U.S. Military Intervention

Ok, those are all good points. I frequently discuss this topic with some of my more libertarian friends, and there is some truth behind them. There are certainly some repercussions that arise from investing so much in foreign nations. However, I will give some examples of how if we do not intervene, consequences are far more harmful. Lets take a look at Vietnam. You stated "Vietnam also wouldn't look too much different if we won." I strongly disagree. The US had essentially won the war in Vietnam. They had won every major battle, and had bombed the North into ruins. Yet, the reason we threw away victory was because the will of the American people was broken. As the US pulled out, chaos ensued. There are surprisingly few recollections under way today of the final ignominious chapter of our Vietnam agony, when the U.S. was chased out of Saigon. Maybe a few people recall how wrong the left was about what they predicted would take place after the U.S. finally bugged out of southeast Asia. (We didn"t just bug out; we also cut off aid to our friends and allies in the region, degrading their own chances for self-defense and survival.) Let"s recall what leading liberals had to say at the time, especially about Cambodia. Anthony Lewis wrote in the New York Times: "What future possibility could be more terrible that the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?" It was, Lewis wrote a few weeks later, only our "cultural arrogance" that led us to believe that "our way of life must prevail." New York Times reporter David Andelman wrote that the vast majority of Cambodians "do not voice any concern about such issues as the shape of a peace or possible postwar reprisals," while another Times reporter, Sydney Schanberg, wrote that "it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." Sen. Alan Cranston said that "the "bloodbath" that some people fear after the fighting stops if the [Khmer Rouge] insurgents take over is only conjecture." The Los Angeles Times said the aid cutoff was "for the good of the suffering Cambodians themselves." Columnist Joseph Kraft asked, "Does it really matter whether Cambodia goes Communist?" And after South Vietnam followed Cambodia"s fall, the New York Times carried a news story, datelined Phnom Penh, with the headline: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." [3] Despite these absurd claims that we were making it worse for the Vietnamese, what actually happened is very different and much more disturbing. William Shawcross, a fierce critic of American policy in Vietnam later expressed second thoughts about the attitude of the antiwar left toward Indochina. Shawcross wrote in 1994: "[T]hose of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times of the South Vietnamese war effort of 1970-75, I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions." [2] So next, let"s take a look at the results of two different foreign policies. Look at Ronald Reagan, who live by the model phrase "Peace through Strength" and then Obama"s weak handed approach. Which one had better results? This question is disgustingly easy to answer. Reagan"s policies ended the Cold War, and I would be happy to debate you on that if you wish. Obama"s weaker approach has done nothing to stop the advance of Russia in Ukraine, Assad and Al-Qaeda in Syria and ISIS in the Middle East. Events are quickly spiraling out of control, as these violent and aggressive groups threaten millions. This clearly seems is the far more damaging policy. You brought up WW2 saying that were were justified to join because we were provoked. This is a very dangerous way to live, not entering a conflict until the very moment our enemies desire us to enter. Millions of lives could have been saved in WW2 if the USA had recognized the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the world, and had take swift action to prevent the catastrophic war from breaking out. Finally, I want to address your discussion points on the debt. This is true that military spending is significant. However, it pales in comparison with our current spending trend. The fiscal budget of 2015 shows that right now less than 15% of the total GDP. Compare this to 33% to social security and 27% to medicare and other health programs (both of which are predicted to rise HUGELY once the Obummer Care train get rolling). Should we really be cutting back on a valuable asset like the American Military when we have programs so huge that they alone could consume all revenue in the US in 15-25 years? It is pretty obvious that these huge programs should be cut, rather than the relatively small amount spent on the military [1]. So, in conclusion, Vietnam was most definitely not better off after we left. They suffered greatly under the brutal communist regime. The weak handed approach to foreign affairs always results in more chaos and bloodshed abroad than does a powerful approach. And finally, rather than cutting funds for our military, we should look to cut less vital and useful programs. [1] https://www.nationalpriorities.org... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.powerlineblog.com... [4] http://www.forbes.com... [5] http://www.powerlineblog.com...