Discover more from ConservaTibbs
Honoring our war dead by not making more of them
Non-intervention does not mean isolationist. It is dishonest to claim that opposition to military intervention is "isolationist."
Tulsi Gabbard made a good point in a Memorial Day video: One way to honor the sacrifice of so many hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who died defending our freedom is to not needlessly send more American soldiers to their deaths. Military intervention should be the last resort, and then only to defend against direct threats to our national security.
As I have said before, I will not vote for Donald Trump again. But with that said, one of the best things about Trump is that he broke open the Overton Window on being anti-war. The Republican Party is much more non-interventionist now than it was in 2015, and more open to non-interventionist candidates. No one would have stood a chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2008 or 2012 if they opposed the 2003 war in Iraq. That is no longer the case, and that is a very good thing.
Non-intervention does not mean isolationist. We can still send economic aid to nations in need, send military aid to allies, use our diplomatic and economic influence to advance our interests and encourage warring factions to stop fighting, and engage in free trade to benefit American consumers and global economic development. Claiming that opposition to military intervention is "isolationist" is dishonest.
If we adopt a non-interventionist stance, how we apply that principle is where the rubber meets the road. Even people who agree on the basic principle are going to have differences on this or that military intervention. But adopting the "last resort" principle would result in fewer enemies created, less money spent, and - most importantly - fewer American lives lost and fewer mothers that have to bury their sons.
Thanks for reading ConservaTibbs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.