The libertarian view of international intervention is often NO intervention, but is it not right to want to kill these insane ISIS extremists? Is it not right to think that something should be done to eliminate this group from humanity, a group that beheads, rapes, and destroys?
Would it have been responsible for the U.S. to take the blame for destabilizing the Middle East with the invasion of Iraq and support of the Arab Spring allowing groups like ISIS virtual free reign of vast territory?
Did the U.S. have a responsibility to destroy ISIS when it was probably pretty easy to do?
Is it reasonable to think that what Putin is doing against ISIS and the rebel groups is not really a bad thing? Russia is brutal and ISIS will be really crippled.
For every overseas situation you call egregious, I can point to three others. It never ends.
Your question reminds me of President George H. W. Bush, who, when asked why he was dispatching soldiers and Marines to Somalia, said (I paraphrase), “I saw starving children on CNN, and I thought, ‘I have an army. I can stop this.'”
Thank you Professor Guzman. I have your Madison book on my shelf ready to read as soon as I finish my current book.
Regarding you being able to point to three other overseas situations for every one that I point out, that is completely true. There are atrocities all over the world that don’t even reach the news. If the US went after each one our military would literally be everywhere (even though it kind of already is.)
I completely understand that US actions in the Middle East led to the rise of ISIS and even worse chaos in an already chaotic region.
* Would there ever be a reason for the US military to take on ISIS in your view?
* When, if ever in American history, would you have supported military action or intervention?