An Argument against U.S. Intervention Abroad

            Over the past 60 years, the U.S. has certainly not been shy about intervening in weak or failed states. From Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all the way to the current debate on whether to intervene in Syria, there are many examples of the U.S. taking action in these types of states. However, I will argue that the U.S. shouldn’t intervene in weak/failed states for any reason.

            To begin, weak and/or failed states are failed states for a reason: They likely have very unstable, weak, or corrupt governments. If the U.S. gets involved and attempts to remove a regime of a weak or failed state, it will then be responsible for creating a new government to take its place. As we saw in Iraq, this creates a very long process in which the U.S. is required to continue a military presence for years after the intervention should have been completed. This is a huge drain on U.S. resources. In addition, governments that the U.S. has put into place are unnatural and will struggle to stay effective once the U.S. leaves, because if democracy does not develop on its own then it will not likely be able to stay. As a result, the U.S. will he forced to stay involved with these military interventions for far longer than desirable.

            In addition to the struggles of U.S. intervention, there is also the issue that many interventions have ulterior motives. Regardless of arguments about weapons of mass destruction or, the U.S. went into almost certainly had some oil related motivation when intervening in Iraq. I’m not saying that the primary reason was necessarily oil, but it was definitely a factor and cannot be ignored. Had Iraq not been such a huge source of oil on which the U.S. was dependent, perhaps we would not have been so urgent to take military action there.

            Because of the difficulties associated with intervening in weak and failed states, I believe there is a better way to deal with these states outside of sending in military force. I believe the most effective way to help these states improve is to invest in them economically to allow them to develop on their own. Although we do not want to support regimes that we view as totalitarian or ones that violate human rights, in the long term by supporting these states economies, they will develop into stronger states, and as they stabilize, there will be a better framework for more stable governments to grow.

            If the U.S. continues to intervene militarily in weak or failed states to overthrow regimes we do not like, it will drain our resources and is not necessarily sustainable change. That is why I believe that we should instead help these failed states improve economically and stabilize. This idea may seem counter intuitive because we do not want to help states that we are not allies with, however I believe that over the long term this will be a more effective way of promoting democracy abroad, rather than expending resources to send the military in to failed states repeatedly.