President Obama Will Take a More Internationally Interventionist Stance During His Last Tenure

I'm looking forward to a good one! Without further adieu, let's get into the constructives! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout his past term and into his present tenure, president Obama has been, while not isolationist, certainly unwilling to use hard power (which is understandable, however we'll address this later), reluctant to provide definitive soft action, and has been, for the most part, concerned with domestic issues. Now, this is not to say that our president is totally in the wrong, (which is another debate in its entirety) but for now we'll just focus on the main point: President Obama has leaned away from definitive interaction with other countries, and because of all these reasons, he's taken a lot of heat from it. Now, while all this seems fairly negative, it is going to be for these exact reasons that our president will move toward a more internationally interventionist stance. So, first we'll discuss times where our president has failed to take definitive action against or for another country; we'll use this as proof that he has had a fairly inactive term (interventionist-wise at least). Then, we'll discuss the heat he's taken over it, from both the United States, and the rest of the world, and see that this is going to be fairly decisive in both his and our decision. Finally, we'll discuss the world today, and the pressure that he has to move more internationally. This all being said, let's go ahead provide a few definitions, and move into our first point: From Mariam-Webster online dictionary: Interventionism - a government policy or practice of doing things to directly influence the country's economy or the political affairs of another country . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (Please note that while the definition is that of Interventionism, an interventionist is simply one that practices such a ideology) Ought - Moral obligation, duty . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1) President Obama has failed to take definitive action many instances For this, we'll look at the Ukraine crisis, North Korea, and last of all, ISIS. Let's start with Ukraine. A) Ukraine As most everyone is aware, last year Russia invaded Crimea under the argument that, "It was ours first. " Needless to say, most everyone took a fairly dim view on this, most of all Crimea. Time and time again, the US was asked to provide aid in the form of hard power. We turned down these requests for the fear that we may incite another World War by attacking Russia. Alright, that's a fair enough argument. But what about soft power? Well, that was half-done at best. We knew that places sanctions on a country that was in the process of invading another country was a long shot at best, yet we still did it. We never pushed, never prodded; we never "intervened. " The presidency was (and still is being) bombarded with petitions to move for Crimea, and take a definitive stance, yet, as always, it has remained silent on this issue. B) North Korea Frankly, I don't need to give our readers yet another link that states that NK is a, well, pretty bad place to live. It is common fact, known to pretty much everyone in the world. In fact, freshman year I was forced to watch a documentary entitled "Inside North Korea" in geography. In spite of all this, what has our president done? That's right, sanctions! Sanctions that the UN really expects to be upheld by a country that is, in essence, a cult. The only people they listen to is China. Obviously, we already know all of this. Now, China is typically opposed to any sort of violations of state sovereignty, which is why the US ought to be discussing North Korea much more frequently to achieve some sort of solution to the massive human rights abuses in the country. Once again, we find the people of the world, not just the US calling for a more interventionist, definitive action. Once again, it is rejected; once again our president bears the brunt of the heat for inaction. C) ISIS What is possibly the greatest Human Rights abuse today (a hard decision, but just barely wins the HRA awards over North Korea) is spreading. It started in the Iraq-Syria region, and has been gaining members under the "Let's make a new world! " bit. Of course they also guise under religious pretenses but seeing how many of them haven't actually read the Qur'an, this is largely false. .. (an entire spiel could occur here, but for topical purposes, we'll simply say that ISIS is bad, 'k? ) The point here is that our president has only recently started taking interventionist measures, which are bomb runs. In a fairly uninspiring speech, we also learned that we're moving into the middle east as well. The fact still remains that this took quite a long time to occur. Now, we'll revisit this in our third point, but for now, let's move on to how we are viewed by the world: 2) The world frowns upon president Obama's inactive policies. The people of the US have time and time again called for reform for issues both domestic and abroad. Obama has been hammered time and time again for his failure to, well, get stuff done. The rest of the world feels the same way. Japan's prime minister, Shinz!3; Abe, has described our president as, "Weak willed and uninspiring. " Wow. That's pretty brutal. Just as bad is the fact that China and several other countries share the very same view. Once again, we see pressure to move more internationally, and more interventionist; to take a definitive action. 3) Our president is beginning to move towards more interventionist methods. Earlier, I mentioned that we would discuss ISIS again, and here's holding to that promise. As I stated earlier, our president has began sending in drones, bomb raids, and most recently, ground troops. All this military support points towards a more interventionist stance. Yes, it is only one instance, but still a fairly significant one. Pulling this all together, we find that our president is taking a LOT of heat over inaction. This, more than anything, will be pressure towards a more interventionist, more definitive, presidency. Further, we see that a lack of definitive action is only going to be detrimental, especially taking the two countries and ISIS into consideration. So, in order to protect both his country and his reputation, president Obama will move towards into a more interventionist state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Over to you! I apologize, but I'm new to this site and didn't realize that there were so few rounds, so if you wish to address my constructive with a rebuttal as well in your turn, that's fine with me.