Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
No moral responsibility?
by mrquizzical

Overall, excellent recommendations. But, the section on withdrawing all U.S. troops, and the logic for doing so, seems flawed. I thoroughly concur that the U.S. should not be in the business of empire-building, or use force to topple "non-democratic" governments. That has been a failed policy whether talking about Panama, Chile, Iraq, or elsewhere. What I take exception to is the idea that we should turn inward, that we have "no moral responsibility for the destiny of persons outside [our] jurisdiction who pay no taxes to support the government and pledge no allegiance to the republic."

Really, that's where we want to go? I happen to think that our (multilateral) intervention in Bosnia saved lives and ultimately reflected positively on this country's standing in the world. If the author is saying that we should not have an obligation to intervene in every country that mistreats its citizens, I agree. If he is saying that we have no moral responsibility to intervene in genocides or threats to our allies, I do not agree. Like it or not, we are the dominant military and cultural force in the world, and with that leadership comes certain responsibilities. We can't only be leaders when it's convenient for us. The "cowboy mentality" of the past seven years is not the proper way to display leadership, but neither is turning inward, shutting out the world community, and working on technological means to protect ourselves. Just as nation-building is not the answer, neither is isolationism. The only real way to protect ourselves is to be an integrated part of the world we live in. Ultimately, it's in our own self-interest.


View complete thread