Non-interventionist should speak up
Irv Randolph | 7/1/2014, 6 a.m.
Hopefully by the time you read this column the interventionists would not have won and the United States had not entered into significant military involvement into a sectarian conflict in Iraq.
The crisis in Iraq is the latest cause of the interventionist. The interventionist had also called for US involvement in Syria and the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Fortunately President Obama resisted the pressure to increase US involvement.
However the deteriorating security conditions in Iraq has caused several politicians and pundits who lean toward interventionism to call for greater military involvement there.
So far, at the time of this writing the administration has resisted any rash military actions.
Obama has wisely said he won’t send in ground troops. But he has said other military options remain on the table.
The Obama administration is not ruling out potential U.S.-Iranian military cooperation in Iraq and the U.S. drone strikes may well be an option.
The administration is also reportedly considering airstrikes to slow an al-Qaida-inspired insurgency that is threatening the Iraqi government.
Sunni militants have rapidly taken over Iraqi towns in an offensive that has plunged that country into its worst crisis since the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Events are rapidly unfolding in Iraq but the Obama administration has to be careful not to have U.S. troops trapped in the middle of a civil war and religious sectarian conflict.
Although Obama has ruled out sending ground troops he is under increasing pressure to launch bombing strikes which could escalate to wider military involvement in Iraq.
The president must proceed with caution as he weighs his options in Iraq.
The needless 2002 invasion of Iraq was launched under Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush.
President Obama is correct in calling for the government of President Nouri al-Maliki to do more to work with the Kurds and Sunni minority so that they will be included in the government.
Obama said the violence “should be a wake-up call” to the Iraqi government to improve sectarian relations and improve its security force. “We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide won’t succeed,” Obama said.
Americans are tired of unnecessary wars.
Americans elected Obama in 2008 in part because of his principle opposition to the war in Iraq. He made the right the decision to withdraw combat troops in 2011.
Polls show that Americans are largely opposed to military intervention.
Unfortunately the voices who consider the military option a first step in American foreign policy dominate the editorial boards of some of the country’s leading newspapers, think thanks and positions in Congress.
The interventionist falsely accused those who seek non-intervention in the affairs of other nations as isolationists. The fact is non-interventionists are not isolationist and seek diplomacy and trade with other nations but are reluctant to intervene militarily in the conflict of other nations, except in the case of self-defense.
In a powerful rebuke to his hawkish pro-military interventionist critics, Obama recently told the newest class of officers graduating from the U.S. Military Academy, “I would betray my duty to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.”
With the exception of Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, there is not enough voices speaking out in Congress, and in mainstream media against the constant clamor for military action.
It is now time for the majority of Americans who are non-interventionist to speak up and be heard.
Irv Randolph is the editor and co-publisher of South Jersey Journal.