Democracy or dominance?

Hannah-Kate McFadden, Contributor

The United States has long been presented as the world’s protector of democracy. We are considered the leaders of the free world. Since the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the United States has assumed a leading role in global security, and has been an economic superpower for over 125 years. Unsurprisingly, whenever we have involved ourselves in armed conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan, it has been with the justification that we are protecting the world from dangerous ideologies, like communism. This unbridled intervention raises the question, does the United States have an obligation or right to act like a global police force for the free world and democracy? 

The Vietnam War is a prime example of this. U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson defended U.S. engagement in the Vietnam conflict as part of resisting the expansion of communism and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) influence. During the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR avoided engaging directly in combat. Rather, ideological differences were settled through proxy wars, like Vietnam. The United States used the containment of communism as a justification to engage in the Vietnam conflict. Allowing a communist regime to obtain control at the cost of Vietnam would have signaled to the international community that the U.S. is unable to maintain geopolitical influence. 

The United States has been virtually unchallenged since the fall of the Soviet Union. We became a global superpower, and increasingly involved ourselves in armed conflicts to protect the free world. The rise of terrorism only increased the involvement of the U.S. in global conflict. The attacks of 9/11 significantly changed American foreign policy and led the U.S. to declare a “War on Terror”, which began with an invasion of Afghanistan in October of 2001. The United States justified its invasion as a way to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. and its allies. However, this led to twenty years of conflict and called into question the limits of U.S. military intervention. Protecting and promoting democracy, though not the initial cause of the Afghan War, became a central justification for it. 

The justification of U.S. intervention is often related to protection of American assets abroad, such as oil. Oil is a vital part of the global economy and the American market. Subsequently, since the 1940s, the United States has had a military presence in the Persian Gulf, which only increased in the 1970s and 80s. In 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter declared in his State of the Union speech that any attempt by an outside force to obtain control of the Persian Gulf region would be viewed as an assault on United States vital interests, and would be repelled by any means necessary.  

For decades, the U.S. has used moral justification to engage in military conflict that protects American economic concerns, military assets or geopolitical power. It is absolutely necessary for the United States to remain a leader of the free world and to use its military capabilities to do so. While the fall of the Soviet Union left the U.S. a global superpower, the inclusion of China in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has led to their rapid rise as the world’s second largest economy, second largest military spender and largest military by personnel. 

It is necessary, as a leader of the free world, to protect our assets abroad and prevent a less forgiving worldpower from rising. However, it should be our responsibility to cease using the protection of democracy or moral obligations to defend the actions we take. Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf Wars demonstrate that U.S. intervention has both moral and strategic interests. However, it is our duty to clarify the motive of any foreign involvement and distinguish between the reasons the government gives for intervention and the interests its actions serve.