Randall Conway
Prof. Northrop
Writing for the Humanities
20 December 2018
Better Options?
Arguments about American foreign policy is abounding. One cannot turn on the news, converse with politically interested friends, or go about daily life without confronting US interventions in other countries. Arguments usually consist of what actions should become policy and what shouldn’t, but much of the moral reasoning seems hallow and both sides rarely come to an agreement. Below, two seemingly opposed viewpoints will be analyzed. They both, however, show the flaw in moral reasoning that blinds thinkers to better policy options.
There are two views of American foreign policy that at first may seem like opposites. The first comes in the form of argument proffered by John Mearsheimer. Basing his argument on the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, recent policy has accomplished little more than failure. In both countries, the US believed it could pacify the countries it invaded and establish democracies easily. The US seemed to quickly defeat its targets in Afghanistan, and on the heels of that victory decided to invade Iraq.
Rather, the US entered into quagmires that it could not control. Mearsheimer notes, “The Taliban was not decisively defeated, and many of its leaders and fighters melted into the local population or escaped to Pakistan. The Karzai government turned out to be incompetent and corrupt” (Mearsheimer). While the military can easily invade nations in far reaching regions, it could not defeat its enemies despite a decided technological advantage. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban would disappear into the countryside only to reappear later. In Iraq, the country has been torn apart by sectarian violence. In both cases, the US became an occupying power; a very expensive task.
This has left both countries failed states, mired in poverty, and with uncertain fates, while the US has expended a great deal of resources and devoid of its former morals standing. If one takes this as a failure of US policy to spread democracy and pacify nations, one must agree that the invasions have harmed all parties involved. The only conclusion available is to pull out and change policies.
Shadi Hamid, on the other hand, takes a different perspective by presenting a two-part argument. First, he claims the US cannot be blamed for all instability in the world. While the invasions played a part in Iraq’s problems, the US did little to intervene in the case of Syria. The US can be blamed for instability only in countries it intervenes in, but it is not the sole cause. In States like Syria, we did nothing (Hamid). Rather dubiously, he implies that intervention could have changed the situation in the civil war. To him, is seems like a catch-22, instability whether we act or not.
His second argument is positive. While Mearsheimer focuses on two policy failures, Hamid argues that some have been beneficial. He argues that the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo led to better consequences and political stability. He fails to mention that Kosovars hoped for NATO intervention when they decided to turn to violent action rather than peaceful protest. Where Mearsheimer concludes US, policy should be less bellicose, Hamid argues it can sometimes be good and that it should be used in the future (Hamid). However, Hamid never articulates when intervention will benefit or cause instability to other nations.
There are problems with both arguments. What these authors are attempting to do is direct foreign policy to what they seem to think is good. According to G. E Moore, when one says something is moral, they are really saying that that thing is equivalent to good. This is the open question argument (Moore 13). To do this properly, one needs to argue that something is good and why. This leads to normative theories.
Explicitly in their articles, both authors attempted to state that policy is good by reference to fact, not moral arguments. In this case both fail. One can only make a moral statement after answering the open argument. By failing to do this, both make ambiguous arguments. Mearsheimer makes a clear argument that the US fails in its policy and mistook a dire situation for a victory. Before arguing the US should pull out, he should have stated what a good foreign policy is. The same for Hamid who seems to rely on the fact that the outcome of Bosnia and Kosovo is more palatable to general public. Better arguments can be made. Without a standard for good policy, a policy that is equivalent to good, one cannot state that one is good over the other. Perhaps the US failed in its initial aim, but intervention was still worth it.
A better alternative can be found. What both authors seems to argue over is whether US foreign policy has caused harm or benefit. A more careful reading may shed light on the subject. At issue here is whether intervention by the US causes more harm or more good to both the US and the receiving nation. Good can be interpreted as benefit. A positive argument that supports this position would state that when the US benefits the recipient state, it is a good policy. When US policy causes instability, it is not good.
Even this is incomplete however. Both authors speak of policy in hindsight and Mearsheimer states that the US felt it could achieve its aims, but this turned out to be untrue. Though there have been interventions that have done little harm, Hamid must still admit others caused great harm. Both seem to argue that policy should benefit other nations, but military intervention seems a not to be the way. There is a high probability that armed conflict will do more harm than good. Perhaps other methods should be given preference. Perhaps just diplomatic pressure or material aid to those suffering under rogue regimes should be the focus. While armed conflict ruins nations, infrastructure, and inevitably causes loss of life, less violent means should be employed.
Because both authors fail to argue what is good, they both produce flawed reasoning on what the US should do in the foreign policy realm. By seceding that US policy should be beneficial to other nations, military solution that have a high probability harming other nations can easily be taken off the table. Other solutions can be found, but first, the focus of argument by leading intellectuals must shift.

Works Cited
Hamid, Shadi. “Is A Better World Possible Without U.S. Military Force?” The Atlantic, 18 October 2016, web.
Mearsheimer, John. “Afghanistan: No More the Good War” Newsweek, 5 December 2009, web.
Moore, George. Principia Ethica, Dover Philosophical Classics, 2004.