not permissible either, as these attacks drive deeper cultural rifts, and even damage democratic nations who would otherwise have been just fine. This does not mean that there is no justification for war, but rather that the intervener must justify intervention only as a last resort. 

Many intervention decisions seeking to end violence are made without a consideration of the cost of the conquest being considered. The violence inflicted on American troops and by them to civilians is an afterthought to whatever violence is being done by the regime in power. The readiness of the US to jump into foreign conflicts, even under the Trump administration shows that the balance has been tipped heavily towards favoring intervention. Strategic targeting of policy outcomes with minimal loss of human life is forgotten in favor of a status quo that rewards intervention. The military industrial complex, lobbyists, and bloodthirsty allies don’t make the resistance of violence any easier. While a foreign dictator engaging in violence is seen as an unforgivable crime against humanity, the associated violence that we cause is something we have the international clout to avoid consequences for. Corrupt dictators should be toppled, but the assumption that the US will always be the best one to do that must end. Foreign intervention to stop violence cannot be justified any longer without a more robust understanding of our own propensity to multiply violence.…