Cato Institute director criticizes interventionist U.S. policy

Preble explained that U.S. policy since the Cold War has favored interventionism to deter rivals and provide for U.S. safety. “We are the world's policeman,” he said, “and this was by design.”

Chris Preble, director of foreign policy for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, criticized interventionist U.S. foreign policy at a talk in Pick Hall Tuesday.

Chris Preble, director of foreign policy for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, criticized interventionist U.S. foreign policy at a talk in Pick Hall Tuesday. / Sherrie Xie

Click image to enlarge

Chris Preble, director of foreign policy for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, criticized interventionist U.S. foreign policy at a talk in Pick Hall Tuesday.

Preble explained that U.S. policy since the Cold War has favored interventionism to deter rivals and provide for U.S. safety. “We are the world's policeman,” he said, “and this was by design.”

Although he argued that rare instances, such as direct attacks, make intervention necessary, Preble stressed that predetermined criteria are not enough to determine when the use of U.S. power is appropriate. In the complexity of world politics, he said, this policy often leads the United States to intervene in situations about which it is not sufficiently knowledgeable. This invites wrath on both sides of the issue, ultimately working against U.S. interests.

Preble argued that interventionist policy is detrimental for other countries as well. Expecting routine assistance, they resist building their own defenses.  Terrorism, he said, is often a result of their citizens’ attempt to have a say in these interventions when they are given no direct voice. Additionally, intervention fails to address the underlying causes of conflicts within these countries.  Preble said that that many countries hold the underlying belief that U.S. intervention is their “destiny,” an attitude he declared “inappropriate to modern politics.”

Preble stressed that military size and funding, especially in the army and Marine Corps, should be decreased.  Unlike many critics of intervention, Preble said the common argument for military decrease, which proposes that current military spending is unsustainable, was likely false.  However, he added that to do so without changing any other aspect of policy “would be worse than doing nothing at all,” and that it was also necessary to change U.S. viewpoints on intervention. 

Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.



Discussion


Terms of use

Advertisement

Advertisement

Right Now

Being fun's a full-time job

University presidents choose unorthodox tactics to win the hearts and minds of their undergrads

Weekly round up for July 9

Allen Linton has been chosen as SG's first Community and Government Liaison; CTS stained glass to remain in place through the summer

Weekly round up for July 2

Ian Cumings' memorial service planned for the fall; the Medical Center settles Neonatal ICU case

Job Board