Question for people who favor military intervention policies

[Communists For McCain]

How exactly would you determine which countries America should get involved in?  Because frankly, the impression a lot of us get is that you guys believe that America should be a world policeman of sorts that overturns every tin pot dictator.
I would imagine that you guys don't appreciate such a simplification and would like to make your views more clear on what problems you guys believe in justify interventionism.  Like, what amount of corruption or "evil" would justify sending American forces overseas for.

I'm respectfully curious.

[Redalgo]

Generally speaking, my attitude on the matter is something like this:

1. Unlimited U.S. intervention is justified in response to genocide or ethnic cleansing if the party or parties perpetrating the violence do not swiftly cease and desist their campaigns when put under diplomatic pressure to do so. Rapid and overwhelming, unilateral action by the United States is permissible. The final resolution of conflict ought to account for the concerns and interests of all factions involved and seek both reconciliation and the establishment of a lasting peace.

2. Limited intervention is justified if foreign assistance seems popular in, and is being requested by the people of a country whose persistent peaceful demonstrations against their regime are being directly or indirectly quelled with violence. Multilateral action is preferred but unnecessary. Although it is important for the people of the country to exercise a measure of self-determination, the new regime has to offer reasonable assurances of better upholding a certain set of basic human rights.

3. Limited intervention is justified if foreign assistance seems popular in, and is being requested by the people of a country whose armed rebellion against a regime that has an unsavory human rights record is being defeated (or is in serious danger of being defeated) by pro-government forces. Both the form and extent of American intervention ought to be judged and vary accordingly on a case-by-case basis since the resistance fighters may not exactly be noble freedom fighters.

4. Regime-change is justified if foreign assistance seems popular in, and is being requested by the people of a country whose government has a poor human rights record, is not responding favorably to diplomatic pressure, the mission of intervention has strong multilateral support, and people who reside in the country in question are willing to negotiate with their benefactors for the formation of a government which will better offer and protect a certain set of basic human rights.

Resource restraints, public support within the homeland, and several other considerations are important to weigh before deciding on whether or not to commit... but to be clear I do not care what strategic value the other country or countries have to the States, don't support the use of humanitarian interventions as a pretext for establishing pro-American regimes or fostering principles popular in the States abroad when the people affected favor other values, and it is difficult to say exactly where... but there is also a line at which I consider the acts of another regime so egregious that intervening would seem like an obligation to me even if it'd be costly.

If I may ask, what is your take on the matter, Mecha?

[Communists For McCain]

My position is that for military forces to be sent there needs to be an attack on American soil.
This includes American embassies.
A declaration of war by the other country is also an impetus for war.

The major wars (the Revolution, Civil War, World War I, World War II) used this rationale for going to war I believe.

[Jacobtm]

So your opinion is, if anyone wants us to fight bad guys anywhere in the world, our military is at their disposal?

I suppose you don't imagine that the United States is itself a bad guy who topples governments only where there are valuable resources that U.S. interests would like to control (rare earths in Afghanistan, Oil in Iraq/Iran).

[CathKhan]

So your opinion is, if anyone wants us to fight bad guys anywhere in the world, our military is at their disposal?

I suppose you don't imagine that the United States is itself a bad guy who topples governments only where there are valuable resources that U.S. interests would like to control (rare earths in Afghanistan, Oil in Iraq/Iran).

I've probably said this earlier, but you're a funny guy, ya know that? Not to be a dick, but I must wonder why you still live in the land of the Great Satan that is America. Opebo's got it figured out.

[Redalgo]

So your opinion is, if anyone wants us to fight bad guys anywhere in the world, our military is at their disposal?

I suppose you don't imagine that the United States is itself a bad guy who topples governments only where there are valuable resources that U.S. interests would like to control (rare earths in Afghanistan, Oil in Iraq/Iran).

I think American foreign policy is predominately influenced by realist concerns but do not myself prescribe to those views. I would like a strictly self-defensive foreign policy doctrine, if not for a sense of responsibility to humanity as a whole. There certainty need to be practical limits when it comes to what we do abroad since we do not possess an inexhaustible supply of resources and have a number of other domestic concerns to tend to as well... but still. The States is an affluent and militarily well-endowed country. Who am I to deny assistance to comrades in need? Is there a good reason for me to value the lives of Americans more than those of folk who live elsewhere?

Mind you, I am not talking about spreading an American interpretation of liberal democracy and neoliberalism around the world as part of a larger pursuit of self-interest. Rather, I consider my pursuit of social justice one which should not be confined by the borders of my homeland. All of humanity is part of a single community and, with all due respect, the armed forces strike me as being one of many tools that can be used in the defense of all people - not just Americans. To be fair though, my ideas on what makes for good foreign policy differ radically from those of most people and I do not expect for them to see things from my relatively cosmopolitan point of view.

[politicus]

My position is that for military forces to be sent there needs to be an attack on American soil.
This includes American embassies.
A declaration of war by the other country is also an impetus for war.

The major wars (the Revolution, Civil War, World War I, World War II) used this rationale for going to war I believe.

What about an attack on American allies? Do you want to dissolve NATO, ANZUS etc.?

[dead0man]

How exactly would you determine which countries America should get involved in?  Because frankly, the impression a lot of us get is that you guys believe that America should be a world policeman of sorts that overturns every tin pot dictator.
I would imagine that you guys don't appreciate such a simplification and would like to make your views more clear on what problems you guys believe in justify interventionism.  Like, what amount of corruption or "evil" would justify sending American forces overseas for.

I'm respectfully curious.

I'm guessing this was at least partly aimed at me.  For the record, I don't think the US should do any global policing by itself or unilaterally.  If I was in charge, here is the short short of what I think might work.
1.Figure out what the most efed up place in the world is.
2.Discuss with ourselves and our friends if we can do anything about it.
3.If we think we can, make a plan.
4.Give the guy in charge of F**kedupistan a call telling him he needs to fix his sh**t or we'll fix it for him.
5.If he balks, execute the plan.
6.wash, rinse, repeat

Don't do it for "oil", don't do it to protect American Banana Company's banana plantation, don't do it because we like killing brown people.  Do it to help people that can't reasonably help themselves.  If we have the ability to help people, we should do it.  Yeah, it would cost a lot of dollars and some blood, but in the long run I think it could pay HUGE dividends far beyond the people we would be helping out on the ground.

But as I was trying to say in the other thread this morning, it won't and probably can't happen.  Whether it's true or not (and that will be for future historians to decide, not a bunch of asshats on the internet), we have given ourselves a reputation of using our military arbitrarily, inconsistently and for less than noble reasons.  I don't think the US should lead the discussions on the most efed up place or the discussion on whether we can reasonably accomplish our goals or not.  We could (and probably should) take the lead when it comes to the actual action (as our hammer is the best), but even then, not everytime.

...but again, this is pipe dream with no chance of being attempted or accepted by the world if it was attempted.

[dead0man]

I feel silly bumping this, but, huh, I kind of wanted to get a response/critique/approval from Mecha on my post. 

(and an answer to Politicus's question as well)

I'll interpret silence as 100% approval.

(also, the spell check here thinks "interpert" is spelled correctly)

[Torie]

And the answer is - the envelop please - it depends on the facts of the particular case! There are no available grand unified theories - other than to get your facts right, and have spotted and thought about all the issues and consequences, e.g., like in taking over Iraq one becomes the middle man in a sectarian civil war, which is a little issue I don't really think was spotted, or if it was, not thought through.  Heck they didn't even think through having in place some law and order regime in Baghdad, so the museum and such were not looted. That was in and of itself a disgrace, and I used the F word in the same sentence as Bush every time I thought about it.

I think that  about wraps it up. Thank you.

Oh, I feel bad ignoring Deadoman. Where you go wrong is the bit in bold.

For the record, I don't think the US should do any global policing by itself or unilaterally.  

That is one of those grand unified theories. In a given case, of course the US may have to act unilaterally. Or we should - like say to stop the genocide in Rwanda perhaps. Or to "police" out of existence some terrorism network. The sobering thing is just how interconnected the planet is now, so what happens here, there and everywhere, can have an impact, sometimes a substantial one, on the US. Everything is a fact specific balancing test.