The anti-intervention illusion
As the Afghanistan end-game begins and as we prepare for the debate on who, if anyone, will help stabilize a post-Gaddafi Libya, a stray thought on the never-ending intervention debate: there’s often the conceit from those skeptical of intervention that beleagured or conflict-ridden countries need to solve their own problems (not always of course–plenty of ...
As the Afghanistan end-game begins and as we prepare for the debate on who, if anyone, will help stabilize a post-Gaddafi Libya, a stray thought on the never-ending intervention debate: there's often the conceit from those skeptical of intervention that beleagured or conflict-ridden countries need to solve their own problems (not always of course--plenty of those arguing against intervention do so on purely national interest or prudential lines). This allows the anti-interventionist to safeguard national blood and treasure while also appearing to have in mind the long-term best interests of the society in question. It seems to me that there's a basic fallacy here. There will almost always be intervention of some sort. Pakistan will meddle in Afghanistan; Chad will stoke the fires in Sudan; Ethiopia will take sides in Somalia . The alternatives to Western or international intervention is therefore almost never a society left to sort out its own troubles. It's really not a question of whether there will be intervention, only one of who will do the intervening.
As the Afghanistan end-game begins and as we prepare for the debate on who, if anyone, will help stabilize a post-Gaddafi Libya, a stray thought on the never-ending intervention debate: there’s often the conceit from those skeptical of intervention that beleagured or conflict-ridden countries need to solve their own problems (not always of course–plenty of those arguing against intervention do so on purely national interest or prudential lines). This allows the anti-interventionist to safeguard national blood and treasure while also appearing to have in mind the long-term best interests of the society in question. It seems to me that there’s a basic fallacy here. There will almost always be intervention of some sort. Pakistan will meddle in Afghanistan; Chad will stoke the fires in Sudan; Ethiopia will take sides in Somalia . The alternatives to Western or international intervention is therefore almost never a society left to sort out its own troubles. It’s really not a question of whether there will be intervention, only one of who will do the intervening.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.