The United States’ role as a global enforcer has frequently led to involvement in the internal conflicts of other nations, often without clear justification or beneficial outcomes. Notable instances, such as the involvement in Nigeria’s civil war, as dramatized in “Tears of the Sun,” and the military operation in Somalia, depicted in “Black Hawk Down,” serve as poignant examples where the strategic value and ethical grounds of such interventions were highly questionable. While the intent to support global stability is understood, these engagements often reflect poorly on decision-making processes and outcomes.
The military action to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation stands as a justified intervention where U.S. troops performed admirably. However, the subsequent decisions to remain and engage in nation-building efforts in Kuwait and Iraq highlight a pattern of extended commitments that frequently exceed the scope of the original mission. Similarly, the operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden in Pakistan aligns with direct national security interests, yet the prolonged military presence in Afghanistan raises significant concerns regarding the objectives and feasibility of such engagements. Historical precedents, including the challenges faced by Alexander the Great and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, underscore the complexity and futility of military endeavors in this region.
Our PAC is philosophically opposed to sending any kind of aid to Ukraine. Ukraine was not a signatory to the NATO alliance when it was attacked. Aid would be justified had a NATO signatory been attacked, but they were not a part of NATO. If we continue this sort of behavior, where does it end? How much taxpayer money is too much?
Drawing inspiration from Switzerland’s policy of neutrality, there is a compelling argument for the United States to reassess its approach to international conflicts. Prioritizing the well-being and interests of American citizens and refraining from unnecessary interventions in the internal affairs of other countries could lead to a more focused and principled foreign policy. This perspective advocates for a strategic reevaluation, urging a shift towards diplomacy and domestic priorities over military interventions abroad.