Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism

= Case =Interventionism is necessary for an orderly world."You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" -Leon Trotsky.As part of my argument in this debate, I will show that if a massive world power known as the U.S. decides to become isolationist, the world will erupt in conflict. Without a policeman, criminals will roam free, doing damage that otherwise not be done without some authority that is needed. to stop them. My case is analogous to bullies on a playground: without any adult supervision, some kids will gradually come up and start bullying others. Similarly, without the help of the U.S., predator nations and organizations will form that will terrorize others, as has been shown in history countless times. For the U.S., pacifism is the greatest cause of conflict.In this view of foreign policy, the country necessary for global order would need an outlook that is (1) committed to global security, (2) has military forces adequate to meet those commitments, (3) is willing to intervene in regional crises to protect allies and (4) is ready to confront or deter aggressive regimes. There is simply no other way to achieve global security and orderliness than by intervening, and a disorderly world is inevitable in the case of isolationism. While not everyone wants to grow up to be a cop, no one wants to live in a neighborhood where there is no cop.There are many examples from America's reputation and history of intervention that entirely prove my points about global disorder and how better off the world was when America decided to get involved.The 1930'sThis first case will start as a great example of what happened when the U.S. decided to be isolationist and refused to intervene in any conflicts. It was the decade in which Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that "The definite policy of the United States from now on is one opposed to armed intervention"[1]. In that same decade, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931[2] Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935[3], and Germany took over Czechoslovakia in 1938[4]. Shortly afterwards, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and World War II erupted. The Holocaust began and the world grew increasingly chaotic. All of this happened while the U.S. was away and had been taking a break from the world. Because it did, war began to scourge the world and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin tried to fill the gaps where America's presence as policeman was absent. It wasn't until December of 1941 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor that the U.S. finally decided to join the war and end the horrors that were being committed by the imperialist regime of the Nazis. Their war machine was stopped.Had the U.S. been there and involved in the world in the 20's and especially the 30's, these conflicts could have been prevented or at least reduced so that the causalities were not as great as they were. The idea that "if America leaves the world alone, the world will leave it alone" was ultimately proven false. Unfortunately, that mentality still exists in the minds of some. To add, each of these countries, the invader and well as the invaded, had signed onto the Kellog-Briand Pact[5], which was treaty that outlawed war and reduced arms expenditures. This is an indicator that treaties do not always work in preventing war, because all the involved countries abused it despite signing it. One cannot expect foreign nations to always be honest in their dealings, especially with ones who desire more power, land, and conquest. The U.S. must be there to stop these nations if they get out of hand. The rise of militarism was not ended in the 30's, but it could have been if America acted as they should've.Middle EastIraqi DespotChallenges to global security, threats and acts of terrorism, and possession of nuclear weapons are harmful to not only residents of the Middle East region but a danger to Western democracies. With the rise to power of communist and authoritarian dictators comes the higher possibility of war, genocide, and instability. If the U.S. leaves the Middle East unchecked, the worst will be brought out and dangers will be posed to its good citizens and the rest of the orderly world.A perfect example of such was Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator of Iraq for 35 years. His reign was a central threat to peace in the Middle East. He rewarded the families of suicide bombers with $25,000[6], actively harbored terrorists, and started wars (such as the Iran-Iraq war) for his own personal gain and conquest. In fact, "Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives."[7] This was a serious threat to American security as it could have been the training ground for attackers similar to those that commissioned the events of 9/11. Iraq was a predator nation - one which would go to the extreme to cause terror in other pro-Western civilizations, such as Israel, Europe, America, and even neighboring states like Iran. Worse yet, Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which had the potential to eradicate the lives of thousands in a day. As British historian Andrew Roberts concluded in a recent video from studying this issue: "Any war against terror that did NOT involve toppling this brutal dictator who might supply WMD to terrorists for future attacks would have been absurd"[8].And then there was Hillary Clinton, who justified her 2002 vote in favor of the authorization to use military force in Iraq: "I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security"[9].Interventionism is most certainly better than isolationism. It is not preferable to allow a mass-murdering dictator who harbors terrorists and threatens the region with WMD, challenging U.S. authority to power and any pro-democratic nations. In an isolationist state, every threat would be ignored. The U.S. would simply retreat from all involvement, concluding that there is no reason to fight enemies and encourage democracy and human rights. There was no reason to doubt that Saddam had WMD, because he had already used it in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's[10].Post-Saddam IraqOn May 20, 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, and it proved to be extremely effective. Baghdad was under American control by April 13, and just 8 months later, Saddam was captured and turned over to Iraqi authorities[11], until he was tried and executed. This proved to be not only effective in toppling a brutal and genocidal dictator, it prevented the rise of would-be Saddams. With the U.S. act of low tolerance for flagrant challenges to global order, other countries got the point. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program just one week after Saddam's arrest[12]. Iran seemed to get the point too: they also halted its nuclear program in 2003[13]. Syria ended its 29-year occupation of Lebanon not long after the invasion in 2005[14].The occupation of Iraq by U.S. was very beneficial for the country. With America's help, "Iraq would write a new constitution, vindicate the ideals of democracy, create the institutions necessary for a free-market economy, improve women's rights, serve as a role model for other Arab states, tame Shiite and Sunni extremism, bridge sectarian and ethnic differences, and share its oil wealth in an equitable sectarian ratio. Iraq was to become another Japan, transformed from dictatorship to democracy"[15]The intelligent application of U.S. military force in a counterinsurgency operation proved successful. An estimated 30,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006; by 2009, the number had dropped to less than 5,000 - a decline of more than 80 percent[16]. American causalities also fell from 823 to 149 in the same period[17]. This was a result of the routing of Shiite and Sunni insurgents by a combination of American and Iraqi arms. Intervention, as was shown here, saved the lives of Iraqis and prevented more death that would have been caused by Saddam.Retreating in 2011 proved to be a mistake. Not long after the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the order of Obama, the Islamic State (ISIS) would come to power and begin another war machine of death and destruction, and it all came by what I call isolationism.[1] http://2001-2009.state.gov...[2] http://www.thenagain.info...[3] http://www.britannica.com...[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[5] https://history.state.gov...[6] http://abcnews.go.com...[7] http://www.9-11commission.gov...[8] https://m.youtube.com...[9] http://m.dailykos.com...[10] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.britannica.com...[12] https://www.armscontrol.org...[13] http://mobile.nytimes.com...=[14] http://www.theguardian.com...[15] Stephens, Bret. America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.[16] https://www.iraqbodycount.org...[17] http://icasualties.org...