Our military should be for the protection of US citizens, and not the citizens of Iraq or N. Korea or Mexico etc.
Well there are two responses,
1- Along with being the strongest power on the planet comes some responsibility to do what's best for the planet, so on some occassions the US should look toward the planet's health and not just US's benefit. It's the old "with great strength comes great responsibility" idea, and also
2- It's not too hard to argue that deposing oppressive dictatorships in Iraq, NK, Zimbabwe and wherever IS good for the US, primarily in terms of economic benefit, and over the longer term reduced military spending.
The best example of both of those is South Korea and Cuba.
In the Korean War the US removed North Korea from the southern part of the peninsula, and its been both good for the planet (you've gotta agree SK is a hell of a lot better for the planet than NK), and its been good for the US in terms of world economic growth (hello Samsung!).
In Cuba, the opposite situation (the US doesn't invade in 1960 and overthrow the commie dictator) and it's been bad for the planet (missile crisis, endless stream of refugees, other dictators get the idea that their form of government is acceptable), bad for the Cubans (I'm guessing, who knows what Cuba would look like had Castro been removed in 1960, but we know Cuba today looks nothing like SK, and the stream of refugees leaving Cuba indicates there are more Cubans that don't want to live in Cuba than SKs that don't want to live in SK), and bad for the US (receiving endless Cuban refugees, and we don't get to vacation on nice Cuban beaches!).
If you have three strong adult sons living in your house, and your 98 lb. weakling neighbor beats up his tiny 60 lb. wife in their living room every night, and that's your world (no police or UN or any other outside regulators in this theoretical world), don't you think you (and your sons) have a responsibility to do something to stop your evil, violent neighbor from beating his wife? |
