An Exploration of Foreign Intervention from a Strictly Ideological Perspective

Without inserting myself into any particular sect of Conservatives, I want to explain my position on foreign intervention on any level from moral support to full military invasion. The moral justification for interfering in another country’s affairs should be as self-evident as the truths codified for us in the Constitution—truths not made available to very many other people. If we honestly believe that every person is entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then our obligation as the most powerful nation in the world is to oppressed people, not to political alliances.

There is still something to be said for American chivalry; that part of our culture is not yet dead. If a woman is getting mugged on the other side of the street, no matter who she is, most anyone would help without thinking twice. I doubt, however, the primary reaction would be to throw money at the perpetrator until he runs away, or to try negotiating “terms of cease-mugging.” You lay the sucker down, and then ask questions once you know the situation is safe. Despite what Liberals say, anyone with conscience enough to stop the mugging is a good enough arbiter of right and wrong to use force.

Since countries governed by Shaariah law see women quite literally raped every day, deprived of their right to live and often breathe, I guess we become the de facto world police according to the metaphor above. I doubt anyone else would step up in our absence. Once you’ve made the decision to act, though, there should be no amount of force too gratuitous for freedom. Since my position here rests strictly on principle, without political nuance or hints of moral relativism, I can’t honestly label any action "too costly" for freedom. We once even cried for Liberty at the cost of death—at least, Patrick Henry did, so I know I’m in good company.

Let’s now extend the mugging metaphor a few seconds into the future, for argument’s sake. You have just knocked the mugger flat; perhaps you are even wearing a police uniform to justify it. You bend down to help the lady up, and she spits in your eye. Not everyone is grateful for safety and freedom. In fact, much of Europe prefers to get bossed around by its government rather than live in fear of the inherent risk that comes with personal responsibility. So you walk away just having risked your life for an ingrate who will probably pursue the culprit and apologize for your thoughtless intervention. No one says you need to lecture her on the error of her ways, but no one says you did the wrong thing.

Your duty as someone with the power to affect positive change is to give people a choice to live the free life that made you a leader. To put it another way; the United States has the power, and therefore the duty, to allow people the choice of freedom. That may manifest itself in foreign intervention, like in Japan or Germany. We razed hostile and immoral governments and rebuilt flourishing free societies on the ashes of Nazism and Imperialism. We then withdrew; our responsibility is not to govern the world, after all. So Liberals, give us some time in Iraq. We have a good track record with these things.

I would like to, however, dispel the argument that open borders are another manifestation of spreading liberty. Nation states are still vital to maintaining true cultural diversity, and we are not trying to make everyone like us. We certainly are not trying to become like everyone else, and what’s the guarantee that they will draw from us in the exchange more than we will draw from them? No, America only opposes certain ideals in certain nations that are opposed to the basic truths of human life and dignity. If we believe government honestly stems from the people, then any Government which does not respect the people’s sovereignty is idealistically at war with America and its people.

“Governments ARE instituted among men” though; freedom should not give way to anarchy the way it did after the French Revolution. Rather, governments are only there to the extent that they protect the liberties which God granted to us all upon creating us. So regardless of what happens after we’ve removed a tyrannical Government, any degree of uncertainty is better than certain oppression. Despite what that girl does after you save her from a mugging, you’ve still saved her, and she is better off for those few seconds that she wasn’t getting beaten. And come on, how thin is your skin that the spit penetrates deep enough to make you regret your noble actions?