^These are my questions. It seems to me like the problem with the United State's policy of interventionism is that they always use human rights and/or the right of self detrmination/sovereignty as a pretext and cover for imperialism.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that Chomsky is naive if he believes the United States even capable of being an honest actor....but is hardline non interventionism truly the only approach?
Historically interventionism, even for very principled reasons, falls apart. Nationalism is a hell of a drug to break. Two great examples are the USSR trying to liberate Poland immediately after the Russian Civil War (ended horrible, Poles felt the Soviets were imposing their values on them and taking over, created reactionary Polish sentiments in opposition) and revolutionary France in its wars to "impose" revolution on the outside, which also failed miserably.
^These are my questions. It seems to me like the problem with the United State's policy of interventionism is that they always use human rights and/or the right of self detrmination/sovereignty as a pretext and cover for imperialism.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that Chomsky is naive if he believes the United States even capable of being an honest actor....but is hardline non interventionism truly the only approach?
Historically interventionism, even for very principled reasons, falls apart. Nationalism is a hell of a drug to break. Two great examples are the USSR trying to liberate Poland immediately after the Russian Civil War (ended horrible, Poles felt the Soviets were imposing their values on them and taking over, created reactionary Polish sentiments in opposition) and revolutionary France in its wars to "impose" revolution on the outside, which also failed miserably.
There’s countless examples. And when it is not outright troops on the ground or drones in the sky, it is sanctions and other forms of warfare.
Internationalism not interventionism.