The Principle of Non-Intervention and the US military: March/April Affirmative Topic Analysis

Resolved: The United States military ought to abide by the principle of non-intervention.

Background Information:

The LD March/April Topic Military interventions are operations that involve the deliberate, often coercive, deployment of a state’s armed forces into another sovereign state to influence its domestic affairs. The US has a long history of military interventions, both overt and covert, engaging in around 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2026. Half of these operations have occurred after 1950, with over 25% occurring in the post Cold-War period. Notably, the US has only formally declared war against foreign nations eleven times, encompassing five separate wars. The other listed military interventions include extended operations that may be considered as undeclared wars, the deployment of US forces as a part of multinational operations with NATO and UN peacekeeping forces, and even engagements against pirates and bandits before World War II. While there are a wide range of motivations behind US military interventions, some common ones include territorial expansion, counter-terrorism, regime-change, and enforcing international law.

Two dominant, opposing ideologies in the US have influenced foreign policy and US military interventions. Interventionism includes policies where a state interferes in the foreign affairs or domestic economy of another with the use of force or coercion. On the other hand, isolationism includes policies which discourage the use of coercion or force to influence the outcome of other sovereign states’ domestic affairs. Major periods of isolationism include the post-WWI era, where Americans were still left reeling from the devastating emotional and economic losses of WWI, delaying US involvement in WWII until December 8th, 1941. Understanding both ideologies and common arguments used by both sides is crucial to navigating the current topic.

AFF Arguments:

US military intervention is often criticized for a number of reasons. Negative consequences include increased violence and terrorism, political instability, power vacuums, and erosion of legitimacy. Using recent examples such as the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and Trump’s threats to forcefully annex Greenland, the affirmative can frame the debate with a global status quo of political instability caused by military intervention. Specifically, his threats to forcefully annex Greenland have led to internal fracturing within NATO, making cohesive deterrence seem less credible. Continuing off the destabilized NATO link, the affirmative can branch out to impacts like nuclear through Russian aggression, using empirical evidence of Russia’s aggressive behaviors to further strengthen this argument. If the affirmative can persuade judges that the US is likely to utilize diplomacy if it adopts principles of non-interventionism, either through evidence in debates or by incorporating diplomacy into the plan text, the affirmative now has a powerful alternative that they can use to argue against military interventionism. 

Another issue with US military intervention is that it often backfires, especially in the context of regime change. Regime change is a type of intervention, which typically involves the use of military force, to replace one government administration with another. While the benefits of fostering democracy through regime change are clear on paper, in reality, regime change can inadvertently lead to the growth of authoritarian regimes or political instability by creating power vacuums. A prominent example of failed regime change include Afghanistan, where although the Taliban was removed in 2001, the use of old institutions that had roots in the country’s authoritarian past led to political instability that eventually ended in the Taliban taking power again in 2021. Other examples of failed regime change include the NATO-backed ousting of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and the overthrowing of the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 2003. A recent example of US military intervention is Operation Absolute Resolve, which was a US operation to extract Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. While it has only been a month since this operation, like with past regime change, there is potential for the creation of political instability and the re-installation of another authoritarian regime. The affirmative can use these examples to argue that regime change, a specific type of US military intervention, produces more drawbacks than benefits through the creation of political instability. While it is harder to frame the status quo, the affirmative can argue that the continuation of naval blockades in Venezuela or potential future military interventions, such as one in Greenland, would make the negative’s world one with political instability and conflict, creating a “try-or-die” argument for the affirmative team.

When framing the round, the affirmative should remember several key points: first, framing the status quo is a great way to gain an advantage over the negative team by arguing that the continuation of existing/potential military interventions must be stopped now. Without this framing, the affirmative lacks urgency, weakening but not fully destabilizing their position in the round. Additionally, there is a plethora of historical examples that support both sides, with a variety of military interventions leading to positive or negative outcomes. Understanding different types of military interventions and examples of each will allow affirmative teams to develop comprehensive plans that can focus on the most unsuccessful/harmful types of military interventions.

Read more here:

• Congress, “Listing of Notable Deployments of U.S. Military Forces Overseas”

• John Hillen, The Heritage Foundation

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Interventionism”

• Norwich University, “Isolationism and U.S. Foreign Policy After World War”

• Tabby Wilson, BBC

• John Drennan, Ariane Tabatabai, Lawfare Media

• NAOC, “A Timeline of Russian Aggression”

• Ben Denison, CATO Institute

• Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, Journal of Democracy

• Shannon K. O’Neil, Elliot Abrams, Max Boot, Roxanna Vigil, Council on Foreign Relations