Quote:
Originally Posted by WI wide body
The points that you make, albeit valid, all disregard the central issue: our nation should not be involved in the internal affairs of sovereign nations unless it presents a clear and present danger to our nation. This is not true in this case so far.
We have made excuses for doing exactly that for over 40 years and it seldom ends well. And sometimes it is at the cost of American lives. What in Colombia or Venezuela is worth a member of your family?
|
WI - You're conflating "Issue" with "Opinion".
We can be intimately involved in the "internal affairs of a sovereign nation" at such nation's request -- humanitarian aid, logistics, support, etc. Helping restore power, water and government (pretty "internal affairs" from a classical position) in Indonesia involved no "clear and present danger" posed by Indonesia, just as one of countless instances.
So, I disagree with the thesis of your opinion.
Second "seldom ends well" -- what, like the outcome of the Marshall Plan, or the reconstruction of Japan, or preservation of South Korea, or a good chunk of Southeast Asia, or Grenada, or Panama, or Nicaragua, or Kuwait...
Also, your "seldom ends well" blithely glosses over the fact that things, while
you might not think they ended "well", could have, and likely would have, ended "worse" for us or those on whose behalf we intervened.
Where things have ended sub-optimally, I'd argue that in most cases, the poor outcome was the result of a failure of our resolve to either (1) properly prosecute the effort and/or (2) stick around and finish it -- though (1) can easily beget (2).
Personally, I'd rather leave this to Colombia. They're reasonably well armed, and what, really, is Chavez going to do? He might attack, but any material invasion is madness (so ... likely?)
Nations do make promises to each other for support and mutual defense (NATO, SEATO, etc.) -- so grown up nations promise to intervene to protect the interests of allies
even if such intervening nation's interest are not clearly and presently endangered. This has been the way of the world for much, much longer than 40 years.
Saying that nation's shouldn't do this is naive. They do, they have, they will. And reliable allies will see through on their commitments. I don't know exactly what promises for mutual defense or intervention the US has made to Colombia, but whatever they are, the US must follow through on them. The credibility of the US to its partners and allies is (and has been) worthy of blood and treasure.
What in Poland, France or England was worth American lives in the late 30s? I doubt by any present Liberal standard, Nazi Germany would have qualified as a 'Clear and Present Danger' to the United States.
JP