As David Wood, HuffPost senior military correspondent explains :. In this country we tend to look at foreign problems in a military way. So, send in the marines. Sell military goods. And a lot of the reason is because we don't really get involved in crises very often until it becomes an overwhelming problem, and there's almost nothing left to do except using military force. I think as hard as this is to realize, I think part of the problem is, we don't back up and pay attention to situations as they're developing.
While the eyes of the American media and public might have shifted back to Iraq for now, just a week ago they were, momentarily, back on Afghanistan.
In another example of how dangerous the country still is for our military, we heard about the killing of Major General Harold Greene, who was killed by an Afghan soldier in a green-on-blue gunfire exchange. The killing of the most high-ranking American general since the war began - and in the year that combat operations are supposed to have wrapped up - underscores how fluid our goals have been.
Our mission in the country is now more about extricating troops safely than nation-building. Three in four Americans believe that history will judge the war in Afghanistan a failure, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll out this week. Every single soldier who dies - it's a tragedy - but they really are dying for nothing because this is not a war that's being won.
The Taliban have not been defeated. Women's rights are not secure. We're not leaving behind a liberal democracy in Afghanistan. What we are leaving behind is in fact, as Hasan says, "more war, and more terror.
America is a nation that's signed up to international humanitarian laws - and has helped to establish organizations to impose those laws - but as former Guantanamo lawyer Colonel Morris Davis told me, "It weakens our standing to lecture others about their behavior when they can point back at us and say 'You're not practicing what you're preaching.
The idea of America's lawlessness continues to hurt us. However, in many cases, involving the United States of America causes a chance of war, and because of that, I believe that Congress should have an overall debate and decide whether or not to involve the country in foreign affairs. Primarily because, if the United States were to, for example, bomb the wrong area, and trigger a war, then it might make the United States situation worse, and also impact other countries negatively, being that most of the times, people tend to choose sides.
If our country was to make a decision that ended up poorly, it would be our responsibility to admit our faults and give reparations to other countries, and we are not at the best standpoint economically to have to repay other countries for damages. Of course there is a sense of right in wrong when attempting to put action into foreign affairs, and though everybody has different standpoints on nearly every global and national issue to date, there should be an overall agreement between both citizens and Congress on whether or not we should involve ourselves.
For every action, there is a reaction, and depending on the actions that our government takes, the reaction could either help the situation and give the United States credit towards their participation in whatever the situation may be, or, on the flip-side, if something turns to a crisis, the United States may find itself in a much more significant amount of debt, lose respect as a country, and possible lose allies.
If used correctly, though, interacting in foreign affairs could turn situations for the better, and get rid of things that have been troubling many nations, and many groups of people. With nearly anything, things can be good or bad, it just depends how you use them, and, in my opinion, as long as decisions are made thoughtfully, and not on a whim, interacting with foreign issues can be a very positive thing, and sometimes necessary for our country to participate in.
However, if a conflict grows to a point…. By the United States coming together with other countries helping them, supporting them, saving their people… that can only do better. Better as in allies. If the United States continues to stay involved and help countries in need of help, then that could put our country at greater risk with being good allies. If sometime in the future our country is in trouble, There would be a chance that maybe another allied country would help us.
Alliances are formed and the United States is helping save people from those countries of bad governments. If by helping those people, the United States would be saving lives. Meaning, there could be disagreements, complications with foreign countries. To not provoke war or attack. The United States intentions would simply be trying to Better and help foreign citizens. The intentions is only to make this world a better place and try to help.
By the United St…. Hope, I respect you opinion and quite honestly I feel that we need to avoid outside conflict.
Unless it directly impacts us and what we do. I personally feel its smarter for us to just leave the grizzly bear alone and not poke it with a stick and get mauled when we can avoid that happening. Vietnam is a perfect example of things that happen when …. Just like all of politics, this answer is an opinion because I believe that yes we should be involved in foreign conflict but the U. Constitution does not specifically state whether we should get involved in foreign conflicts or not.
The constitution gets close to define what the U. This part of the preamble is referring to domestic situations but in recent years to protect our domestic policies we have to get involved in foreign affairs, for example, the U. While my citation is vague it does tie in with the preamble because to protect out domestic policies we have to have a way to declare war.
For example in the U. With all that being said my personal belief is that I believe the U. Constitution do…. I believe that the united states needs to be tread carefully, but a bystander letting things happen is no better than doing the acts you are trying to prevent or disapprove of. If you see someone being bullied and say nothing are you any better than the bully? I believe that the united states needs to be tread carefully, but a bystander letting things happen is no better than doing the acts you are trying to….
There is no reason that what another country does to their own or to other should have anything response from the United States. For example the bombs in Syria, where not really needed because what they did, did not affect the U. Were there any Americans injured, or killed?
No so then it was not our business or problem. Someone may argue that although it currently is not affecting us later it would. The time that it would take before the foreign country would decide to attack us we would all ready be ready to combat and destroy them.
Just because the United States can deal with issues from the world does not mean it is feasible for us to do so. There is no reason that what another country does to …. If we avoid it then we are less likely to have our troops die over something that we have no place in. For example Vietnam! Yes things might change but history repeats its self consistently. If we avoid i…. I agree that the United States must maintain some form of involvement in foreign conflicts but we should not become entirely enveloped with the internal problems of other countries.
If we are not economically affected or militarily threatened by a foreign affair we should not become involved. This sort of unjust involvement has caused issues in the past and costed not only the United States lives and money but has also become a detriment to other countries we are attempting to help because they become dependent on us and lose their own sovereignty.
I agree that the United States must maintain some form of involvement in foreign conflicts but we should not become entirely enveloped with the intern…. I agree with what you are stating, but the U. S has issues itself and most of them are not being fixed. So when the U. S ignore its own issues and focus…. The problem that we have nowadays is that we want everyone in the world to be equal and have freedom and rights, etc.
While this would be nice it is just not possible or logical. While this would be nice it is j…. Yes, it is immoral for a person to just walk by a mugging and do nothing, but a government has its own citizens to worry about first. Now, if we are approached and asked for help, or if immigrants flee to our borders, or if we are attacked along with other nations, we ought absolutely to get involved. But attacking other nations simply on the basis of morality is not what the Constitution is based on.
And involving ourselves militarily in every conflict that goes on around the world is certainly not in accordance with the Constitutional principal of a limited government controlled primarily by the people. Yes, it is immoral for a person to just walk by a mugging a….
I understand this but explain to me if the US is supposed to act to protect the of things we disapprove of should we interfere in China, because one thing US is freedom of speech.
Also, does this give the right to other countries to come in and tell us how to change, because of something of their beliefs. I understand this but explain to me if the US is supposed to act to protect the of things we disapprove of should we interfere in China, because one t….
I believe that the US should get involved with foreign countries to some extent, whatever the case may be. If he handled it with respectful authority, it is okay.
I agree with you, as long as it is done with respect I think it is good the United States is protecting people. Though there are certain things that we might have to use force.
On a basis of morality I agree that the events that have happened in Syria are terrible but to some extent countries must resolve issue for themselves. American intervention in some cases can cause disdain to the American intervention and help to escalate a situation. If the United States is solely responsible for preventing tragedies such as those in Syria it would become impossible for countries to become self dependent.
This makes intervention a short term solution that will not benefit the country in the long run. On a basis of morality I agree that the events that have happened in Syria are terrible but to some extent countries must resolve issue for themselves…. I completely agree! Its not fair for a country to harass its own people. Especially with chemical warfare. I think the government should be involved as it is there job to step in and make decisions when the lives of people are at stake.
Yes U. Many oppose government involvement abroad, but what they miss is one thing: The U. Take World War II for example. The entire world must band together in order to stop power-hungry groups like these, which means that government action outside of the country will be needed! Thus, it is in the best interests of humanity for the U.
I strongly think that we should interfere and help these foreign countries so that we can gain money , prevent bigger issues, create or maintain allies, and to prevent larger catastrophes that could include terrorism. Some people might argue that it cost too much money and that we are worrying about other issues when we should worry about what is happening in our country before we help others with their issues.
But we are the saviors we are the greatest country of the world we can do multiple things at once we have all they need, we need to give and not worry about the risk. So do i think we should help yes indeed this will also create more bonds with foreign countries. I strongly think that we should interfere and help these foreign countries so that we can gain money , prevent bigger issues, create or maintain allie….
Due to circumstances on which the United States was founded, the Constitution and the founders who wrote it expressed opinions of disdain toward foreign intervention in parts of the world isolated from the main country or more specifically the process of colonization. Foreign affairs powers outlined in the Constitution included only the powers to declare war, receive ambassadors, and regulate trade as well s set tariffs.
During the period of time following the ratification of the Constitution American foreign policy can best be described as isolated from all foreign affairs besides trade and fiscal lending.
This is exemplified through the actions of the United States Government during the the war between France and England at the end of the 18th century in which the United States declared neutrality even after American ships were seized and trade was blocked to both France and England countries.
The United States has also grown to become a world class economic and military superpower. We have become involved in foreign affairs such as trade agreements, colonization, policing policies, and wars.
This radical change make the question of how the United States should fit into foreign affairs very complicated. The American Government has become too involved in the internal political affairs of other countries that do not directly affect our own and has taken over responsibilities that other counties themselves should handle. At no point in our Constitution was it made a responsibility of our government to maintain the affairs of other countries.
In fact efforts such as this often make issues worse in other nations, such as our support of the Mujahideen who later grew to become a threat to our Country by means of the support we had given to them. This lack of sensitivity and knowledge to the intricacies of local political conditions in other counties as well as costs to our own country prove that interference into the internal affairs of other countries is detrimental and costly to our country. This form of involvement in other countries does in some cases form a temporary solution but rarely creates lasting benefit for the country we begin to police that country often becomes dependent on American support while at the same time develops disdain toward our intrusion.
This is seen in our military occupation of Afghanistan, a country that has become dependent on our military support to prevent radical groups from gaining power. At the same time local people have developed a hatred toward the American occupation and intrusion on their sovereign country. Afghanistan has not developed its own form of internal protection because it has always been provided for them. As a whole our occupation has weakened Afghanistan and created a problem for the United States rather than a solution.
Intrusion on the internal affairs of other countries has been proven to create more problems than it is worth due to the costly procedures and lack of long term development for other nations. Though we as a country should not become involved in the internal affairs of other countries we must induce foreign policy in order to protect our own interest of trade and resources as well as security. The framers of the Constitution held ideas of lack of intrusions on foreign affairs not only due to experiences of English colonization but also to protect the resources and economy of our contained country.
This is still true today but the world economy has developed to become a more globally integrated marketplace and thus foreign policy must now be enacted in order to protect American interests of trade and resources hear and abroad. Our country is at its strongest when people are at work and we are creating products. This can be seen as the period during and following WW2 which was a height of economic success due to internal manufacturing. But foreign resources that are crucial to Americans should be protected such as oil fields and food resources.
Military intervention in WW2 helped stop the spread of the imminent threat of the Axis Powers who would inevitably have posed a threat to the security and sovereignty of our country. Though American foreign policy should not interfere with the internal workings of other countries is should help facilitate trade and protect resources essential to our country as well as protect the national security of our nation.
The world as a whole is constantly changing and American policy has adapted and progressed with this changing world. Yet, we as a country should not become to developed in the internal affairs of other nations as this often causes further political unrest and disdain toward the United States.
American foreign policy should be limited rather to policies that help to protect and spur our own economy. It is also the ultimate goal of our government as stated in the constitution to protect and preserve the life, liberty and happiness of the people of this country and this should be done through foreign policy that prevents threats to our nation security.
Due to circumstances on which the United States was founded, the Constitution and the founders who wrote it expressed opinions of disdain toward forei…. Yes I do believe that we should get involved, this nation was founded upon the idea of resisting tyranny. With that being said do we as a nation really believe in that ideology if we can not go into the world to defend those being subjected to tyranny? With that being said do we as a nation real….
The United States should get involved in foreign conflict, because the principle of the United States is the rights for all humanity, knowing the rights of the people. Like the air strike in Syria, was a good example of United States getting involved. Other countries look at the United States for examples, so what the U. S does is what the other countries would look to follow. The air strike in Syria was an absolute thing to be done, because the citizens in Syria deserve their rights, and not to be sprayed with chemical.
With the U. S also getting involved, it will let other countries know that the U. S is watching and they will make a move when they need to.
The United States should get involved in foreign conflict, because the principle of the United States is the rights for all humanity, knowing the righ…. We should at least intervene in some way. In addition, it will strengthen future political and economic relations with future Syria.
On the other hand, being a bystander and letting the war play out is like encouraging the fighting. If we openly oppose President Bashar al-Assad and make attacks on his government, like what Trump recently issued to do, it will further pull other foreign countries into the war. Instead, I present two options: either put economic pressure on Assad, restricting the supplies that come into his hands and providing as many resources to the Syrian coalition, or meet with other foreign countries involved in the war, including Russia, coming up with a solution that all can agree on.
If the first option is considered, it will result in tension between foreign countries, but it will at least prevent direct attacks between the foreign powers. However, we will also need to promise the new government economic aid and government counseling after the war, especially since one of the causes for the revolts is economic turmoil. This might be problematic with Russia, who has economic interests in Syria. So I think the second option is the best one.
If we understand why Russia supports Assad, most likely due to economic and political factors, we can come up with a compromise on what to do together. We can convince Russia that they should not support the oppressive government. Instead, if they support the coalition, they can play a limited role in intervening in the new Syrian government along with the United States and other countries, establishing new connections still in favor to their interests.
If it works, resources, lives, and money will be saved. Yes, the US should get involved in some foreign conflicts. In cases of genocide, such as the Holocaust or the Somalian genocide, it would make sense that the United States would be proactive, because if no one else intervenes, the probability that millions of lives are lost increases. If the United States were to intervene in cases of genocide, although American lives may be spent, it would not only decrease the the probability of loss of life, but it may stop the genocide altogether, preventing the further loss of life.
The world is not in need of yet another incident such as the Holocaust. However, if there is no threat to the United States, there is no reason as to why the US should become involved. In the specific case of Syria, it seemed a rather rash, irrational decision that did not even go through Congress. Technically, the decision did not have to go through Congress, but more thought should have been put into it. Theodore Roosevelt may have claimed that the US is the international police, but there are cases when the police simply are not needed and are excessively used.
In cases of genocide, such as the Holocaust or the Somalian genocide, it would make sense t…. This was an excellent response. I could not agree more.
When you make rash decisions multiple lives pay for it. You have to sit down and weigh ALL your options, not just one side or a few sides. After the clip of him not even knowing whom he had bombed, that just made it even more surreal that he truly did make this decision out of order.
Yes, I do believe the United States should be involved in foreign conflict because we have always been a country of compassion as well as a beacon of hope for those persecuted by their own country.
Yes, I do believe the United States should be involved in foreign conflict because we have always been a country of compassion as well as a beacon of …. Yes because because America cares about it citizen and to live in America is not a right but an opportunitie so if you get it make use of it. I vote yes, because, WW2 if we struck sooner than we did we would have probably ended that war faster than we did..
Trump had the right to do what he …. I believe we should get involved as long as we have the proper resources to help. If another country is in need and does not have the proper resources to defend themselves, another country should get involved if they have what that country needs. It would be wrong to turn a blind eye to a country in dire need of help that is suffering.
If it is proven, or there are rumors, that a foreign nation is unable to responsibly care for its citizens, then the United States should take it upon themselves, as a First World nation and a model for the rest of the world. If there is a conflict between foreign nations and U.
If it is proven, or there are rumors, that a foreign nation is unable to responsibly care for its citizens, then the United States should take it….
For me I would say that it is an issue depending on the topic. We are by getting involved in military conflicts with other countries, ruining our relationship with them.
If the type of foreign movement is in aid of the citizens then it is better. I think foreign aid is spectacular as long as we are not involved with violence. My opinion is that helping the people in other countries gives them a chance to catch up to the global market, allowing for more prosperity globally.
We are by getti…. Yes, I think that the US should not turn a blind eye to horrendous or indecent foreign affairs, but with a limit. The US should not try to be a mediator between each and every country in the world. I know in the US we have a strong sense of justice, but if two countries are fighting for their own personal reasons, I believe the US should stay out of it.
The US should not try to be a mediat…. Not only have terrorist threats become very serious lately, but in the past few years, the leftist government did next to nothing about it. While innocent people were getting slaughtered by idiotic insurgents, the government was working on ways to help the economy and other things that once researched, were completely unnecessary.
While inno…. I believe that the United States should be involved with issues of foreign policy because, in the bombing of the Assad regime, it assures other countries against the Assad regime that we stand with them.
It also tells other nations of the world that America is an upholder of international law, which also strengthens foreign relationships. There is also an issue of morality in foreign policy regarding the Assad regime.
The use of chemical weapons is inhumane, these poor refugees are suffering at the hand of these weapons.
Intervening also sets a moral example for America that other countries should certainly follow. I believe that the United States should be involved with issues of foreign policy because, in the bombing of the Assad regime, it assures other countr…. I believe, as a well developed country, we have some responsibility to help other countries become free of tyranny and poverty if the government is the cause of said poverty. As a global superpower meaning a nation with plentiful recourses and powerful military might , the United States has a responsibility to defend the Syrian people against the inhumane chemical attacks they faced.
This lead to an increase in military ambition and ultimately a world war. As a global superpower meaning a nation with plentiful recourses and powerful military might , the United States has a responsibility to defend the S…. Yes, but depends on certain situations. For example, the Rwandan Genocide. This was a situation where we could have saved so many lives.
The United States is a nation that was built on immigration and the natives did not always receive us amicably , it is our responsibility to help people that need us too. The United States is a nation that…. Since its very first president, the U.
S has known the risks of stepping into foreign affairs. Looking back on history, when we see the U. That being said, the U. When someone acquires as much respect and ability that the U.
I think that to a certain extent, the U. S has the responsibility that is afflicted by being a global super power. Our job, however, should not just use other countries for our own self interest. If part of it is self interest, that is fine, but if all of it is, then we should stay out of it.
However, I sincerely hope that as a global super power, we can think of the world at large instead of just ourselves and help. I think the air strike on Syria for example was completely justifiable, as we destroyed weaponry from the Syrian government that could continue to cause harm towards Syrian civilians.
Our job, however, should not just us…. It is necessary and even essential at some points that countries are involved in foreign affairs when they go against their beliefs, because the world…. I believe that the U. S should be involved in foreign policies even though it is not our problem. The reason for this is because the war going around us will compel the U. S allies are attacked. If we are involved we can prevent any bigger issues from starting. Furthermore, being involved in foreign issues might change the circumstances to stop the problem even though it can also be the beginning of a bigger issue.
The U. S is one of the most powerful countries in the world and with the equipment and army forces and the help of allies, it can overcome any issues or war. In contrary, others may say we need to stay out of foreign policy issues because we may gain enemies.
It is not a bad thing to become enemies with other countries because after all there will always be conflicts with other countries and that is the reason for wars within countries. At the same time we can gain allies to help us go to war and help with other issues. Also, our soldiers will die at war if we get involved but we need to stop bigger issues from happening and we need to stop using resources. Foreign policy issues are something that are always going to surround us and involved or not there must be something done to stop them.
The reason for this is because the war going around u…. While it is imperative that we remain careful when entering foreign affairs, it is a bad decision to steer clear of them entirely. Standing aside and watching as our enemies grow and our allies weaken is a terrible thing to do. Making things more difficult for ourselves much later and possibly even leading to mistakes impossible to correct.
Helping those in need is an American ideal, and something that we should strive for not only when dealing with our brethren, but also our neighbors. We must help those around us, in order to truly better ourselves. Standing aside and …. I believe that we should get involved to help the people of other countries, but do not influence to make them to come after us and start a war. But President trump should be more worried about Korea because that is an issue my sister is joining the army, I hope he dicides in certainly that he will actually help and not start another war that is not necessary.
But P…. The United States shall continue to engage in foreign affairs due to assisting vulnerable countries and strengthening relationships with other countries. Our country may not be the most stable of its own, however, we are more stable and resourced than majority of the outside countries.
If are able to give assistance to the country and its people, then we should. In doing so, we build stronger relationships with the aided country. Stronger relationships allow for us to have reliable countries to aid us when we are in trouble and our people are being strongly affected. Morals overturn monetary matters.
One against engaging in foreign affairs may argue that doing so will break the treaties and compromises that were made prior to our reason for assisting the other country.
Though that may be true, when discussing morals, it always reigns. That is like watching a person be bullied and chose to ignore the situation due to the bully being someone you used to fight with and squashed it. In the s many Americans did not want to become ensnared in a bloody war for the sake of distant China, or in what some Americans saw as war to perpetuate the British empire.
In addition, the slow recovery from the Great Depression , with continuing high unemployment and farm problems, seemed to demand a concentration of effort on recovery at home rather than adventures abroad.
The situation changed drastically in May and June All this threatened, perhaps in a few months, to defeat the surviving Ally. Now it seemed that unless help was provided America might have to deal on its own with a German-dominated Europe. The implications of the May—June upheaval were global. In particular, the resource-rich southeast Asian colonies of France and the Netherlands were suddenly open to control or occupation by outsiders. In late September this potential threat began to become a reality, when Japan sent troops into the northern French Indochina.
In the second half of the US became a vital base of support for Britain, and it grew greatly in importance as a factor in world affairs. The intention was to deter the Americans from entering the war, as they had in ; the signatories pledged mutual support if the US went to war against any one of them.
Roosevelt nevertheless moved cautiously; there would be a Presidential election in November , and as he was running for an unprecedented third term it could be an uphill fight. He pledged to keep the US out of direct involvement in the war. Victory at the polls allowed the re-elected Roosevelt more freedom of action, but not a mandate to go to war. Korea was now seen as a war that had successfully stopped the Chinese communist expansion in Asia. Tensions between the United States and North Korea are ongoing.
But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! Twice a week we compile our most fascinating features and deliver them straight to you. Live TV. This Day In History. History Vault. Recommended for you. Korean War.
0コメント