R: Our Obligations Stop at the Water’s Edge

Though we may not give much thought to international affairs in our day-to-day lives, the foreign policy of the United States is existentially important. In order to  live well, we must enjoy a certain degree of security. The question that lies at the center of this debate is the degree to which America's responsibilities extend beyond its borders.

Those in the affirmative will tend to be against American involvement in global affairs. The primary obligation of the United States is to protect its own citizens, not those of other countries. The health of American institutions and society is not in good shape. Instead of spreading our folly, perhaps we should focus on getting our house in order? U.S. involvement abroad is rather expensive, and the money spent on military interventions or humanitarian aid would be better spent on domestic issues. Furthermore, the history of American intervention abroad is rife with failures and unintended consequences.

Those who take the negative stance will argue that the United States should provide assistance to other nations. Some will argue that the United States should strive to set a moral example because it is a global superpower. Others may defend an interventionist approach to foreign policy by claiming that threats to U.S. national security can arise from instability abroad. For this reason, demonstrating the might of our military and the capabilities of our foreign policy apparatus might vanquish threats before they even arise. The American economy is also linked to the global economy, so it may be in the interest of the United States to defend its allies and provide economic aid.

Is an isolationist foreign policy realistic in a world as interconnected as ours? Can a conservative be an interventionist? Who is culpable for the historic failures of U.S. intervention abroad?