Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism

Those were some interesting points by Con. His Round 2 sources are in the fifteenth comment on this debate.The Role of World PolicemanAs part of his case, Con compared the Roman Empire to the world power of today: the U.S. This is an unfair comparison on many accounts, and it asserts the role of "policeman" as to belonging to the Romans, which is historically incorrect. I will show several reasons as to why America's role in the world is drastically different to the Romans.1) The Roman Empire was an expansionist state which focused mainly on growing its power and influence rather than helping nearby areas or allies. In fact, the existence of nations and allies as we know them today were drastically different from the foreign affairs of today. At its height, the empire was the most extensive political and social structure in Western civilization, and was responsible for the conquest of a huge portion of Europe including some of Great Britain, all of the north Africa coastline, and a chunk of of the Middle East[1]. In comparison, the United States does not seek to conquer or annex foreign territories. It does not seek to claim rightful control over nations that it invades, nor has it ever done so in recent history, with its involvement in wars in the past. It is nonsensical to compare America with the Romans because of the huge difference in their ideals and goals. The Romans sought to take land and control Europe, while America's foreign policy has always been to stabilize regions of conflict, support its allies against agression with military force if needed, and to topple brutal dictators who attempt to take advantage of their people. The Roman Empire's goals were nowhere near in comparison to what the U.S. currently seeks to accomplish, it being for the good of the world and for its security. In this way it strives to be the police of the world by ending terrorism when and where it becomes awful. The Romans were the complete opposite of policeman - they were barbarians in the sense that their mission was to conquer and to fight wars for the purpose of imperialistic goals. The reason for U.S. involvement in world affairs is not because of conquest, but for bringing security to the world.2) The fall of the Roman Empire was due, in large part, to barbaric ways of conquest that in no way resembles the U.S. The Romans were not only involved with war all the time, they surrounded themselves with it. The political instability of the Romans, their desire to war with literally everyone that stepped in their way, and their overexpansion all contributed to the fall of the empire, and such reasons for their fall are unheard of in terms of U.S. problems. The role of policeman does not mean to fight with every enemy one has, but to intervene when serious conflict breaks out that can affect the lives of many. If the U.S. was like Rome, it would see itself as justified in an invasion of Cuba to gain more land. Clearly this is not the case, nor ever has been for the U.S.To add, involvement in foreign affairs with the use of military does not affect the general population as much as Con seems to believe it does. What it means is the deployment of soldiers to other countries to help them out, while affairs inside the U.S. remain normal as they always have been.Con's portrayal of interventionism is somewhat misleading. He seems to believe that in this view of foreign policy, a superpower must be at war all the time. One can be interventionist in the sense that they are willing and ready to protect their allies of needed, and not necessarily be intervening 24/7. In the first round, I provided four requirements for the U.S. to have if one wishes for an orderly world, two of.which included being committed to global security and being ready and willing to confront or deter aggressive regimes. The nature of such an outlook may mean that invasion is necessary at times, but not something that must happen every single day. In contrast, isolationism is the indifference to global security and aggressive regimes, and the unwillingness to defend the countries that the U.S. has already agreed to do by past treaties[2].SpendingIt's no secret that war can be expensive, but ultimately this contention does not win over the preservance of lives, which is oftentimes what invasion is about. My arguments have and will continue to show that intervention is worth it when it is done right. On another note, spending really hasn't been that bad in comparison with other past wars. For example, "compared to past U.S. conflicts, spending on the Iraq war has been relatively small—at its height, spending on WWII helped drive government spending to 42 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At its height, operations in Iraq cost around 1 percent of GDP."[3]ReputationCon has yet to prove that U.S. reputation has fallen as a result of interventionism. He also must show why other countries' opinions matter and how they hurt the U.S. in any significant way, if they do. This seems like a pretty minor point, and it is not backed up by any evidence. It rests completely on a bare assertion.Cost of FreedomA list of freedoms that have been "curtailed" was provided by Con, but he fails to connect any of them to war. How does invading Iraq or Afghanistan lead to NSA surveillance? Con needs to be a lot more clear by showing how using military actually affects this and how these scandals would not exist had we not been interventionist in our policies overseas.Con claimed to be able to show how interventionism makes countries more unstable but has yet not done so. In my view, this world needs a policeman, and if the U.S. doesn't fill the gap, then others will try to take the reins of control and use it in an inproper way. The case for isolationism does not come close to being as strong for the one that is willing to keep promises on foreign commitments and help the world maintain the order it needs.[1] http://www.ancient.eu...[2] http://m.state.gov...[3] http://www.usnews.com...