As an ardent interventionist and self-described neoliberal hawk, I often find myself the target of harassment by non-interventionists and isolationists whenever I call for US military involvement in places like Syria, the Congo, or Iraq.
One of the most common attacks - which I will examine today - is one that goes something like this: "Well, if you're so into US military interventions, then why don't you go join the military?"
This is one of the most annoying tropes used by non-interventionists, because it doesn't address the issue. It doesn't engage in the topic of the debate. It's a total non-sequitur, and the purpose isn't to prove a point as much as it is an escape hatch to shut the conversation down and walk away claiming victory.
First of all, let's say I take them at their word and join the military like they suggest. As a soldier, I wouldn't make policy decisions - I'd just carry them out. Joining the military wouldn't allow me to intervene in the places I want to, because I wouldn't make those decisions. Those decisions would be made by the president and his advisors.
Secondly, this argument is itself a fallacy. It implies that, unless I have a job specifically tailored to a certain topic, I cannot have an opinion on that topic.
This is an absolutely foolish standard to hold. By that logic, nobody can be against crime unless they are a police officer, nobody can be against arson unless they are a firefighter, and nobody can be against plane crashes unless they are an air-traffic controller.
Just because I have an opinion on something, and just because I advocate for a certain action in response to that thing, does not mean I have to have a job specifically tailored to that thing. This is a nonsensical fallacy, and the only purpose it serves is to muddy the waters and shut down the argument without engaging in it.
Furthermore, there is another, more important fault in this argument, particularly in that all it does is shift the conversation to a personal level instead of a broader, global perspective.
That, in the end, is actually very telling, and shows the kind of mindset that these non-interventionists possess. When it comes down to it, their entire ideology is built on a foundation of selfishness and apathy. They only think of foreign policy in terms of their own personal safety, rather than working towards a common humanitarian goal.
Now, I can expect this kind of behavior from extreme-right-wingers like Rand Paul and Tucker Carlson. They belong to a political ideology that has never been very big on promoting human rights.
But when I see these talking points coming from left-wingers like Cenk Uygur, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kyle Kulinski - self-proclaimed liberals who make excuses for isolationism while at the same time claiming to stand up for human rights - I know that something is seriously wrong.
There is no excuse for abandoning innocent people to die when we could do something - anything - to stop it. We saw the consequences of non-interventionism in Rwanda in 1994, where more than 1,000,000 innocent people were slaughtered while the rest of the world did nothing.
Inaction is not an option in these situations, and those who advocate for inaction in the face of evil must be called out as the immoral and inhuman actors that they are.
Comments
Post a Comment