As most of you probably know, I am a fierce critic of non-interventionism, a foreign policy approach that says the US should never be militarily involved in another country unless American lives, and ONLY American lives, are at stake.
One of the most frequent targets of my criticisms in this regard is Tulsi Gabbard, a frontrunner for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential ticket. Gabbard, who is a war veteran, has been vocally opposed to any and all US military action overseas.
But, recently, Tusli did concede that strict non-interventionism might have its downsides as well. She tweeted this back in December, 2018:
Sounds quite non-controversial, doesn't it? We should get out of Syria, but we need to ensure that, if we do so, we won't abandon the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Syria that has long been an enemy of Bashar al-Assad and has helped the US combat the Islamic State terrorist group.
But, of course, Tulsi's minor concession in this area sent her non-interventionist supporters into a rage. They streamed onto Twitter to furiously voice their isolationist opinions.
Here are some of the highlights:
Oh, yes. Tulsi's true colors are showing! It turns out that she... *gasp*... CARES ABOUT AN OPPRESSED MINORITY! Oh the absolute HORROR! Whatever can we do?!
Here's another non-interventionist with a masters' degree in Foreign Policy from the University of Twitter:
Yeah, how DARE she voice her concern for the Kurds! What an evil person!
Doesn't Tulsi know that good people are supposed to stand by and allow a brutal dictator to commit mass genocide against his own people? What NONSENSE is this?!?
Oh, here's another tweet:
Yeah, 'cause fuck the Kurds, right? Fuck pulling out responsibly, huh? We should just get the hell out of there without giving any thought to the repercussions of doing so! Who cares if Assad gasses the Kurds with sarin and chlorine? Who cares if ISIL reemerges from the desert and becomes a resurgent force all over again? Who cares about human rights? At least WE will be safe!
Here's another non-interventionist justifying this selfishness:
Yeah, Syria can take care of itself just fine! After all, that's been clearly demonstrated numerous times since 2011, hasn't it? All that sectarian violence, all those human rights atrocities - those are all signs that Syria is a well-functioning, self-sufficient country!
Oh, and I fail to understand how our troops are there "illegally". What laws are we violating?
I mean, ISIL has directed attacks against the US and Europe, and ISIL is based in Syria. Sounds like we have a damn good reason for being there.
Furthermore, if you want to talk about "illegal wars", start with Assad gassing his people with poison. Or ISIL beheading children with machetes and crucifying teenagers for homosexuality. Stopping that behavior isn't "illegal"; it's our moral duty.
Here's another tweet:
Again, HOW IS FIGHTING A FOREIGN TERRORIST GROUP AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW!? Especially since said terrorist group has butchered TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people, including American citizens?!
Is this dude not aware of that fact? What does he think we're DOING in there? Building sand castles?
And no, our only responsible manner is to STAY in Syria until we can ensure that our pullout will not put any innocent people in harm's way! Doing otherwise is the DEFINITION of irresponsibility!
As for the "sovereignty" argument used by this guy, it is completely unfounded, especially when ISIL and Syria's government have shown NO RESPECT for Kurdistan's sovereignty.
In all seriousness, though, this really shows the level of stubbornness and stupidity that is so prevalent among the "progressive" non-interventionist crowd. They claim to be fighting on behalf of innocent people, but they're not. Tulsi Gabbard made it clear in her tweet that we need to be mindful about the safety of the Kurds, and she took a ton of flak for daring to care about the human rights of others.
This is indicative of the inherent selfishness that non-interventionism represents. We have seen the costs of non-interventionist and isolationist foreign policies before. In Rwanda, for instance, our refusal to stop a genocide ultimately cost the lives of nearly 1.1 million Tutsis, and the ramifications of that genocide are still ongoing today.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Non-interventionism is selfish and abhorrent. It masquerades as liberalism and conceals its ulterior motives in a shell of buzzwords. It is the foreign policy equivalent of being a bystander in a bullying situation.
In the end, the greatest threat to world peace is not the "warhawks" and "neoliberals" who call for intervention. It isn't the "military-industrial complex" or "regime-change wars".
The greatest threat to world peace is those who advocate that we do nothing to help innocent people who are in danger, and who look the other way when dictators and tyrants commit the worst imaginable atrocities against their own civilians.
Non-interventionism is not the solution to our problems; it IS the problem!
Comments
Post a Comment