The role that America should play with the rest of the world has been debated since its founding. Regardless of our ultimate decision of whether to follow a policy of non-intervention or to be the world’s peace-keeper, one fact is indisputable: Peace and security in the world rely on our willingness to step in to prevent, or help defend against, abusive regimes. Nevertheless, the role that America will play with the rest of the world is an extremely amorphous topic that must be bifurcated into two questions in order to bring clarity to the discussion: 1) How large should America’s military be?; and 2) When should America use force to protect its interests?

If the week’s conflict between Georgia and Russia has taught us anything, it is that no amount of diplomacy can thwart a foreign power that seeks to destroy a Country. Georgia had become a thriving nation as a direct result of trade liberalization and free market policies. Moreover, its people experienced first-hand how capitalism and freedom uplifted its poor. Nevertheless, within one week, their entire country was brought to its knees by Russian tanks and bombs, destroying all progress that had been achieved over the past decade.

The most depressing aspect of this endeavor was that Georgia was left waiting for the United States to come to its aid. It had no means of protecting itself, despite many of its forces being trained by the American military. It was not until America helped fly Georgian soldiers from Iraq to Georgia and threatened to arm Russian neighbors, something Putin had not anticipated, that the fighting began to subside.
While some countries sat bewildered that Russia would engage with such force, Poland, a country that had been invaded by its neighbors multiple times, knew exactly what to do. Poland determined correctly that military aid cannot come after its people are dead; it must come before Russia has a chance to attack. That is precisely why Poland has now sought to arm itself to the teeth; to defend against any possible Russian offensive. If other former soviet blocs follow suit, Russia will suffer a major defeat.

The fact of the matter is that a strong United States military is the last protector of freedom around the world. Without the threat of American military might, despots and violent or illegitimate regimes around the world will commit atrocities; history has demonstrated that this is not merely a possibility but a guarantee.

The only reason why millions of people were slaughtered with impunity in Rwanda and Sudan, Russia was able to invade Georgia, Saddam was able to attack his neighbors, North Korea was able to fire its missiles, or Stalin was able to murder millions of people was because there was no military force in the way to stop them.

This is not to say that America should always intervene. Often it is a horrible strategic policy and it makes America less safe. But what this does demonstrate is that America must always be the strongest military force in the world, if it is to keep the American people and its allies secure. Harsh diplomacy is meaningless unless it can be backed up by might.

This brings us to the next question: When should America use force? The fact of the matter is that America should use force when it is in our strategic interest to do so. While critics will argue that “strategic interest” is too general of a public policy, it is actually quite limited. It requires rescuing countries that have aided the United States in the past, as well as protecting trading partners whose dissolution would severely harm our economy. Lastly, it means that we have a legitimate right to attack countries that pose a grave threat to our national security.

One cannot bring up a discussion of national security policy without addressing whether or not Iraq falls into this example. When we invaded Iraq, I did not believe it posed a threat; this is why I was against the War. But I certainly believe that those who advocated attacking Saddam believed that he had WMDs with the intent to use them against us. It was a great mistake. But, based on their original argument, the war was legitimate.

Nevertheless, regardless of my opposition of the War, America cannot pull its troops out now. It is terrible foreign policy to encourage people to rise up to overthrow their leader, a grave risk to themselves and their families, only to leave them to die after they do. We have an obligation to sustain the people who helped us for as long as it takes, regardless of whether or not the invasion of Iraq was poorly planned.

Lastly, I would like to address some of the points made by Matt Eckel that are simply not supported by facts. Mr. Eckel argued that the role America should play to keep the world safe is not through military strength, but through economic aid to other nations. Moreover, he attributed the current global instability to economic factors, rather than certain regimes and despots fighting for regional supremacy.

To support his thesis, Mr. Eckel attributes 21st century instability to “poor resource management, unresolved tensions between political institutions and political identity, [and] governments that are unresponsive to the needs of their people.” The exact opposite in fact is true: The instability in the world is directly caused by governments that attempt to manage their resources and economies (Pre-1995 India, Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cambodia, Indonesia, Maoist China, Vietnam, etc.) Planned economies create much more instability than ones that rely on the free market and capitalism.

Furthermore, if one wants to see where the masses are worse off, one will see leaders claiming to be responsive to the needs of their people, rather than the reverse. Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela proves this point quite well. Chavez set price ceilings on consumer goods to uplift the poor, which led to Caracas running out of milk, eggs, and flour; the poor in his country are all worse off and the country is less stable because of exactly the sort management that Mr. Eckel advocates.

Strangely, Eckel also concerns himself with population growth because of resource depletion, just like the Leftist intellectuals that have been proven wrong decade after decade. Overpopulation is not a concern if one looks at the facts. In America, 95% of the land is undeveloped. That means that if every person doubled his or her development, 90% of the land would still be untouched. Furthermore, every human being on Earth presently could be packed into the State of Texas and have more living space than the average European.

Historically, only two factors are needed to provide food for the world: 1) De Jure private property rights; and 2) Rule of law. No country that satisfies those conditions has experienced a famine in the history of civilization. Still, using Georgia as an example again, a prospering nation cannot survive without a means to defend itself even if the needs of its people are satisfied. Presently, peace and security around world rely on American willingness to step in to prevent or help defend against abusive regimes. Whether or not we step in to protect a nation often determines whether or not that nation survives.

In conclusion, it is not government protection of our resources, or population control that keeps the world safe. Stability only results when capitalism and freedom are backed up by a strong military. Thankfully, that military belongs to America and protects the last vestige of liberty in a world mostly controlled by people who will never know what it truly means to be free.

Devil’s Advocate is a Conservative / Libertarian editorialist for Copious Dissent – Your Daily Dose of Liberty. He currently lives in Chicago, IL.

Related posts:

1. War’s Brave New World
2. What to make out of Russia’s new doctrine
3. Obama Takes a Long View of Missile Defense
4. Happy 60th Birthday, NATO! (Can the Europeans Grow Up, Now?)
5. The Freedom Agenda R.I.P.? Part III