The Overextension of US Foreign Policy

The school of thought in United State Foreign Policy has evolved from isolationism towards liberal internationalism due to the change in national interests. During World War One and World War Two, the United States upheld their policy that Americans should not deal with the outside world unless absolutely necessary. World War One had been ongoing for three years before the United States. As Adler stated, the question that America asked in regards to this total war was “did the national interest demand active championship of all world groups fighting for freedom, or should the United States merely lend moral encouragement to such uprisings?” In World War One, the U.S. just supported the Allies through moral and economic support. But with Germany’s unrestricted warfare and support for Mexico’s recovery of “lost territory” the United States felt threatened and finally joined the war. Similar to World War One, the war had been going on for about three years before the United States intervened. Like in World War One, the U.S. assisted the Allies through moral and financial aid, and a direct threat on the United States would force it into war. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States immediately declared war, which followed the ideals of isolationism, for war was out of self-defense.

However, in recent years wars declared by the United States are no longer solely out of self-defense. The U.S. has adopted the American Exceptionalist idea and worked towards strengthening bonds with their Allies and assisted the international system by helping troubled states. It seems now that the U.S. takes little account to geographic barriers and intervenes in hopes of spreading democracy and giving humanitarian aid, in addition to starting wars out of threat. For instance, the United States intervened in Haiti to strengthen democracy, alleviate poverty, malnutrition, and bring changes in human rights. As Albright stated, this intervention in Haiti was justified due to humanitarian intervention, due to the duty of the United States to “give a boost to weaker states that are most willing to help themselves”. A more recent example of the United States leaning towards liberal internationalism is the Iraq War. Although the intent of the war was justified by the isolationist belief that war is out of self-defense, due to the harboring and supporting of al-Qaeda members and chemical weapons, the intent shifted when no threat was found. The war then became more of a humanitarian mission to stop the human rights violation and in the effort to spread democracy in the Middle East. Furthermore, even more recently the United States intervened a little in the Syrian Civil War, by making a statement through the State Department that warned of possible mass killings in Haffa.

While it is important to aid other countries, I believe that the United States has been overextending itself a little too much in the international realm with the adoption of American Exceptionalism and liberal internationalism. In my opinion the United States Foreign Policy should shift towards ethical realism, and realize as Lieven stated, that “to have any real chance of changing the world one must understand both the limits on one’s ability to do so, and the limit’s to one’s own morality”. Therefore, the idea that the U.S. is exceptional and must intervene based on Albright’s four-part challenge is not a good basis to drive foreign policy on, and the U.S. should carefully balance when to remain an isolationist nation and when there is a justified cause to intervene in regards to humanitarian issues.