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 ...

By , a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies.

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

Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.
Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.

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.

Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.
Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.

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.

Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War

Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.
An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.

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.