Should the U.S. intervene militarily?

The only safe answer is no. Don’t get caught up on the merits. Don’t talk about how the Hitler-of-the-week may be bad, but the chaos we’ll create is even worse. Don’t get on your high horse about how U.S. meddling caused the situation in the first place. All of those paths are traps designed to force you into the terms of debate, which will either constrain you to embrace the war or set you up to look like a naive fool at best or traitor at worst.

I’ve seen this cycle happen again and again and again and again — it has been the story of U.S. foreign policy for literally my entire adult life. Treating the “debate” over the newest war as a sincere debate is always a mistake. It’s not a winnable debate because no one is arguing in good faith. By participating, you volunteer to be their straw man. So just say no, sight unseen. Your only question should be, “Is it a U.S. military intervention abroad?” Not “what strategic interests are at stake” or “what human rights are we supposedly going to be protecting” or even “have you even remotely thought about what to do in the aftermath.” All of those questions give the misleading impression that you are entertaining the possibility, and they inevitably suck you into the vortex where you must oppose the war because you love the oppressive dictator or want women to be silenced or don’t believe in democracy or whatever other stupid shit they have decided to browbeat people with.

The only winning move is not to play. Just say no.

6 thoughts on “Should the U.S. intervene militarily?

  1. Deep State is ruling again. After a period of doubts. Killary’s boots are not to small for Trump.
    Is it only a matter of time for him to come, to see – and to laugh? OXI!

  2. Off-topic a bit but I have a hard time imagining Assad really is responsible for the chemical attack. He finally has some breathing room, he controls most of the country and has a president in the White House who has expressed neutrality about him, and he decides to do this? It seems hard to believe.

  3. Leaving aside your larger argument, who can possibly have lived through the last 17 years and think this is a good idea? On any level?

  4. Obama was even a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize for his ‘pro-peace’ stance before waging hell across the world. Trump should receive it quickly before it’s too late.

Comments are closed.